February 1, 1907.
NOR is apparent depopulation of the Congo a matter of recent date.
Quotations might be given from many travelers. We quote three from
Bentley, because he was well acquainted with the country and because he
was an English missionary. In speaking of the town of Mputu, an hour and
a half distant from San Salvador, he describes the chief, Mbumba, a man
of energy, feared in all his district. He was strict in his demands
regarding conduct. In his presence others were required to sit
tailor-fashion. “To ease the cramped limbs, by stretching them out
before one, is a gross breach of decorum; any one who did so in Mbumba’s
presence was taken out, and was fortunate if he lost only an ear. We
have known several great chiefs who would order a man who sat carelessly
to be thus mutilated. His own people were much afraid of him on account
of his cruel, murderous ways; for a small offense he would kill them
relentlessly. He was superstitious and very ready to kill witches.
Through his evil temper, pride, and superstition, his town of several
hundred people was reduced to eighty or ninety souls.”
Again he says: “Our next camp was at Manzi; but as we had so many
people, the natives preferred that we should camp in a wood at Matamba,
twenty minutes’ walk beyond the town. The wood marked the site of a town
deserted some years before. There were no other towns on the road from
there to Isangila, a distance of thirty miles, for the wicked people had
killed each other out over their witch palavers. This was what the
natives told us themselves. Yet they went on killing their witches,
believing that if they did not do so all the people would be
exterminated. Two wretched villages of a few huts each were to be found
a few miles off the path, but the country was practically depopulated.”
In another place he says, in speaking of the caravan days: “All the
carriers suffered acutely from fever, and this was the case with all the
caravans on the road. This mortality was largely increased by the
improvidence of the carriers themselves. Thousands of men were engaged
in transport work at the time, but very few troubled to carry enough
food with them, or money wherewith to buy it. As a rule, the young men
staid in their towns as long as they had anything to buy food with; when
they failed, they borrowed until their debts became too great. Then they
arranged to go with some caravan to carry, and received ration money for
the road. This would be partly used up in the town, and the rest go to
those from whom they borrowed. On the road they lived largely on palm
nuts and raw cassava, and returned to their homes in a terribly
exhausted condition. With the influx of cloth gained by transportation
came hunger, for wealth made the women lazy; they preferred to buy food
rather than produce—the gardens came to an end, then hunger followed,
and sickness and death. Women staid at home to mourn, and the mischief
became worse. Sleep-sickness and smallpox spread. The population of the
cataracts district is not more than half what it was fifteen years ago.
The railway is now complete, and the country will adapt itself to its
new conditions.”
Those who are hostile to the state, of course, will find great comfort
in this quotation; for the transport system was an introduction by the
Belgians. It will be observed, however, that the author mentions no
cruelty on the part of the new masters in this connection; it must also
be remembered that the missionaries were as much interested in the
caravan system as any, and assisted in its development. My chief object
in introducing the quotation is to show how impossible it is to affect
native conditions in one way without bringing about a connected series
of changes, not always easy to foresee.
To me, the real wonder is that there are any of the Congo peoples left.
Think of the constant drain due to the foreign slave trade, continued
from an early date until after the middle of the last century. Think of
the continuous losses due to the barbarism of native chiefs and demands
of native customs—to wars, cannibalism, execution, and ordeal. Think of
the destruction caused by punitive expeditions—towns burned, people
killed. Think of the drafts made by the caravan system and the public
works which the state has been forced to carry out. Think of the
multitudes who have died with the diseases of the country and from
pestilence introduced by the newcomers. Yet the population really shows
signs of great vitality to-day, and the most discouraged missionary
hesitates a real prediction for the future.
There is a most interesting and suggestive map in Morel’s new book, “Red
Rubber.” It bears the legend, “Map showing revenue division of the Congo
Free State.” Upon this map we find marked with little crosses the
localities where specific reports of atrocities have been received. The
distribution of these crosses is interesting. We find a concentration of
them along the main river from the Rubi River almost to the mouth of the
Kasai, a notable bunch of them in the region of the A. B. I. R., and in
an area worked by the Antwerp trust; also in the district of Lake
Leopold II. There are few crosses indicative of bad treatment in the
Congo above this district, and practically none in the lower Congo and
the Kasai. It is precisely in the areas where these crosses are so
frequent that the early travelers had difficulty with the natives in
first traversing the country. In other words, the districts where native
hostility has in recent years produced the acts of alleged cruelty have
always been centers of disturbance and attack against the white man.
