Talk:Congo Free State

European POV

"Until the middle of the 19th century, the Congo was on the edge of unexplored Africa, as Europeans seldom ventured into its interior."

Uuuh ... Africans ventured there. "Unexplored" is not the same as "considered unexplored by most white people." But since Wikipedia is clearly written from the point of view of white descendents of Europeans, mostly English, I guess this is no surprise. I know Wikipedia has pretenses of NPOV, but there is no mechanism to enforce it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but 'explored' and 'discovered' mean, by definition 'brought to the notice of Western Civilization'. If you have a problem with that, you had better stop living in it.24.23.195.135 (talk) 08:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This comment (the second statement in particular) has, in a very simple way brought out the underlying thought of just about everything that goes about in 'Western Civilization'. Granted that my statement is written using English language, but I chose to do that so that I could communicate to you. But outside of that there is nothing that I do that requires an owe of gratitude to Western Civilization and certainly no more than to any of other myriad achievements of mankind that belonged to countless other civilizations. To put it simply, I donot live in 'Western Civilization' and by definition Wikipedia was meant not be a Western Civilization's POV blog. In retort you may state that I am using a computer which is the product of western civilization without which this conversation would not have been possible or that the whole underlying science which the whole world uses 'without gratitude' belongs to the western civilization. To that I can only say that they are being used by folks belonging to other civilizations that can stake claims to other more fundamental discoveries and inventions without which none these 'western gifts' could be brought about. I usually donot comment on talks, and I have since long stopped relying on Wikipedia for truth about anything. Since it has turned out to be nothing but the editors' view points, however subtly it may be presented. But this comment is just amazing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.216.33 (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

There's certainly a gap here - Belgian history has it Leopold II actually had a contract of sorts with an African tribal leader who didn't understand it's significance, not being part of the post-Napoleonic legal system - it basically said that in return for Belgian friendship, Leopold could use whatever mineral or other resources he wished to his own ends. That meant using the Congolese to make him rich in minerals. Can anyone put a name to the Chief? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.241.227.84 (talk) 12:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Population decline controversy

Following section removed from article as unreferenced by report's page and doubtful if there at all: "Roger Casement's famous 1904 report set it at 3 million, but later reports estimated the death toll to be much higher." 81.156.26.161 (talk) 11:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Finkelstein quote

I've removed the Norman Finkelstein quote, which I found dubious. It was akin to Holocaust denial, and Finkelstein is not a Holocaust denier. The source given was a Canadian cable TV show. Surely there are better quotes that can be used for the subject. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Turning a profit?

Anyone have anythoughts on this section, it isn't very good? I will pull the appropriate info from Hochschild in the near future. SADADS (talk) 19:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Leopold 'civilized' - right!....

This "by the civilized nations of the world as an instrument to bring its primitive peoples into the modern world"

I've re-written the 'Establishment' section in order to remove the obvious racist POV inherent in describing genocidal Belgium and its allies as 'civilised' whilst claiming that Congolese people are 'primitive'.

Congo is one of the most significant areas of human settlement in the world. For hundreds (if not thousands) of years it has been the home to various states and cultures, not least of which is the empire of Kongo, whose ruler converted to Catholicism in the 16th century. That this article does not properly reference this historical context is typically eurocentric POV.

Only the ignorant would refer to the people of the region as 'primitive'. Furthermore only the stupid would fail to recognise that the chief element in the scramble for Africa was not 'civilising' or 'modernity' - but imperial control.

African states were perfectly willing and ready to accept technological imports from Europe - but under their sovereign control. Europeans, emboldened by their steam-powered ships and repeating rifles decided to simply overwhelm African polities by force. This is neither 'civilizing' nor 'modern' (if we hold such terms to have moral content) it is simply aggressive - some might say 'savage'.

When I have completed my PhD (whose subject is cultural relations between Britain and Africa) I shall be back to inspect this page. Please ensure that racist assumptions have been eradicated by then.

One important reform will be to include a box listing pre-CFS states, so that a proper time-line is established —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ackees (talk • contribs) 13:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Watch your tone and read WP:AGF. Nobody welcomes rudeness. I've undone your edits, which are as biased or more than the ones you replaced. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Temper, temper. Couldn't see any bias at all in my edits. I realise that you have a good 'ole axe to grind, but can't you go grind it on an Alamo page or something? Much love, Ackees (talk) 10:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I've shown no temper, yet, but I will be quite happy to report you if you continue trolling thus. I have no axe to grind, so watch personal attacks. If you cannot see the bias in what you wrote and how you wrote it, perhaps a blog is a better place for you than Wikipedia. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion: The text added by Ackees, such as in this edit, should not be included on the grounds that it's pushing a point of view. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey Chris! I love the subtle menace of 'I've shown no temper, yet...' Hilarious! You should maybe audition for the remake of Dirty Harry or something. Now that's something I'd pay to 'watch' - you dear, dear, funny, funny chap : )

And as for HelloAnnyong. I'd like you to word-for-word cite exactly what the POV is that you think my words and compare them directly with the nonsense I replaced. If you feel competent to carry out such an intellectually challenging task, that is... x Ackees (talk) 12:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Take it to an admin, see how far you get. Your edits as written will not stand. Rewrite them or go do something else with your time. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the thought of re-writing them is extraordinarily tempting. But I expect I'll wait a while. You aren't King Leopold's Ghost are, ya homie? Somebody has to be... Damn it, just spilled red paint all over my neck. I'll have to go and cleanse myself...

