9: The scramble from below. Indigenous experiences of European imperialism in Central Africa
Content:
1. Introduction: the “scramble for Africa”
2. Colonial empires
2.1. Imperial self-representations
2.2. Imperial ignorance and the making of otherness
3. The Congo Free State
3.1. “Progress”, free trade and “freedom”: the making of a “personal colony”
3.2. Violence and profit-making: the story of a global scandal
4. Was the Congo Free State ‘worse’ than other colonies?
1. The “scramble for Africa”
= The division of the African Continent between the different European powers in late 19C.
GB, Fr, Portugal, DL
Refers to the competition for Africa, particularly the Berlin Conference (1883-1885).
Organised by Otto von Bismarck, officially to regulate trade and navigation on the Congo basins and Niger rivers.
But in practice, it was the moment when European empires divided their spheres of influence in Subsaharan Africa.
Important moment: it is where the US and European powers recognised the personal sovereignty of King Leopold II over the
large CFS.
→ At this conference, the fate of millions of people was discussed that were not represented.
→ Looking at colonialism ‘from below’: at what it means “on the field” rather than at the history of the European “great men”.
- (the latter) as the classical historiography of European imperialism/colonialism in late C19 mostly does. (from pov of
European actors).
Ex. the massacres they performed to gain control over large parts of the continent.
In the classical field, the ‘on the field’ experience is neglected by historians (though changed in the last few decades).
==> Look at it from below.
2. Colonial empires
2.1. Imperial self-representations
What is an empire?
● Are political units encompassing different territories, cultures, communities.
● Are characterised by politics of difference: different communities have different rights/duties and different
relations to central authorities.
Vs N-S:
Have well-defined borders.
Its government is depicted as the legitimate representative of a national community of citizens that share common origins and
national identity.
Empires don’t govern over a single homogeneous community but over different social groups, communities, cultures.
Ex. Roman Empire: Roman citizens, free men (non-Roman citizens), slaves.
They didn't have the same rights, duties, or relationship to the central authorities, but at the same time they all lived under
the control of the empire.
As opposed to 21stC N-S: one set of rules, rights for all inhabitants.
● The peculiarities of a colonial empire
○ From 2nd half C19: broad movement of European colonial expansionism in Africa and Asia. Through a
vast array of means, but there’s a difference between colonial form of expansionism in late C19, and other
forms of empire-buildings in other settings and periods of history.
○ The politics of difference in empires rests on different criteria;
■ Ex. Roman Empire: distinction made between citizens and non-citizens, between the free and the
slaves.
○ ==> In colonial empires of the 19C, the main criteria of differentiation was race.
■ Belief in the inherent ‘superiority’ of Europeans over “others”.
■ Though there is no scientific ground for ‘race’, there was a widespread belief that there were
different races.
■ Played a very important role in determining what the rights were of different inhabitants of
colonial empires.
, ● Europeans more rights and less duties, non-Europeans less rights and more duties.
● Difference between those categories was based on what people believed to be racine
differentiation.
○ This belief in superiority was very important in justifying and organising colonial empires. - justified by
the belief in the superiority of Europeans, both in terms of civilisation and ideology.
2.2. Imperial ignorance and the making of otherness
● Race and politics of colonial difference: belief in the “racial”/”biological” superiority of Europeans.
(next to civilisationally, ideologically, culturally, intellectually superior)
No scientific grounds to determine the existence of different races, but people believed.
→ Pseudoscience.
- From late 18C onwards: making of 700 different racial hierarchies within mankind following the principles of
taxonomy.
Pseudoscientists endeavored to prove that there were different forms of race and that it was possible to rank them
hierarchically.
Botanical techniques applied to human populations in order to observe differences within mankind. (classification on grounds
of observable characteristics)
Racial scientists created different racial categories based on observable physical differences between different populations.
==> Then attempted to tie these physical differences to cultural and intellectual differences.
Criteria: skin color - most important element of different races.
- Because ‘race’ has no scientific ground, there is no agreement on definitive criteria of racial differentiation.
700 different hierarchies - shows that it was impossible for different scientists to agree on the # of races that existed or on the
criteria to be used; also did not agree on the hierarchies that divided one race from another.
==> there is no such thing as racial differences within mankind.
● ‘Pseudosciences’: measuring physical features to prove biological differences between races.
Scientists created different techniques to create their taxonomies.
- Craniometry: study of mental abilities based on the shape of the skull. (→ obsession with measuring)
- Attaching skull measure to intellectual ability.
- Anthropometry: classification of (sub-)races based on body dimensions.
- Physiognomy: classification of (sub-)races based on facial features.
- Attached to mental capabilities and emotional dispositions. (ex long noses ->smarter).
These pseudoscientific demonstrations of racial otherness was central to how Europans thought of themselves as superior to
the populations they endeavored to dominate.
==> The belief that colonisation was justifiable/rightful depended on the certainty of European colonialist superiority. - on
civilisational ground, but also biological.
3. The Congo Free State
3.1. The making of a “personal colony”
When talking about colonialism in BE, mostly about 2 periods:
1) 1885-1908: the CFS
Was the personal colony of Leopold III.
From 1908-1960: sovereignty of the Congo was assumed by the Belgian state.
2) Later days of colonisation: very turbulent decolonisation.
Proven that Belgian state had a responsibility in the murder of the first PM Patrice Lumumba.
- An infamous colony: associated with forced labor and extreme violence.
- Perceived as the worst form of colonisation.
- The CFS is both unique and typical of 19C colonialism.
- Unique: the only “personal” colony.
- Personal: King Leopold II was constitutional king of BE O1H and absolute monarch of CFS
OOH.
- BE had no sovereignty before 1908.
- Typical: “exploration”, “progress”, “freedom” were central in Leopold’s expansion strategies.
- Also very typical in the way it exploited the Congolese workforce and natural resources.
