February 2, 1907.
RETURNED from the Congo country and a year and more of contact with
the dark natives, I find a curious and most disagreeable sensation has
possession of me. I had often read and heard that other peoples
regularly find the faces of white men terrifying and cruel. The Chinese,
the Japanese, other peoples of Asia, all tell the same story.
The white man’s face is fierce and terrible. His great and prominent
nose suggests the tearing beak of some bird of prey. His fierce face
causes babes to cry, children to run in terror, grown folk to tremble. I
had always been inclined to think that this feeling was individual and
trifling; that it was solely due to strangeness and lack of contact.
To-day I know better. Contrasted with the other faces of the world, the
face of the fair white is terrible, fierce, and cruel. No doubt our
intensity of purpose, our firmness and dislike of interference, our
manner in walk and action, and in speech, all add to the effect. However
that may be, both in Europe and our own land, after my visit to the
blacks, I see the cruelty and fierceness of the white man’s face as I
never would have believed was possible. For the first time, I can
appreciate fully the feeling of the natives. The white man’s dreadful
face is a prediction; where the fair white goes he devastates, destroys,
depopulates. Witness America, Australia, and Van Diemen’s Land.
Morel’s “Red Rubber” contains an introductory chapter by Sir Harry
Johnston. In it the ex-ruler of British Central Africa says the
following: “A few words as to the logic of my own position as a critic
of King Leopold’s rule on the Congo. I have been reminded, in some of
the publications issued by the Congo government; that I have instituted
a hut-tax in regions intrusted to my administration; that I have created
crown lands which have become the property of the government; that as an
agent of the government I have sold and leased portions of African soil
to European traders; that I have favored, or at any rate have not
condemned, the assumption by an African state of control over natural
sources of wealth; that I have advocated measures which have installed
Europeans as the master—for the time being—over the uncivilized negro
or the semicivilized Somali, Arab, or Berber.”
It is true that Sir Harry Johnston has done all these things. They are
things which, done by Belgium, are heinous in English eyes. He proceeds
to justify them by their motive and their end. He aims to show a notable
difference between these things as Belgian and as English. He seems to
feel that the fact of a portion of the product of these acts being used
to benefit the native is an ample excuse. But so long as (a) the judge
of the value of the return made to the sufferer is the usurper, and not
the recipient, there is no difference between a well-meaning overlord
and a bloody-minded tyrant; and (b) as long as the taxed is not
consulted and his permission is not gained for taxation, there is only
injustice in its infliction, no matter for what end. Sir Harry uses the
word “logic.” A logical argument leaves him and Leopold in precisely the
same position with reference to the native.
Sir Harry closes his introduction with a strange and interesting
statement. He says:
“The danger in this state of affairs lies in the ferment of hatred which
is being created against the white race in general, by the agents of the
king of Belgium, in the minds of the Congo negroes. The negro has a
remarkably keen sense of justice. He recognizes in British Central
Africa, in East Africa, in Nigeria, in South Africa, in Togoland,
Dahomey, the Gold Coast, Sierra Leone, and Senegambia that, on the
whole, though the white men ruling in those regions have made some
mistakes and committed some crimes, have been guilty of some injustice,
yet that the state of affairs they have brought into existence as
regards the black man is one infinitely superior to that which preceded
the arrival of the white man as a temporary ruler. Therefore, though
there may be a rising here or a partial tumult there, the mass of the
people increase and multiply with content and acquiesce in our tutelary
position.
“Were it otherwise, any attempt at combination on their part would soon
overwhelm us and extinguish our rule. Why, in the majority of cases, the
soldiers with whom we keep them in subjection are of their own race. But
unless some stop can be put to the misgovernment of the Congo region, I
venture to warn those who are interested in African politics that a
movement is already begun and is spreading fast which will unite the
negroes against the white race, a movement which will prematurely stamp
out the beginnings of the new civilization we are trying to implant, and
against which movement, except so far as the actual coast line is
concerned, the resources of men and money which Europe can put into the
field will be powerless.”
This is curious and interesting. But it is scarcely logical or candid.
Allow me to quote beside Sir Harry’s observations the following, taken
from the papers of March 4, 1906:
“Sir Arthur Lawley, who has just been appointed governor of Madras,
after devoting many years to the administration of the Transvaal, gave
frank utterance the other day, before his departure from South Africa
for India, to his conviction that ere long a great rising of the blacks
against the whites will take place, extending all over the British
colonies from the Cape to the Zambesi. Sir Arthur, who is recognized as
an authority on all problems connected with the subject of native races,
besides being a singularly level-headed man, spoke with profound
earnestness when he explained in the course of the farewell address:
‘See to this question. For it is the greatest problem you have to face.’
And the solemn character of his valedictory warning was rendered
additionally impressive in the knowledge that it was based upon
information beyond all question.”
It is certain that the affairs in the Congo Free State have produced
neither restlessness nor concerted action in British Africa. Why is it
that on both sides of Southern Africa there have been recent outbreaks
of turbulence? The natives, indeed, seem ungrateful for the benefits of
English rule. Sir Arthur Lawley looks for a rising over the whole of
British Africa, from the Cape to the Zambesi. In what way can the
misgovernment of the Congo by its ruler have produced a condition so
threatening? Both these gentlemen have reason, perhaps, for their fears
of an outbreak, but as I have said, there is neither logic nor candor in
attributing the present agitation in Southern Africa to King Leopold.
