Jump to content

Talk:Congo Free State/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Congo Free State

A proposal to remove this article from featured status failed on July 15, 2004. The discussion is archived below:

Subject of an edit war and as of April 23rd it is protected. The intro also seems to be a bit biased. --mav 08:47, 23 April 2004 (UTC)

Woah! Does that capitalism paragraph belong in there? It seems oddly out of place. -- Zoe —Preceding undated comment added 02:07, 22 December 2002 (UTC).

Only part-way so far: that's taken us up to the establishment of the Congo Free State, which is a start. (A bit rough here and there. I'll work it over.) It will probaby work out better if we give some thought to exactly where all this stuff should go: there are entries under King Léopold, Stanley, Congo Free State, Belgian Congo, and Democratic Republic of the Congo, all of which should be part of an intertwined story. I haven't given any thought as to which entry should be the "right" one to put which parts of the story, but I do think that it's imperative that it not be split up all over the place and hard to follow. I suspect that the text I just entered will end up in Congo Free State eventually, but for now I'll just worry about telling the story and figure out the best place to put it later. (Unless someone else gets there before me, of course.) Tannin 11:50, 3 January 2003 (UTC)

An afterthought. That "settled at least 10,000 years ago" in the first para. Can that be right? Humanity evolved not much more than 1000 miles away from the Congo basin, is it possible that people took 2 million years (Homo erectus) or about 115,000 years (if we define "human" as H. sapiens) to travel one or two thousand miles, when we know that humans had travelled to China ~ 75,000 years ago, to Australia ~ 53,000 years ago, and to America at least 13,000 years ago? Tannin

1. At one point this article speaks of Léopold's father's opinion of the man -- yet this opinion is nowhere given. Was a sentence or two left out?

2. I agree with Zoe, that the paragraph about capitalism is out of place with the rest of the article, for several reasons. First, I was expecting a detailed account of the misrule of the Congo Free State. Second, my own political biasses which I won't detail here.

3. A last comment: the mention of the Arab slave trader (whose name escapes me here) is fascinating. The slave trade in Africa would be an interesting subject for a future article -- although it may be too politicaly sensitive for some people.

This is a fine start to a potentially valuable article. -- llywrch

Thank you Llywrch. I agree that the parenthetical phrase about Léopold's father is a little confusing as it stands. It's part of a direct quote from Forbath and thus more or less uneditable. Perhaps I can dig out a direct quote from Léopold I somewhere, incorporate it elsewhere, and then simply leave Forbath's aside out.
Detailed account of the misrule is in (slow and plodding) progress. Well, reasonably detailed: I don't have the stomach for too much of that stuff - it's the most gruesome story you could possibly imagine; worse, in a way, than the tale of the Holocast or of Pol Pot's butchery, as at least those two leaders had the threadbare excuse that they honestly believed they were trying to benefit the world in some way. In Léopold's case, he made no noticable effort whatever to improve the lot of his people in any way: he had no "racial purity" to preserve, no "glorious people's revoution" to protect, just pure, plain greed.
Tippoo Tib deserves a lengthy article on his own. I wonder if anyone has done a good biography yet? A very quick Google search doesn't list one.
PS: Forbath's The River Congo is excellent, by the way: it covers a great deal of other ground outside of the current subject and Forbath has a gift for writing clear, readable narrative without ever making you feel that he's simply telling a story and departing from the facts. Tannin

Genocide in the congo Ctrl+V by 172

Please, please. A proper subversive Dirty Commie never uses CONTROL-V. That is a modern Microsoft corruption. Real commies use <SHIFT-INSERT>

Section from the start of Léopold's rule up to the end of the Free State added. Not proof-read, it's 4:30AM here and I'm going to bed. No proof-reading, no 'nuffin.

(If anyone wants to volunteer, I have no immediate plan to do the Belgian Congo section. I'm back to birds and native plants tommorow.) Tannin 17:31, January 2003 (UTC)

You people may dislike me, but a brief overview is necessary. The current article goes into micro detail, but gives little insight as to why these atrocities occurred. As a PhD historian, I can assure you that few scholars would seriously assess Léopold’s rule in the Congo without taking the two contrasting concepts of land and labor into consideration. Understanding the contrasting patters of production between the traditional Congolese tribal states and modern, industrial Belgium is essential.

You people don’t seem to understand the colossal leap from subsistence, seasonal patterns of agricultural production to the modern capitalist one, based on specialization/productivity and surplus value. Personally, I consider this a form of progress (though not in the Congo context!) and don’t understand why some readers deleted my contributions, feeling that I have an anti-modern bias.

Mass-production of rubber in a dense, tropical forest in one of the world’s most isolated regions was after all quite a massive endeavor. Other parts of Africa were not cultivating rubber (quite a harsh crop to cultivate); other parts of Africa had milder climates and topographies. So the whole rapid shift to mass-production of rubber might be considered more important than Léopold’s megalomania and insensitivity.

Indeed this was a change (and this change was the export of capitalism) that revolutionized every level of Congolese society forever. That must be noted, considering that this is an article on Congolese history.

Few people will remember the micro details of the article just minutes aftwer reading. So our duty is to give them a general overview, an understanding of not just what happened, but why.

172

A brief summary: yes. Quite right. "You People don't understand ..." I don't know what people you are talking about chum, but don't accuse me of such almighty ignorance.
Changes in the mode of production consequent to European settlement happened everywhere. So far, this is a history of the Congo Free State. (With a section on the modern DRC tacked on at the end.) The appropriate place to consider global changes in the MOP is in a more general article, which should be referenced from here, of course, and the appropriate place to consider mass production of (for e.g.) rubber is in the period when this mass production actually took place - which was, in the main, well after Léopold was dead.
The forced transition to capitalism is indeed a highly relevant matter to the Congo's history, but no more so than it was in every other part of Africa, and the Congo is a very poor place to chose to attempt to explain it, as the brutality of the regime, even after Léopold's demise, was exceptional. If you want to expound on the transition from hunting and gathering, subsistence agriculture and herding to wage labour, then there are much better places to do it: Portugese East Africa for one, South Africa for another. In fact, Léopold's regime had less in common those last mentioned than it did with Tippoo Tib's. Tannin 23:34, 3 January 2003 (UTC)

Absolutely as I sugested yesterday it has its natural place in Coloniaism So far same the text is in incorporated in Genocide, History of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Léopold II of Belgium and New Imperialism User:Ericd

"The bourgeois ethic wage of wage/labor productivity" Why is it bougeois it's occidental it's capitalist. [[User:Ericd]

Your point, Ericd?

172

Capitalism, an economic system in which capital, or wealth, is put to work to produce more capital, ideologic and out of topic why not occidental productivism ? User:Ericd

" ploughed back into monumental buildings in Brussels " what the use of this sentence wasn't "None of the profits from rubber production was reinvested in the Congo region or returned to it in the form of improved infrastructures, education, or improved medical care" more explicit User:Ericd

Between 1880 and 1920 the population of Congo thus halved; over 10 million ‘indolent natives’ unaccustomed to the bourgeois ethos of labor productivity, were the victims of murder, starvation, exhaustion induced by over-work, and disease.