Districts which were found occupied by peaceful and friendly tribes have
been the scenes of few outrages. This seems to me a point worthy of
serious consideration.
For my own part, I believe that any well-behaved white man can to-day
traverse Africa in every direction without danger as long as his journey
confines itself to areas of Bantu and true negroes. Livingstone
practically had no trouble with native tribes; Schweinfurth, entering
from the Nile, penetrated to the heart of Africa with little trouble; Du
Chaillu traveled throughout the Ogowe valley without difficulty with
natives; Junker, following Schweinfurth’s trail, penetrated farther into
what is now the Congo Free State, passing through the territory of many
warlike and cannibal tribes, but never armed his men and never had a
difficulty with any native chief. It is true, however, that the tribes
of the Congo differ vastly from each other in disposition. Some are
warlike, some are peaceful to cowardice; some are genial, friendly,
open; others are surly, hostile, reserved, treacherous. While I have
always felt that Stanley looked for trouble and that he left a trail of
blood unnecessarily behind him, I recognize that the Bangala and many of
their neighbors are less agreeable, less kindly, more disposed for
trouble than many of the other tribes in the Free State. It is precisely
with these tribes that the chief difficulties of the state have been.
Another curious point is shown on Morel’s map. From what has been said
by critics of the state we would be justified in expecting to find those
districts where the white man’s influence had penetrated most fully, and
where he himself existed in greatest number, the worst in the matter of
atrocity. But it is precisely in these districts that Morel’s map shows
no marks of reported atrocities. It is plain, then, that the officials
of the Congo Free State are not, as a body, men delighting in cruelty
and outrage. Where there are numbers of them, instead of conditions
being at their worst they are at their happiest. It is only where there
are lonely men surrounded by depressing influences and in the midst of
hostile and surly tribes that these dreadful things are found. It is
natural to expect that with fuller penetration of the white men into
these districts conditions will change hopefully.
But why should we pick out the Congo Free State for our assault?
Atrocities occur wherever the white man, with his thirst for gold, comes
into contact with “a lower people.” He is ever there to exploit; he
believes that they were created for exploitation. If we want to find
cruelty, atrocities, all kinds of frightful maltreatment, we may find
them in almost every part of negro Africa. They exist in the French
Congo, in German Africa, in Nigeria, even in Uganda. If we insist on
finding them, we may find cruelty, dispossession, destruction of life
and property, in all these areas. The only ruthless act involving the
death of a black native that we really saw was in French territory. If
there were any object in doing so, we could write a harrowing story of
British iniquity in Africa, but it is unnecessary; every one who stops
to think and who reads at all knows the fact.
Wherever British trade finds native custom standing in its way, we shall
find cruelty. Why was King Ja Ja deported? I have heard an interesting
incident connected with his case. One who for many years has voyaged up
and down the western coast of Africa tells me that while Ja Ja was still
at his height of power the natives of his district, paddling near the
shores in their canoes, were always happy and joyous. Ja Ja stood in the
way of the British traders gaining so much money as they wanted, and so
he was exiled and taken a prisoner to distant lands. From the day of his
departure the happiness of life was gone from all the country. Few
natives put out in their canoes, and those who did were silent; the song
and laughter of former days were hushed. Until the day when he was
brought home, a corpse, for burial, somberness and sadness settled down
upon his people, before so gay and light hearted. What was it caused the
trouble at Benin but British greed insisting on opening up a territory
which its natives desired to keep closed? The Benin massacre that
followed was dreadful, but it did not begin to compare in frightful
bloodshed with the punitive expedition which followed—a feat scarce
worthy of British arms. What was the cause of hut-tax wars? What is the
matter now in Natal? Do we know all that goes on in Nigeria? Wherein is
excellence in the expropriation of lands and products in Uganda for the
benefit of concession companies of the same kind exactly as those in
Congo? Why is it worse to cut off the hands of dead men for purposes of
tally than to cut off the heads of dead chiefs for purposes of
identification? But let it pass—we are not undertaking an assault on
Britain.