What part of 'four long pages of which they do not understand a word' do some editors not understand? A 'treaty' which one party patently cannot understand, is clearly fraudulent and failing to point this out is simply trying to justify one of history's greatest atrocities. I have edited this section to make it logically consistent. Confederate ideology must be purged from wikipedia if we are ever to gain respectability as a neutral, scholarly resource!

Yup, thought so, you eliminated Leopold's Treaty completely, throwing the baby out with the bathwater as you fail to give the motivation for one of the top twenty genocides of human history. The trick is to find the NPOV by stating both sides' viewpoints in entering into the thing before expounding on the effect it had. You'd better go into the cultural viewpoints of each too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.241.227.84 (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Both sides need to address POV issues. "y the civilized nations of the world as an instrument to bring its primitive peoples into the modern world2" is jusrt as POV as "the imperialist states of Europe and America as an instrument to gain control of populations and territories in central Africa. " having said that the curretn version seems OK " by various European and North American states. " I would also so that no one claims ownership of the page as some of the language implies.Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Slatersteven is completely wrong to claim that describing people as 'primitive' is equivalent to describing people as 'populations'. 'Primitive' is clearly a pejorative value judgement, whereas 'population' is clearly a neutral term. Given that this article is about the forcible invasion, conquest and occupation of a large swathe of territory inhabited by free and independent peoples, it is ridiculous to suggest that the term 'imperialist state' is pov. The major powers involved in the scramble for Africa were clearly empires and imperialists. To now pretend that they were not is frankly ludicrous and just makes the editors who uphold this point of view look silly. Finally, we come to the question of 'civilisation'. To suggest that editors in the 21st century should pretend that the perpetrators of World War One and the Congo Free State were somehow 'civilized' while the children whose hands they cut off were not is the purest example of racism that can be found. I do not doubt that these genocidal maniacs claimed to be on a 'civilizing' mission. But objective editors must clearly distance themselves from Leopold's self serving claims. Unfortunately some editors actually uphold and repeat the claims of 'civilizing' as though they were in fact true, when actually they were simply a fig leaf for naked greed and total brutality.Ackees (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

On the offending phrase - is it a direct quote or paraphrase of a nineteenth century document? That's what it sounds like, certainly. If so, why not just find the actual quote and cite it directly? ETA: looking at the article more closely, I think this is basically trying to express the ostensible reasons for the foundation of the Congo Free State, but I don't think it does a very good job of indicating this. Rewording seems wise. john k (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Editor John is in danger of succumbing to naivette. The editors who insist on using terms like 'primitive' to describe Congolese people, and 'civilised' to describe Leopold are not paraphrasing or quoting 19th Century documents. They use no such references. The problem is that these editors actually believe that Leopold was some kind of 'civilising' angel and that Congolese people are 'primitive' savages who deserved to suffer under his whips. Their edits are not neutral, objective judgements, but racist epithets made by editors who believe that 'white is right'. Unable to accept the fact that Leopold and his associates, allies and friends were brutal, genocidal maniacs, such editors are always at pains to excuse, justify and minimise the revolting brutality of the 'Congo Free State'. Ackees (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how this kind of comment is at all useful or helpful. john k (talk) 20:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It is necessary to robustly counteract efforts to paint Leopold as 'civilised' and his victims as 'primitive'. Such value judgements have the effect and intent of minimising Leopold's actions and painting him as some kind of hero. Ackees (talk) 09:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, the material in question reads like the paraphrase of something from the nineteenth century. I'd like to know if that's the case before making any decisions on what exactly to do with it, although I agree that as written it is inappropriate. It is not good practice to accuse other users of being racists without any evidence. john k (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear John, the description of foreigners as 'primitive', 'savage', 'uncivilized', 'backward', etc is one of the core disciplines of racist ideology. It is not 'new' but has a long history. That you are apparently unaware of this indicates that you haven't really paid much attention to the subject. However, the study of racism has a long and distinguished intellectual history. For English readers I can recommend Franz Fanon, Homi Bhabba, Stuart Hall and Paul Gilroy for starters. Adrian Piper, Chinwezu are others. Failing that you could try Mandela, Ngugi, Malcolm X. Once you have famillarised yourself with the subject, rather than just populist newspaper condemnations of the 'politically correct', I might take your position more seriously. Ackees (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I fully understand that describing the Congo as primitive is racist. The question is whether it is an awkwardly-worded paraphrase of nineteenth century racist ideas or whether it is a racist statement being made by wikipedia. I think it is probably the former, although I'm not completely sure. It'd be nice if someone advocating the current wording could explain this further. john k (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

stop BS

humanitarian disaster is nothing else than orwellian speech for genocide —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.5.184.66 (talk) 09:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)