‘indolent natives’ unaccustomed to the bourgeois ethos of labor productivity, indolent native is polemical for the rest it's redondand

And murder why ? It should be explained this not an obvious consequence of capitalist exploitation ? User:Ericd

I think it is possible to combine the two statements: "None of the profits from rubber production was reinvested in the Congo region or returned to it in the form of improved infrastructures, education, or improved medical care. Instead, profits were used to construct monumental buildings in Brussels" can satisfy both sides of the argument, if the facts are correct. As for infrastructures, these were created in the Congo, most notably the railroad from Léopoldville to the Atlantic, through slave labor and at a high human cost, in order to make transportation of the commodity more efficient. I do not know if any monumental buildings were, in fact, built in Brussels with proceeds from this slave labor. In both instances, these are facts that can be verified. Danny

Maybe I'm just tired of reading that one paragraph in every article that mentions the Belgian Congo, Léopold II, & all that, but I believe it is redundant here & should be removed. (That was the point of my earlier edit.) The reasons are these:
1. Yes, capitalism had a part in the criminal misrule of the Congo. And undoubtedly misogeny played a role in Jack the Ripper's infamy. But would any account of Jack's murder spree by deepened with a doctrinaire feminist accusation about how men have historically subjugated women over the millenia? (And saying that, I have probably opened another can of worms & incited a new flamewar.)
2. We don't need a discussion about a cultural difference over the concept of "hard work" between the Congo natives & Europeans. Read what Tannin has written: the inhabitants could have been industrious & hard-working (just like the Protestant work ethic encourages us all to be), & they still would have been the victims of a sadistic & exploitative regime. And I can't shake the sense that this defense sounds like a lame excuse couched in politcally correct terms for acknowledged slackers & malignerers.
3. Tannin has stated the figures for this atrocity in far more objective terms elsewhere -- & properly documented.
I tried to substitute this redundant paragraph with some material explaining this from another point of view, but obviously I was writing without checking my facts carefully enough. I'll leave the development of that line of thought to someone who has the interest & time to do it right.
I'd delete the paragraph myself, but some people think their prose is too golden to know when it is irrelevant, & I'm not interested in starting another edit war. -- llywrch 21:03, 4 January 2003 (UTC)

This article is very weak about the Mobutu era even the renaming to Zaire seems omitted.

Tannin:

I don’t understand why you keep deleting the section on changes in Congolese society. I’m surprised that you of all people would be doing this, given that you have a better grasp of history than most. Contrasting concepts of land and labor must be noted. Contrasting patterns of production must be noted.

I removed the controversial statements, if that's why you've been deleting this section.

I must note as well that the article mentions the geography and topography of the Congo and the harshness of cultivating rubber. Hence, the article is not suggesting that the toll in the Congo was merely the result of the export of capitalism.

172

Tannin:

I’m not sure why the section on changes in Congolese society belongs below the “end of the Congo Free State”. It seems as if it belongs earlier in the article. Otherwise, I appreciate that it’s still there.

172, there are several points to make:

  • I don't "keep deleting it". I deleted it just once once, on several other grounds which will become clear shortly, and because it repeated stuff that appears all over the place in other articles. I was neither the first nor the last person to do so. When you restored it, I shrugged my shoulders and accepted that.
  • I have kept moving it to the section of the article where, if it belongs at all, it is most clearly relevant: i.e., to the period after 1908.
  • As you say, wildly contrasting concepts of land and labor are crucial to understanding the development of capitalism. (And for that matter, to the history of the African slave trade, at least so far as the "labour" side of the statement goes.) But this is true of all Africa, not especially the Congo any more than, say, the Cape Colony or Portuguese East Africa. It is not necessary to insert the same passage into every history page. Further, it is a basic understanding without which one cannot get a grasp on the development of capitalism anywhere: in particular, in the 17th & 18th Century UK, where this massive world-wide social change began in earnest.
  • In a mere 20 years, Léopold's regime simply did not have time to turn the Congo into a capitalist state. He made a start of sorts, but in broad it remained a slave economy until well before Léopold had been removed from power. In the early 20th Century, rubber accounted for 90% by value of the Congo Free State's exports: it was, however, gathered from vines and trees in the forests to comply with Léopold's brutal rubber tax, not from plantations. Even in Ceylon and Malaya - the world pioneers in plantation rubber - 1909 production was about 3000 tons. Contrast this with ~ 50,000 tons from wild trees in South America, and ~25,000 tons from vines and trees in the whole of Africa (the Congo Free State being by far the largest individual producer). The Congo did not produce any plantation rubber until considerably later - by which time, of course, it had long since become the Belgian Congo - and that section is the appropriate place to discuss the effect of capitalism.
  • You say "the article is not suggesting that the toll in the Congo was merely the result of the export of capitalism", and mention geography and the difficulty of cultivating rubber. As we have seen, the cultivation of rubber did not begin until the era of the Belgian Congo; the geography was something that the native people had been dealing with on a daily basis for thousands of years, and it's not really appropriate to describe Léopold's regime simply as "capitalism". If Léopold was a capitalist, then what was Tippoo Tib? It is difficult to find a conceptual difference between the exploitation of native land and labour at gunpoint to gather latex on the one hand, and the exploitation of the natives themselves at gunpoint to gather slaves on the other. As you know, capitalism implies, amongst other things, the reinvestment of surplus, and though there was considerable reinvestment in the Congo Free State (notably to build the railways), the overwhelming feature of the period was not this relatively minor reinvestment but rather the simple extraction of wealth on a grand scale. The death toll in the Congo Free State, in other words, is best regarded as not so much a side-effect of capitalism as it is a simple slaughter in the cause of an invader's greed. Léopold had more in common with Pizzaro or Cortez than he did with John D. Rockfeller or JP Morgan.
  • Very briefly, for it's a beautiful summer Sunday morning here and I ought to be outside enjoying it, I have more difficulties with your style than with your content. Broadly speaking, I don't disagree with the thrust of your writing. (As I have noted elsewhere.) I do take issue with the way it is expressed though. There is little point in writing a technically correct assessment of a historical period if it is unclear to the general reader. It is the duty of the historian, above all else, to communicate. Does this mean we should dumb things down? No! Does it mean that we should strive to present the understandings of history in the clearest, simplest language possible? Absolutely! (This is, of course, a "do as I say, don't do as I do"! My own prose is far from blameless sometimes.) Notice that all the best historians are capable of expressing themselves such that the intelligent layman can read their work with interest and follow them into surprisingly arcane conceptual territory without great difficulty. If we are to introduce the idea of differing concepts of "labour" and "land" between cultures (as we most certainly should) , it is not sufficient to simply mention them, or even define them - they need to be expressed in such a way that the imaginary reader (who may well be highly intelligent and an expert in some other, unrelated field, but must be assumed to be a non-historian) can easily grasp the essence.
  • Lots more to say on this theme, but I can hear the wrens calling. I must join them.

Tannin 01:48, 5 January 2003 (UTC)

A very quick PS. The introduction of technical terms, especially terms from political economy which have become loaded with emotive associations in the minds of most non-specialists, is something to avoid except where absolutely essential. Just as writers on mathematics have learned the hard way that littering texts for the general reader with mathematical formulae is a sure-fire shortcut to eternal obscurity, so too must the historian be aware that many of his most useful terms are counter-productive in non-specialist contexts. In fact, it is worse for the historian than it is for the mathematician: readers see a formula and just skip over it because they don't understand it or don't want to stop and puzzle it out before continuing, but readers see text laced with terms like "multinational", "capitalism", "accumulation of surpluses", "inalienable", "commodities", and "bourgeois" and, unless the terms are used sparingly, and in a way that makes their technical meaning clear (as opposed to their emotion-laden common meanings) they recoil in horror. Readers don't understand mathemetician's technical expressions (their formulae). Readers misunderstand political economist's technical expressions (words like those listed above) - which is a good deal worse. Tannin

I'd like to formulate an observation that I'll call "Tannin's Law": Whenever one party in a dispute on Wikipedia declares a cease-fire due to good weather outside, & the other parties involved do not hold their peace, the opposing parties lose.
Not that anyone has so far broken the peace, but a thought for future disputes. -- llywrch 23:41, 5 January 2003 (UTC)
May I offer Llywrch's Corrollary to Tannin's Law: i.e., that sensible, well-adjusted people like to spend time outside in beautiful weather, play with their children, and even speak to their spouses now and then, while only poorly-adjusted, anti-social misanthropes spend any significant amount of time indoors hunched over the glowing screen editing Wikipedia. This is why Wikipedians argue a lot.- Tannin

Complete change of subject. I have tracked down three biographies of Tippoo Tib, under the variant spelling, "Tippu Tip" (actually this seems to be the more common spelling - maybe I should change the article to reflect this.) One was written in 1903, another at about the same time by Tippoo Tib himself, and the last one is more recent: Leda Farrant, Tippu Tip and the East African Slave Trade, Hamish Hamilton, 1975. It's out of print. Tannin

...never once was it suggested that that the land might be simply given back to its rightful owners... - is this and other things like it in the article NPOV? Seems to be taking a side in a political issue to me. PMA 17:51, 14 February 2004 (UTC)

comments

I spent about an hour working through this article. I made many small changes and edits. Nothing drastic. I think the article is making progress, but I still find it too wordy. It may be too thorough. Some other people should give it spot edits. Some other people should give some advice.

Here are some questions and comments:

  1. Breathtaking can also mean inspiring/exciting. So I changed it.
  2. At the very start, there should be a decent map shown of the exact borders of the Congo Free State.
  3. The bit about Livingstone needs a little more explanation. The text goes from Stanley aiming to find Livingstone to Stanley leaving Livingstone, with no mention of how Stanley came upon Livinstone.
  4. "For over 400 years European explorers...." Starting about when?
  5. Stanley "lobbied the rich and powerful tirelessly." What exactly did he lobby for?
  6. Forbath's description of Léopold is not succinct. It is roughly 200 words long. It should really be parsed down. I think the quote should be removed from the Congo Free State article and placed in the Léopold II of Belgium article, but I will leave that up to you.
  7. "The way in which he went about this fully justified his late father's assessment of his character." What assessment was that?
  8. In reference to 1876, it says..."keep watch over the newly-eradicated west coast slave trade"...I thought the slave trade was over in the early 1850s. "Newly" cannot be used if it is 25 years later. Or was it eradicated at all?
  9. "It was a sham"....what was a sham? Who made it a sham? How was it a sham?
  10. "Six years before, the Arabs had thought the Congo deadly and impassable"...the Arabs? Which Arabs? From which nation or country?
  11. How the "terres vacantes" worked needs better explanation.
  12. Are these cannibal stories true? Or legend?

Sincerely, Kingturtle 10:47, 21 February 2004 (UTC)

Casement reported cannibalism on several occasions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.26.161 (talk) 11:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Kingturtle regarding the map. I also am wondering why all six pictures align right. Is this wikistyle? I hadn't thought it was. If no one objects, I'd like to move one or two pictures to the left margin to give a little variation to the look of the article. Otherwise excellently done and worthy of featured status, I think. Jwrosenzweig 17:48, 1 March 2004 (UTC)

I've done some minor corrections and clarifications, some of them addressing Kingturtle's questions. Answering the points directly:

  • 2- I've added the DRCongo map, since they seem to have been coterminous (eventually, the Free State having expanded as described in the article).
  • 3- I don't think it matters. Livingstone is only mentioned to explain what Stanley was doing there. We don't need to know anything else in this article.
  • 4- clarified following the other information in the article.
  • 5- I think it's clear already- he lobbied for European colonisation of Africa.
  • 6- Edited down to the relevant parts.
  • 7- I've cut the reference- it seems to have been to an earlier version of the Forbath quote.
  • 8- Glossed over; again, the detail isn't really relevant here.
  • 9- clarified- the conference was a sham because Léopold organised it as a front.
  • 10- Clarified- the Arabs of Zanzibar.
  • 11- I don't see what else there is to say. Land not being lived on was expropriated by the state. Simple.
  • 12- Is there any reason to think they're untrue? I'm more inclined to believe that they are, since there are allegations against Europeans as well as "savages".

One other point that occurs to me: Conrad's story An Outpost of Progress is also quite damning of the CFS, and was published substantially earlier than Heart of Darkness (1898); it may have had some effect in publicising the situation too. Markalexander100 01:54, 25 March 2004 (UTC)

Excellent work at updating this huge article. The map is a terrific touch, too. I'm still a bit worried about its size and about how many direct and indirect clauses appear. But I can live with it. A few things to consider:

  1. Regarding the cannibal stories, there are plenty of reasons to think they are untrue. It was and remains common for stories to be invented to villify peoples. A reading of Cannibalism shows that cannibalism is sometimes a fabrication. If we include it here, we need verifications.

-Try Casement for verification, also Conrad's true-life notes for 'Heart of Darkness' **common for stories to be invented to villify peoples** you say? It is also common for some people to deny stories that do not fit their pre-conceptions of a happy, pastoral people. It is no defense of King Leopold to point out that the Congo Basin was full of (local) slavers and cannibals.24.23.195.135 (talk) 08:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

  1. "After leaving Livingstone..." implies he finally found Livingstone, but it doesn't say so before this clause. This still needs to be fixed. It simply doesn't read well.
  2. What year did Peter Forbath write his history of the congo? It should be mentioned.
  3. A few spots need mention of what year they happened (if possible):
    "At the end of his physical resources, Stanley returned home"...when? What year? What month about?
    "the mood in Europe had shifted decisively, and the struggle for Africa was about to begin in earnest." we need a date here too? what year, roughly?
    "Next Bismarck entered the fray on behalf of Germany"....what year, about?
    "At this point Léopold acted. He began a publicity campaign in England..." we really need a date. what year?
    "Léopold no longer needed the façade of the Association, and replaced it with an appointed cabinet of Belgians who would do his bidding." date?

Excellent work! Sincerely, Kingturtle 05:32, 11 April 2004 (UTC)

"it was estimated at many tens of millions" - millions of what exactly? --193.189.116.10 09:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Kingdom or Colony?

I note that my previous edit, in which I changed "private kingdom" to "private colony" has been changed back by Tannin. Perhaps this should be discussed. As I said in my original change, I don't think that the Congo Free State can exactly be considered a kingdom. And given that Léopold was, well, a King, to call it a kingdom implies that he was "King" of the Congo Free State. This was not the case. He used the ambiguous title of "Sovereign." As such, I think to call it a "private colony" makes more sense. It was indisputably a colony. Whether it was a kingdom seems to be a matter of how you define the word. And when you're talking about an actual king, perhaps it's best to define it in a narrow sense. I'm open to be convinced, however. john 08:19, 20 April 2004 (UTC)

Anybody out there? john 18:26, 20 April 2004 (UTC)

Sorry John, I didn't see the commemt here. (Wiki is too big - I can't keep up with it any more!) I agree that "kingdom" is not ideal, for the reasons you set out. On the other hand, "colony" is worse, as it implies something quite other than the reality - simple 100% ownership and rapacious exploitation for personal gain. Calling it a "private colony", to my mind, would be a bit like calling a slave "an employee". His "private possesion" perhaps? Hmmm ... no. "Kingdom" is better - even though it's "kingdom" in the broader rather than the strictly legalistic sense. But it's not ideal and, like you, I'm open to suggestions. Tannin

Colony implies that the place is being run for someone else's benefit? I'm not sure. How about a private domain? At any rate, I'm still not huge on kingdom - it's technically inaccurate. The article as it is now gives plenty of detail on the reality of how the Congo Free State worked. The introductory paragraph ought to have a fairly neutral, accurate descriptive word for what the Congo Free State was. It certainly wasn't a kingdom. But it wasn't exactly a "private colony," either...I still tend to think the latter is probably somewhat more accurate (I'm not sure that a "private kingdom" necessarily implies 100% ownership and rapacious exploitation for personal gain, either)? But perhaps there's some obvious other way to put it that we're missing. john 03:11, 21 April 2004 (UTC)

How about "personal possession"? john 03:15, 21 April 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm .... "personal possession" is technically accurate, but misleading insofar as it doesn't manage to imply the vast scale of the possession. To me "personal possession" implies something I can put in my pocket, or at least walk from one side to the other of in a day or so. Perhaps we could say something like "vast personal possession".
I was going to suggest possession. Indeed I think the contrast between the scale of what one might ordinarily consider a possesion and "The Congo" adds weight to the phrase. Mintguy (T) 11:11, 23 April 2004 (UTC)
Meanwhile, delinking "kingdom" is a step in the right direction. Tannin 09:42, 23 April 2004 (UTC)

How about "fiefdom" ? Bit tough on non-native English speakers ? Wizzy 10:25, 23 April 2004 (UTC)

(cur) (last) . . m 14:21, Apr 20, 2004 . . Markalexander100 (=Prelude to conquest= incorrect correction)
(cur) (last) . . m 17:52, Apr 20, 2004 . . Tannin
wikipedia should be readable. it should not indulge personal quirks. Badanedwa 06:06, 23 April 2004 (UTC)

The prose in this article is among the best on Wikipedia. I'm sure that the other users who've enjoyed reading this article will not stand for yet another VeryVerily trivial word choice edit war. Mintguy, for example, also reverted attempts to turn the intro into gibberish. What does it mean to say "foreign brutality?"

Moreover, since I did not write this article, this is an inappropriate venue for settling scores with me. 172 07:45, 23 April 2004 (UTC)

I have to say, I don't think "native heartbreak" is very NPOV. It's also a bit hackneyed. john 07:50, 23 April 2004 (UTC)

We should probably scrap that too. Get the emotive language out; the intro is not a place for airing personal feelings. -- VV 08:02, 23 April 2004 (UTC)

Alright, I've protected, again on VV's version, I think. Let's work it out on talk, I suppose. john 08:09, 23 April 2004 (UTC)

Not Genocide

Words like "brutality" and phrases like "genocide on a colossal scale" are hardly NPOV. This needs to be fixed. --mav 08:43, 23 April 2004 (UTC)

This isn't my article. It would be best if the main writer and/or the main editors made any changes to the intro, so as to avoid a break in the flow and style. I kept on restoring Mintguy's version because the change to "foreign brutality" made for unclear writing. BTW, this page underwent rounds of meticulous proofreading during the featured articles' process. This hasn't been bothering anyone else. 172 08:54, 23 April 2004 (UTC)
Er.. to NOT say that there was brutality on a colossal scale is simply bizarre, when it is known that something like 3-12 million people perished. Mintguy (T)
Err ... Mav, what are you talking about? This is documented history. Léopold's regime did indeed practice "genocide on a colossal scale", and no modern historian has the slightest doubt about it. It's not a controversial or a disputed claim, it's just history.
Have you read the article? Have you consulted appropriate sources? Are you challenging the accepted standard histrical account of the Congo Free State or suggesting that some other account (if any exists) should be substituted?
The "genocide" is documented fact.
The "brutality" is documented fact.
And the "colossal scale" of the genocide is not in doubt either. The only question is just how "colossal" the scale was. We will never know the exact number. Indeed, we will never know even the approximate number, but we do know that the estimates of

experts in the field range from over 20 million dead (that's the Encyclopedia Britannica's number) to a low-end estimate of around 5 million. Let's take a middle-of-the-road conservative figure, 10 million deaths, and compare it to a couple of other well-known episodes of genocide on a grand scale, shall we? (I'm going to quote numbers from memory here - always a risky undertaking - so bear with me.)

* About 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust. Léopold, in other words, killed nearly twice as many people as Hitler did. Throw in the non-Jews Hitler had exterminated and the standings are roughly equal.
* The greatest genocide of modern times (or at least the most famous) was that of Pol Pot, who killed about 4 million. Compared to Léopold, Pol Pot was a very minor figure. We are not talking about the little league here. Just on the numbers alone - never mind the appaling practices or the still more sickening motivation for them - Léopold oversaw one of the two or three greatest human exterminations of all time.
Let me summarise with a question. If the scale of the genocide in the Congo Free State was not "colossal", then then what the hell was it? Please provide the examples of genocide you had in mind that were actually "colossal".
Tannin 09:37, 23 April 2004 (UTC)

Re: ..to NOT say that there was brutality on a colossal scale is simply bizarre, when it is known that something like 3-12 million people perished. Mintguy (T)

Shoot, I've even seen estimates as high as 20; we'll never know. Most of my family was killed in the camps in Europe, and I'd rather go with Zyklon B before forced mutilation probably.

Anyway, in principle emotive words like "brutality" should be avoided. But in the unique context of the intro of this article, IMHO it's just the most efficient way of getting the point across. If we didn't "call a spade a spade" here, as Mintguy put it, the intro would wind up listing gory details best addressed later in the main body of the text. Although it rarely works out this way, this is a case where an emotive term may work out the best from an editor's standpoint. 172 09:48, 23 April 2004 (UTC)

Britannica estimates 20 million, 172. My guess is that that includes death through indirect means (such as starvation after the breadwinners were killed, or the village razed to make a plantation) where the lower estimates are probably more narrowly focussed on direct killings. Tannin
Thanks for the reference. Perhaps estimates are also getting higher and higher as new evidence gets dug up. 172 10:03, 23 April 2004 (UTC)
I agree with John though, "native heartbreak" is a bit hackenyed. Mintguy (T) 09:54, 23 April 2004 (UTC)

IMO Mav's wrong, but in his defense, I think that he's been hoodwinked by trolling (unless the sudden, simultaneous interest in both the origins of the Civil War and the Congo Free State is just a mere coincidence). 172 10:06, 23 April 2004 (UTC)

But there is that pesky thing called NPOV that we have to deal with - which means we cannot state, as fact, our moral judgements of actions. Otherwise we would have similar loaded language at Joseph Stalin, Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot, Adolf Hitler, Native American and many other articles. Terms like "native heartbreak" and "on a colossal scale" try to evoke an emotional response in the reader. Genocide also seems a bit odd here since I have not seen evidence that the mass killings were systematic and intended to exterminate any race or ethnicity (Why kill off your whole labor force? Just kill those that refuse to work or work hard enough.). Léopold seemed far more concerned with making a profit at any means - which did include mass exploitation via forced labor (de-facto slavery really), maimings, rape, beatings, working people to death, and mass killings of all who got in the way.

The intent to exterminate has to be there in order to make a claim of genocide. The only intent I see is the intent to make a profit at any means. Saying that is far more informative - and neutral - than using loaded language. --mav 07:25, 24 April 2004 (UTC)

Mav,
It's a good idea to discuss the style of the prose of this article with the main author and the main editors of this article. I can't really help out there, as I'm not one of the main editors. But IMO the broad premise of your argument is unworkable on Wikipedia or really any encyclopedia. First, you simply cannot expect the easy editorial consistencies across all the articles that you've cited above as examples. Comparative politics and comparative history are separate disciplines in their own right. WP users often make sweeping comparisons on talk pages that can't even be addressed sufficiently in an entirely different article (same w/ students in papers esp.), but rather require one or more (often many more) doctoral dissertation(s) just to consider. For our purposes we should try to apply NPOV guidelines to each individual article; it's unworkable to apply the application of NOV guidelines for one subject to another entirely subject. Second, emotive terms are not avoided because they induce an emotional response. Yes, they are avoided when their sole function is inducing an emotional response. They should be used rarely given that they're usually not the most precise, succinct, accurate, etc. way of making a point for our purposes.
In short, IMHO, it's best here to evaluate the the prose here from the standpoint of what a Congo Free State intro should be doing on WP, not from the standpoint of the style of articles on entirely different topics.172 16:27, 24 April 2004 (UTC)

Oh mate, fair go. You yourself just used the term "mass killings" in the paragraph above. What are you going to say instead? If one of the two or three biggest mass killings of all time is not "genocide", then what the hell is?

(PS: I don't particularly like "native heartbreak" - a vague phrase and too mild for the reality.)

Tannin 07:33, 24 April 2004 (UTC)

Your statement presumes that 'mass killing' = 'genocide'. That is not correct. There needs to be an intent to kill off an entire group of people via mass killings. --mav 07:38, 24 April 2004 (UTC)
The Geneva convention requires an intention to "destroy, in whole or in part" for genocide, not extermination. "Destroying in part" is an interesting concept (lawyers!), which in effect means killing them because of their race etc. Cf the recent ruling on the Srebrenica massacre (from memory, I think that involved 7000 people killed, and was held to be genocide). On that basis, I'm pretty sure this counts, and is NPOV. Markalexander100 07:39, 24 April 2004 (UTC)

Taking a strictly legalistic (and even in those terms highly debatable) defenition of key terms is contary to the entire thrust of the 'pedia - in particular it makes a complete mockery of the naming conventions (which insist on the common term as opposed to the formal term). But if you wish to pander to this peculiar fetish and substitute the term "mass killing" for the term "genocide", that is perfectly OK by me - the two terms mean exactly the same thing, after all. Tannin

But were they killed becase of the race/ethnicity they belonged to, or were they killed because they were not enriching Léopold enough? That is an important distinction. --mav 07:44, 24 April 2004 (UTC)
Well, they wouldn't have been killed if they'd been white! Genocide doesn't require a motive of racial hatred: it can also be motivated by a desire to gain power over the territory (Rwanda and Congo), or by a desire to gain the property of those you kill (Holocaust, in part, and Congo). Markalexander100 07:49, 24 April 2004 (UTC)
Intent to destroy the group still has to be there. --mav

They were black. 'nuff said. Tannin

So any mass killings of blacks by whites is, by definition, genocide? That is a fairly simplistic view, no? It also seems to be a logical fallacy - although I'm too lazy to look up just which one. --mav

In a word, yes. Of of whites by blacks, of course. The Shorter Oxford is quite explicit. It defines "genocide" as "annihilation of a race". That's it. That is the entire definition with no words omitted, and no alternative or subsiduary meanings are listed. In short, there is no room to argue alternatives on this one. The meaning is as clear and simple as it is possible to get. Genocide = "annihilation of a race", no more no less. (But I'd be perfectly happy with "mass kilings" just the same - two short words are usually better than one long word. Tannin

Which race was annihilated in this case? Just to be clear though - I'm not arguing for us to not use the word "genocide" in this article. I'm just saying that we cannot just state that genocide occurred as if it were an undisputed fact (the many different definitions of that word is part of the problem). We in fact should state just who makes this claim and why. 'Mass killings' and the other nasty things I already mentioned seem to be undisputed and can be stated as fact. --mav 08:07, 24 April 2004 (UTC)

I'm cool with that. There is no doubt what as to what took place, and seeing as the term "mass killings" is every bit as useful in this context as the alternative term "genocide", it doesn't seem worth having a war over. I'm happy with either one - just so long as we don't start buggerising about with hair-splitting over arcane linguistic details in an introduction that is supposed to be short and to the point!

By the way, I must remember to run an eye over the introductory para when the article is unprotected - it seems a bit woolly and vague to me. Tannin 08:41, 24 April 2004 (UTC)

Obviously genocide involves mass killing, but unless we mention that it was genocide, we're glossing over the racial element. The Belgians thought it was OK to kill the people and take their land because the natives were "inferior". I emphasise again that "annihilation" is not necessary (look at the paradigm case of genocide- Hitler never had any plans to kill all the Jews; just the ones who were in his way. He didn't care about the American or Australian ones.) Markalexander100 13:05, 24 April 2004 (UTC)
Well, as long as we take out the part about native heartbreak, I'm okay. I think Mav has a point that it is debatable as to whether this qualifies as genocide (of course it's debatable - people of good will have, in fact, been debating it on this very page!) , and that it might be better to discuss this question somewhere else in the article. Mark, I don't think anyone will be under the misapprehension that King Léopold's people (it is unfair to tar the Belgians, whose government had no control of Léopold's private colony until after most of the atrocities were done) were not racists, and we can discuss that stuff later in the article. john 16:50, 24 April 2004 (UTC)

Not all mass killings are genocides. This has been discussed elsewhere. If need be, we can use terms like democide, but mass killings should be fine. -- VV 02:07, 25 April 2004 (UTC)

I don't like neologisms. "Mass killings" seems fine to me. john 04:03, 25 April 2004 (UTC)

What's wrong with VV's version? I don't like linking generic terms like "greed" and "violence", talking about "native heartbreak" is distinctly hackneyed, and it's more NPOV to say that it is often considered genocide. john 23:06, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the first part, I refer to arguments made earlier by Mintugy, Tannin, and me. Regarding the latter, perhaps "native heartbreak" can go. 172 08:59, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

An excellent article! One complaint, though:

No-one knows how much Léopold made from the Congo Free State, but it was certainly many tens of millions (and this in a time when even one million was a massive fortune), and vastly more than even Léopold could spend.

Tens of millions of what? Kevintoronto 14:45, 6 December 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with the word "genocide". Genocide, to me, probably involves the intention of killing an entire people – for instance, to make room for others, or because of racial or religious hatred. Here, we have no evidence of any concerted effort to suppress ethnic groups; it rather sounds like very hard slave labor. In fact, from what I remember from reading 18th century accounts of slave labor in South America, it appeared to have been on the same order of brutality. The Congo Free State, however, probably stands out because it happened at a time when European powers, while engaging in colonialism, had found slavery to be immoral. David.Monniaux 18:34, 18 February 2005 (UTC)

Hello David, c'est encore Juliet da l'Italie (rappelle-toi de la terrible page de discussion antiglobalization) ! C'est mieux que j'ecris en anglais (je ne sais pas si est meilleur de mon français mais je dois me faire comprendre par les gens qui lisent cette page). I'm preparing my three-year level university thesis on the Congo State and I reflected on the issue "Was it or not a genocide?". Actually I think that the purpose of extermitating a population on ethnic ground lacked, the real motivation of these atrocities being economic exploitation (and the disappearing of the population of the Congo would not have been a good thing neither for the exploiters). One could then talk of democide. The most authoritative opinions place the reduction of the population at an half of its original dimension. But one has to take in consideration not only killing but even starvation, reduction of births and diseases (sleeping sickness above all). The connection between these factors and King Léopold's rule obviously exist but is difficult to estimate. Sleeping sickness has been used by the régime to justify demographic decrease. Actually one of the greatest specialist of sleeping sickness, P.G.Janssens, Professeur émérite de l’Université de Gand, wrote:

Il semble dès lors logique d’admettre la présence sur les territoires de l’EIC, du Congo français et de l’Angola, d’un certain nombre de foyers permanents[de Trypanosomiase] qui ont été réactivés par les changements brutaux des conditions et modes de vie ancestraux qui ont accompagné l’occupation accélérée des territoire
It seem raisonable to admit the existence on the territories of the Congo Free State, of French Congo and Angola of a certain number of permanent sources that have been put again in activity by the brutal changement of ancestral conditions and ways of life that has accompanied the accelered occupation of the territories.

From the website [www.cobelco.org]

I have to add that "brutal colonial rule" seems to me not a sufficent strong expression. It seems to imply that atrocities in Congo were in some way a "natural" consequence of colonialism. This is all to demonstrate. At the contrary, most of the observers of the time stressed the differences between the Congo rule and the systems of administrations of the other colonies. I would suggest "terror régime" or "terror system" or "state of permanent and indiscriminate war" or something like that. --Juliet.p 12:46, 20 February 2005 (UTC)

When I rewrote the introduction to the Congo Free State article, I used "brutal colonial rule" together with follow-up information demonstrating the extent of the horrors committed there: "Atrocities such as mass killings and maimings were used to subjugate the indigenous tribes of the Congo region and to procure forced labor. Estimates of the death toll for the period range from three to twenty-two million." The expression was not intended to stand alone. I would suggest that your change to "subject to a terror regime" skirts the edge of NPOV--especially in the current political climate, where "terror" has become a very emotionally charged word.

Carl Henderson 06:45, 21 February 2005 (UTC)

It would be "emotional" but I think that is a more accurate description of what happened. We are talking of a country where, in 20 years, the population allegedly decreased by 20 million to 10 million. "Terror" was necessary to force the people to bring rubber and was cosciountly alimented. There was a condition of permanent civil war (consider that territorial agents where mostly officers). The deaths didn't where only the consequences of direct actions of the regime (maimings and killings) but even of indirect consequence (starvation, diseases) of what Morel called "the system". At the time the favourite expression used by King Léopold's opponents was "slave system", "slave State".

Using the current language of international law, the better definition for what happened in Congo would probably be crimes against humanity [1], which is even more "emotional".

To me, Léopold is not very far from Hitler (who shares with him the passion for architecture...) or Stalin. If I compare him to Stalin, for some aspect this last exits better, for he used forced labour to make his country an industrial power, while Léopold didn't built anything in Congo (and only absurd monuments in Belgium). That this story is ignored by most people is an addictional proof that colonialism has never really ended...

Well, ignore these last three sentences... they are polemical and not NPOV!

Anyway, if somebody else finds the expression "terror regime" NPOV you can replace it. --Juliet.p 10:32, 21 February 2005 (UTC)

There is of course a lot of POV in this article, as in the whole issue.
  • The use of the term ‘genocide’ is highly debatable. ‘Genocide’ can only be used if there is a clear intention to destroy a whole population on nationalistic, ethnic, racial or religious grounds. Neither King Leopold II nor his administrators ever pursued such; on the contrary, the administration needed the locals for the cultivation of rubber and therefore had no interest in decimating them.
  • The alleged 'millions' of deaths are also highly implausible. The number of victims is calculated based on rough estimates which are, at best, very inaccurate and, at worst, totally incorrect. The population of the Congo was not exactly known until the 1950s when it was 13500000. High estimates of the 19th century population were due to extrapolating figures for the Congo river basin (which was, and still is, much more densily populated) to the rest of the vast country.
  • Abuses did certainly take place in the Congo, but such abuses were sadly inherent to the colonialist system and were also perpetrated by all other colonial powers.
  • The campaign against King Leopold and the Congo Free State originated mainly from British sources. This is not a mere coincidence, not only could the British hardly accept that a small country like Belgium could lay hand on such a vast and rich colony in the heart of Africa, but also, the reputation of Britain in the world had taken a blow in the early years of the 20th century due to the Second Boer War, where many countries took sympathy for the Boers. Leopold thus served as a handy scapegoat to improve the international image of the British...

It is necessary to get a overall and objective opinion about this issue; an attempt in this direction was the exhibition which took place in the Royal Museum for Central Africa in Tervuren in 2005 (some information can still be found here). LHOON 18:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Tippu Tip and cannibalism and other passages

Both sides fought by proxy, arming and leading the cannibal tribes of the Lualaba forests in a conflict of unparalleled ferocity. They believed that suffering tenderised the meat, and prisoners were prepared for the pot still living; nor was it just the native tribesman who indulged: European officers too ate human flesh. Tippu Tip's muskets were no match for Léopold's artillery and machine guns, however, and by early 1894 the war was over.

I'm doing a little thesis on the CFS, but I haven't found this particular story in anyplace, while histories of cannibalism are quite common. I should add that Forbath's River Congo, although fascinating, contains several little historical mistakes

Eventually, the most telling blows came from a most unexpected source. Clerks in major London shipping offices began to wonder why the ships that brought vast loads of rubber from the Congo returned full of guns and ammunition for the Force Publique. Edmund Morel was the most famous of these:

Cleks suggest many people, while as I know Morel was the only one. Furthermore, he was an affirmed journalist before starting the Congo campaign (see Jules Marchal, E.D. Morel contre Léopold II).

To enforce the rubber quotas, the Force Publique was called in: nominally policemen, most were cannibals from the Lualaba. Armed with modern weapons and the chicotte — a bull whip made of hippopotamus hide — the Force Publique routinely took and tortured hostages (mostly women), flogged, raped, burned recalcitrant villages, and above all, took human hands as trophies to show that, even though the rubber quota had still not been met, it was not through want of trying.

But it should be explaned that the soldier where often slaves themselves - children caught by the FP and took in Catholic missions were corporal punishments were daily. The hands were not "took as trophies" but white officiers ordered to their soldiers to cut them to show that bullets haven't been "wasted" (or put aside to be used for a mutiny against the State)

I have even to add that Lualaba is just another name of the upper Congo! juliet.p from Italy 08:47, 7 January 2005 (UTC)

Edmund Dene Morel

Can somebody check my article Edmund Dene Morel (language errors etc) --Juliet.p 21:45, 21 February 2005 (UTC)

Rename

I'd suggest renaming Congo Free State and Belgian Congo, as they suggest articles about a former states, when in fact they are just history of a current state article. Consider also an example of History of Poland (1945–1989) vs. People's Republic of Poland, or History of Poland (1569-1795) vs. Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Note also that as this article is purely history, I don't think this is a valid enough reason to de-FAC it (as I am suggested should be done to several others, like Byzantine Empire or Old Swiss Confederacy, but eventually this name must be given up to former state article and current one moved to History of... name.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Friendlyreader's comment

User:Friendlyreader (contrib) placed a comment in the article itself. Seeing as it was out of place, I have moved it here to the talk page:

We should remember that Arthur CONAN DOYLE also participated in the campaign to save the people of the Congo from the brutality of Leopold's regime of terror. He contributed time, energy and money. It seems a pity not to mention him along with the others like Joseph Conrad who all worked hard campaining all over Europe and the USA.

-- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 12:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello Hinotori, No problem about moving my comment. As you will have guessed I'm new to wikipedia comments and alterations. It looks to me like it might be a good idea to put a link to Conan Doyle's page as it explains about his activities in the campaign against Leopold's brutalities in the Congo. It's also interesting as it explains why he broke off with Morel which is something I didn't know. It didn't surprise me but it does help complete the pages about this genocide.

The word "Genocide" would seem to be applicable to what was done by the white people working for Leopold's trading company. It is true that the word was only coined after the 2nd World War but that does not mean we can't apply it to things like the Armenian Atrocities or the Congo. The so-called colour of the people committing a genocide has nothing to do with the definition.

The only problem would be if applying for legal recognition of this genocide as you must then prove a deliberate desire to exterminate a people. This type of proof is difficult to provide as the international courts require documentary proof such as minutes of meetings and so on. However orders given to the armed men guarding the Africans would be proof. Orders to park the women in enclosures while the men were sent out to collect rubber thus disrupting family life and preventing procreation would be proof of a desire to destroy a people. The fact that no proper food was provided with a view to starve the women and children if proved to be due to orders received is proof of genocide.

Unsupported accusations of cannibalism

This article contains a number of unsupported accusations of cannibalism on the part of tribes. I would view this as cultural libel and a violation of NPOV unless sources are cited. I tried to remove the most objectionable instance of this, but was prevented from doing so due to article's protected status. Please consider implementing my attempted edit. Lisapollison 21:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Cannibalism and Slavery in the Congo Free State

The web site Congo Free State [2] has collected 19-century magazine articles about the Congo Free State. Among the articles there:

"Life Among the Congo Savages" by Herbert Ward (How's THAT for a politically-incorrect title?) from Scriber's Magazine, February 1890 [3]

Glave also wrote a series of articles in which he laid waste to the "philanthropic" motives of King Leopold II. The following is from "Cruelty in Congo Free State - February 1895" [4]

"The state conducts its pacification of the country after the fashion of the Arabs, so the natives are not gainers at all. The Arabs in the employ of the state are compelled to bring in ivory and rubber, and are permitted to employ any measures considered necessary to obtain this result. They employ the same means as in days gone by, when Tippu Tib was one of the masters of the situation. They raid villages, take slaves, and give them back for ivory. The state has not suppressed slavery, but established a monopoly by driving out the Arab and Wangwana competitors.

"The state soldiers are constantly stealing, and sometimes the natives are so persecuted that they resent this by killing and eating their tormentors. Recently the state post on the Lomami lost two men killed and eaten by the natives. Arabs were sent to punish the natives; many women and children were taken, and twenty-one heads were brought to the falls, and have been used by Captain Rom as a decoration round a flower-bed in front of his house!"

Adam Hochschild mentions this in King Leopold's Ghost. He believes that Captain Rom was the primary model for the character of Mr. Kurtz in Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness. 206.148.32.25 (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Role of the U.S.A.

New International Encyclopedia does not typify King Leopold in the way that the article in Wikipedia describes him. New International Encyclopedia states that the Government of the United States of America was at the forefront of the creation of the Congo Free State, having approved the place on April 22, 1884, prior to the start of the Berlin Conference of 1884-85.

The Wikipedia article suggests that King Leopold was an evil genius and a mastermind who overmatched the leaders of other nations. New International Encyclopedia does not indicate that such was the case. The United States played a key part in the scramble for Africa during the 1880s when the need for wild rubber grew wildly. Superslum 16:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again. Europeans have done something horrible in the world and the world found out. Much crying and wringing of hands. What do we do now. Oh wait. Blame the Americans, that always works and you don't need proof. The US was NOT a major player in The Scramble for Africa. You damned Europeans broke Africa. All the ills of that entire continent were and are caused European nations and people. Step forward and start fixing things in Africa instead of bragging how cultured you are or arguing about the proper spelling of *color*.

Wrong, wrong. At worst, the Europeans were no better than the native chiefs (Leopold was a case in point) doing what they had done for milennia, except with modern weapons. At its best, the changes in agriculture and medicine caused a dramatic population growth. Rhodesia, for example, went from 200,000 people in 1890 to 9 million in 1980 when it got independence as Zimbabwe. VIsitors such as Julius Nyere of Tanzania were impressed, telling the new government "You have a jewel of a country here. Don't mess it up" (quotes vary) And who but the Europeans ever thought of abolishing the ages-old African custom of chattel slavery? One could go on, but this discussion should focus on Congo.24.23.195.135 (talk) 08:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

How many Africans were killed, bought, and resold before this sudden "thought of abolishing the ages-old African custom of chattel slavery" took hold? There are European cities, countries, and families, who owe their fortunes and life-stiles today to slavery.

They knew more than I know

Someone questioned my employment of the umlaut in the word "coöperation." New International Encyclopedia contains about 20,000 pages of text. New International Encyclopedia was composed by hundred of educated people who had obtained advanced degrees such as Ph.D.s. They placed the umlaut in the word "coöperation". I am simply copying whatever I read in the books. Perhaps usages of the umlaut have changed since the 1890s when those people were alive. In my case, I will not over-rule the Ph.D.s and change whatever they wrote.
Well this is something new to me. I was going to moan about how the umlaut would change the pronunciation but then I took a look at the Ö article and tells us that in this instance of it occuring in cooperation it is is actually O-diaeresis rather than O-umlaut. The article says that "O with diaeresis occurs in several languages which use diaereses. In these languages the letter represents a normal O, and the pronunciation does not change. Historically some writers have used it in English words such as zoölogy and coöperate." - so there you have it. As for ignoring the other stuff I simply do not know enough about the subject to comment, but it seems to contradict what was otherwise an apparently well-researched article. Jooler 14:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
The HTML code book that I employ calls that letter "Latin small letter o with diaeresis." It may be created in three ways: &ouml followed by a semi-colon, or &#246 followed by a semi-colon, and one other way which I never use (by employing "a hexadecimal reference"). There are other letters with a diaeresis, too: Ö, Ä, ä, Ë., ë, Ï, ï, Ü, ü, Ÿ, and ÿ. Superslum 22:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
By the way, no one had mentioned that the United States government led the way towards the creation of Congo Free State in 1884 until I submitted that significant information. The builders of Akron, Ohio needed rubber. Why be concerned about an umlaut while ignoring the röle played by the U. S. A? Superslum 13:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

A mushy article

I stumbled across these inter-related articles about the Congo region while I was composing Jacob Barker. I noticed the name Jules Bara in the encyclopedia, so I created that page, too. My opinion of the article on King Leopold is that it is written in a mushy Ken Burns style. I believe that a more direct presentment of the facts would improve that article. I do not accept the conclusions that the article (Leopold II of Belgium) relates. The raw rubber was transferred to Europe, and then to the United States and Akron, Ohio, the place that demanded raw rubber more than any other place. The conduct of the men who were in Congo Free State was encouraged by the industrialists who built Akron, Ohio. King Leopold was a convenient European leader whom Americans used as a tyrant to get ahold of raw rubber. I dislike the mushy tone that the Leopold II of Belgium article conveys. While reading it, my imagination generates music from a violin playing softly (that's the Ken Burns style). Superslum 07:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not intend to adjust the tone of those articles, however, I do intend to supply some facts related to the construction of railways and other parts of the infrastructure which was employed to get ahold of raw rubber. Superslum 07:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Superslum prefers to submit articles about painters, etc. Congo is a distraction, so I am moving on to other things. Superslum 07:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Two Documentary Films

Is there some way to cite the two recent films on this subject? First the 2005 BBC Storyville episode "Congo - White King, Red Rubber, Black Death" and of course the upcoming film based on "King Leopold's Ghost" btw, the image of the novelty chocolate hands in Antwerp literally brought tears to my eyes, in part because one of my grandparents had a Belgian last name. TWR 08:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Coat of arms

Is there a coat of arms of some sort for Congo Free State? If not, maybe just the personal seal for Leopold? If a suitable image becomes available, it can be placed in the new infobox under the field image_coat. - 52 Pickup 09:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Government Type

The government type listed- despotism- isn't recognised by wikipedia, and I cannot work out how to insert monarchy, or whatever it should be. Grant McKenna 08:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Map

The Map of the Congo Free State is actually a map of the state of Belgium 1908-1960. Belgium is included in it. It would probably be better to replace it with a map of the modern-day Democratic Republic of the Congo, wouldn't you agree? 137.224.230.17 (talk) 10:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed for “Leopold’s orders” to “assassinate” Msiri

This reads:
“Leopold did not trouble to negotiate: he sent well-armed military expeditions to occupy the capital. Msiri retreated into the forest, was captured, and still refused to give up his sovereignty. On Leopold's orders, a Free State officer assassinated Msiri . . .”
These statements need citations if they are to stand. They are contradicted by the article on Msiri which does cite references.
If no reference is available for ‘assasinated on Leopold’s orders’, I suggest the statements above be edited to:
“Leopold was prepared to use force: he sent a well-armed military expedition to obtain Msiri’s agreement to give up his sovereignty one way or another. During negotiations a struggle ensued, a Free State officer killed Msiri, the expedition massacred many of his people and the population of the capital fled. The replacement chief proved to be more amenable.”
And to add the relevant references from the Msiri article (ie Gordon 2000, Tilsley 1929, Moloney 1893)
Morally there may not be much difference between the accounts, but factually, historically, there is a difference. Also the current wording may give the impression that Leopold issued the "assassination order" when Msiri refused to submit. I would think that it would have taken at least three months to get a message to Leopold and a reply back via the telegraph station, which I think was at Luanda.
Rexparry sydney 07:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Flag of Congo Free State

In a finnish magazine I saw a picture of Congo free state's flag. It was similar except it had a torch on the top right corner. The magazine also had Leopold commenting of the flag "The torch symbolises the European civility that we bring to the darkness of Africa."

I was wondering if this is the official flag of Congo free state? 82.128.170.30 12:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism

This text from this entry: "From 1885 to 1908, it is estimated that the Congolese native population decreased by about ten million people.[29] Historian Adam Hochschild identifies a number of causes for this loss under Leopold’s reign—murder, starvation, exhaustion and exposure, disease, and plummeting birth rates. Congolese historian Ndaywel e Nziem estimates the death toll at thirteen million.[30] Leopold capitalized on the vast wealth extracted in ivory and rubber during his twenty-three year reign of terror in the Congo Free State. He spent some of this wealth by constructing grand palaces and monuments including the Royal Museum for Central Africa in Tervuren."

is remarkably similar to this text from a Yale webpage on this subject:

"From 1885 to 1908, it is estimated that the Congolese native population decreased by about ten million people.[2] Historian Adam Hochshild identifies a number of causes for this loss under Leopold’s reign—murder, starvation, exhaustion and exposure, disease, and plummeting birth rates. Congolese historian Ndaywel e Nziem estimates the death toll at thirteen million.[7] Leopold capitalized on the vast wealth extracted in ivory and rubber during his twenty-three year reign of terror in the CFS. He spent some of this wealth by constructing grand palaces and monuments including the Royal Museum for Central Africa in Tervuren." http://www.yale.edu/gsp/colonial/belgian_congo/

The wording from the Yale page appeared as early as 2012, according to the Wayback Machine:http://web.archive.org/web/20121020081144/http://www.yale.edu/gsp/colonial/belgian_congo/

While the text appeared on this Wikipedia article at 05:01 on 5 July 2014 by JSquish : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Congo_Free_State&oldid=615656141

This is plagiarism. There might be more on this page and it needs to be corrected. 184.76.100.86 (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I've removed several of the lifted paragraphs. More remain, though I haven't the time to do a full proper clean up. 184.76.100.86 (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps JSquish would appreciate being informed of this discussion? —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
My apologies - I realize I was very sloppy in doing these edits. As I recall, I intended to go back to paraphrase and properly attribute the information from Yale, but never ended up doing so. Thank you for pointing out my error; I will work to make sure it does not happen again. Regards, JSquish (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Humanitarian disaster

That is worded so wrongly. The Belgians were not there for Humanitarian reasons in the first place, they were they to exploit resources and labor. It was also not a "disaster" since they had thought about and written down actions to be taken against the Natives. "Murderous Exploitation" is more like it.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.232.41 (talk) 05:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Whoa - I think you should read about (a) the (minimal) Belgian role in this and (b) also WP:NPOV.... Brigade Piron (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

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)

POV in Congo Free State#War with African slavers

"Both sides fought by proxy, arming and leading the populations of the upper Congo forests in a conflict. Tip's muskets were no match for Leopold's artillery and machine guns."

If anyone had any sources to support anything in this sentance, I'd appreciate it if they ref'd this. ---Brigade Piron (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Word "Genocide"

Quote from the article: "...no reputable historian of the Congo has made charges of genocide..." which begs the question: why is there an actual section of the article called Genocide? I have removed it. Brigade Piron (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That is a pretty sweeping statement. Do you know of a working link to the source? RashersTierney (talk) 13:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Economic Motives

There seems to be a duality: on the one hand a humanitarian motive, on the other hand a resentment of Leopold's trading monopoly. See the resolution of the British House of Commons, May 20, 1903:

"That the Government of the Congo Free State, having, at its inception, guaranteed to the powers that its Native subjects should be governed with humanity, and that no trading monopoly or privilege should be permitted within its dominions, this House requests His Majesty’s Government to confer with the other Powers, signatories to the Berlin General Act, by virtue of which the Congo Free State exists, in order that measures may be adopted to abate the evils prevalent in that State.”

In the early 1900s, the Congo Free State in Africa was a significant source of natural rubber latex. Natural rubber latex was a strategic product up to the advent of synthetic rubber in WWII.

The humanitarian angle seems to have been secondary:

"Morel campaigned as Free Trader, not as an aborigine protector; his assault on the French concession system led to France's paying damages to English trading companies robbed and evicted from Gabun and to the reestablishment of the traders in 1911. Also, the French point out, these companies were the principal contributors to the $15,000 purse presented to him by his admirers in 1911."

(From "Rubber; a story of glory and greed", by Howard and Ralph Wolf, New York, 1936. pp 134-135.)

The end result was that in 1922, British interests controlled about 75% of rubber production and the United States consumed about 75% of the rubber produced. (See article about Stevenson Act). Britain and the United States are also happen to be the two countries where Edward Morel's Congo Reform Association took root.

It seems trade interests cannot be excluded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.228.71.21 (talk) 15:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Leopold's motives

At present the text states as fact that Leopold from the outset was solely interested in economic exploitation and the creation of the Association and Free State was a cynical cover story for this real purpose. Are there good sources to show that his motive at the time for the creation of the Free State was purely financial? Without denying the appalling effects of the regime, it is at least possible that he, as other colonial powers, were deluding themselves in sincerely believing that they were acting on humanitarian grounds while incidentally reaping the economic rewards.Martinlc (talk) 12:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a very fair point, and there are also other motivation (patriotism, distraction from political factionalism in Belgium, desire to expand power of the monarchy...) which need to be considered too. The existing article reads from a very Anglo-American perspective (basically a re-hash of King Leopold's Ghost) and could certainly benefit from new material from Belgium, France etc. too. Brigade Piron (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Kingdom of Kongo

I'd just like to raise the relevance of the Kingdom of Kongo to this article in particular. There is, of course, an overlap between the Congo Free State and the Kingdom of Kongo, but since the vast amount of Kongo was incorporated into French and Portuguese colonies (rather than the CFS) and since the vast amount of the CFS was not from Kongo - why is it given such prominence? Brigade Piron (talk) 09:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

stop BS(genocide)

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)

I'm afraid that you are incorrect. The definition of Genocide (from Wiki) "Genocide is defined as "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group" and good luck finding a source that states that Leopold's objective was to deliberately exterminate the Congolese population for racial or ideological reasons.Brigade Piron (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
"deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group" can allow for some of Leopold's actions where he had entire villages destroyed and slaughtered because they couldn't be fed or wouldn't work for him. That would be a genocide on a small scale against that tribe/ethnic group. The Congo residents were not a single unified tribe and would consider themselves a national group per their tribal group and boundaries. 97.85.173.38 (talk) 10:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Find a WP:RS then. "Congolese" is not an ethnicity and, before 1960, not a "national group". As you say, people were killed in the Congo (in large numbers). But no historian would claim that there was systematic extermination of peoples within the Congo with the sole intent of annihilating ethnic or racial groupings. Systematic exploitation precludes extermination. This is not a defense, but please remember that "genocide" is a very specific (legally-construed) term and this really isn't it. —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Let's try this one more time. When a tribe considers itself to be a homogeneous group unto itself and not integral to any larger national government then that tribe IS a nation. As the extermination of the Taíhno was genocide after the survivors of smallpox were routed, enslaved and killed, so would be any complete extermination of a tribe within the area, now called Congo, would be a genocide. Whole villages were found to be depopulated by his army and burned. These sound like genocidal acts because many, many entire villages were wiped clean putting it under "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group:" since villages are parts:

A village which refused to provide rubber would be completely swept clean. As a young man, I saw [Fiévez's] soldier Molili, then guarding the village of Boyeka, take a net, put ten arrested natives in it, attach big stones to the net, and make it tumble into the river[1]

If there is the case that Leopold ordered the destruction of a tribe that had distinct linguistic, religious and/or cultural identity then it would clearly fit the in whole part of the U.N. definition of genocide of a national or religious group. Since there are very few historians that even care to write about this topic and the records are sparse it may never be known if this occurred. But Hochschild's book seems clear that villages were destroyed and that meets the in part section of the UN definition. It will likely take digs and archaeology to make a determination of the extent of genocide. Yeah, we are keeping an eye out for more sourcing. 97.85.173.38 (talk) 10:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Ethnical map of Angola (Bakongo area marked dark green)

request for improvement to article: who are the Congelese people mentioned in the article

That brings me to a severe weakness of the article. Who were the local peoples? What tribes, ethnicities, languages and religions did the Congolese people mentioned in the article include? Congolese is not even linked to another article. Was it the Kongo people that were being subjugated? Did it include any of these other tribes in the Angola region? Were there any Pygmy involved and were their villages destroyed? The article spends huge amount of focus on actions of the Europeans without much delving into the people that were subjugated or at least linking us to relevant articles about them. 97.85.173.38 (talk) 11:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Your definition of a nation is pretty flawed. I do suggest you read Imagined Communities by Anderson which is a classic explanation of what a nation should be. The definition uses the term 'nation' to refer to inhabitants of a nation state who are, erroneously of course, often believed to be the same as members of an ethnic group. The Luba Empire, to use one example, was certainly never a nation state. That aside, I'd refer you to Hochschild's quote in this article where he specifically states that the mass murder in the CFS was not a genocide.
As for "there are very few historians that even care to write about this topic", I'm afraid that's just plain wrong. There are so many people writing on the history and society of the DRC that one academic journal has coined the term "Congomania" to describe it. There is now a sizeable literature from Belgian, American, British, Dutch, US and Congolese historians. A recent popular history (see here) has just sold millions of copies. Not looking is not the same as not existing!
That said, I think your second comments are very valid. This article is not a particularly wonderful one and could certainly do with an explanation of the pre-colonial Congo Basin for sure. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Hochschild, King Leopold's Ghost, 166
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Congo_Free_State/Archive_1&oldid=1068492134"