What really is the motive underlying the assault upon the Congo? What
has maintained an agitation and a propaganda with apparently such
disinterested aims? Personally, although I began my consideration of the
question with a different belief, I consider it entirely political and
selfish. Sir Harry Johnston naïvely says: “When I first visited the
western regions of the Congo it was in the days of imperialism, when
most young Britishers abroad could conceive of no better fate for an
undeveloped country than to come under the British flag. The outcome of
Stanley’s work seemed to me clear; it should be eventually the
Britannicising of much of the Congo basin, perhaps in friendly agreement
and partition of interests with France and Portugal.”
Unquestionably this notion of the proper solution of the question took
possession of many minds in Great Britain at the same time. And England
was never satisfied with the foundation of the Congo Free State as an
independent nation.
A little further on, Sir Harry states that the British missionaries of
that time were against such solution; they did not wish the taking over
of the district by Great Britain. And why? “They anticipated troubles
and bloodshed arising from any attempt on the part of Great Britain to
subdue the vast and unknown regions of the Congo, even then clearly
threatened by Arabs.” In other words, Britons at home would have been
glad to have absorbed the Congo; Britons on the ground feared the
trouble and bloodshed necessary. But now that the Belgians have borne
the trouble and the bloodshed and paid the bills, Britain does not
despise the plum. Indeed, Britain’s ambitions in Africa are magnificent.
Why should she not absorb the entire continent? She has
Egypt—temporarily—and shows no sign of relinquishing it; she has the
Transvaal and the Orange Free State; how she picked a quarrel and how
she seized them we all know. Now she could conveniently annex the Congo.
The missionaries in the Congo Free State are no doubt honest in saying,
what they say on every possible occasion, that they do not wish England
to take over the country; that they would prefer to have it stay in
Belgian hands; that, however, they would have the Belgian government
itself responsible instead of a single person. I believe them honest
when they say this, but I think them self-deceived; I feel convinced
that if the question was placed directly to them, “Shall England or
Belgium govern the Congo?” and they knew that their answer would be
decisive, their vote would be exceedingly one-sided and produce a change
of masters. But the missionaries are not the British government; they do
not shape the policies of the empire; their agitation may be useful to
the scheming politician and may bring about results which they
themselves had not intended. It is always the scheme of rulers and of
parties to take advantage of the generous outbursts of sympathy and
feeling of the masses for their selfish ends.
The missionaries and many of the prominent agitators in the propaganda
against the Free State have said they would be satisfied if Belgium
takes over the government. This statement never has seemed to me honest
or candid. The agitators will not be suited if Belgium takes the Congo;
I have said this all the time, and the incidents of the last few days
have demonstrated the justness of my opinion. Already hostility to
Belgian ownership is evident. It will increase. When the king really
turns the Congo Free State government into Belgium’s hands the agitation
will continue, complaints still will be made, and conditions will be
much as formerly.
Great Britain never has been the friend of the Congo Free State; its
birth thwarted her plans; its continuance threatens her commerce and
interferes with expansion and with the carrying out of grand
enterprises. In the earlier edition of his little book entitled “The
Colonization of Africa,” Sir Harry Johnston spoke in high terms of the
Congo Free State and the work which it was doing. In the later editions
of the same book he retracts his words of praise; he quotes the
atrocities and maladministration of the country. My quotation is not
verbal, as for the moment I have not the book at hand, but he ends by
saying something of this sort: “Belgium should rule the Congo Free
State; it may safely be allowed to govern the greater portion of that
territory.”
“The greater portion of the territory”—and what portion is it that
Belgium perhaps cannot well govern? Of course, that district through
which the Cape-to-Cairo Railroad would find its most convenient roadbed.
If Great Britain can get that, we shall hear no more of Congo
atrocities. There are two ways possible in which this district may be
gained. If England can enlist our sympathy, our aid, our influence, she
may bid defiance to Germany and France and seize from Leopold or from
little Belgium so much of the Congo Free State as she considers
necessary for her purpose, leaving the rest to the king or to his
country.
If we are not to be inveigled into such assistance, she may, in time and
by good diplomacy, come to an understanding with France and Germany for
the partition of the Free State. Of course, in such event France would
take that section which adjoins her territory, Germany would take the
whole Kasai, which was first explored and visited by German travelers,
and England would take the eastern portion, touching on Uganda and
furnishing the best site for her desired railroad.
The same steamer which took me to the Congo carried a newly appointed
British vice-consul to that country. On one occasion he detailed to a
missionary friend his instructions as laid down in his commission. I was
seated close by those in conversation, and no attempt was made on my
part to overhear or on their part toward secrecy. His statement
indicated that the prime object of his appointment was to make a careful
examination of the Aruwimi River, to see whether its valley could be
utilized for a railroad. The second of the four objects of his
appointment was to secure as large a volume as possible of complaints
from British subjects (blacks) resident in the Congo Free State. The
third was to accumulate all possible information regarding atrocities
upon the natives. These three, out of four, objects of his appointment
seem to be most interesting and suggestive.
On a later occasion I was in company with this same gentleman. A
missionary present had expressed anxiety that the report of the
commission of inquiry and investigation should appear. It will be
remembered that a considerable time elapsed between the return of the
commission to Europe and the publishing of its report. After the
missionary had expressed his anxiety for its appearance and to know its
contents, the vice-consul remarked: “It makes no difference when the
report appears; it makes no difference if it never appears; the British
government has decided upon its course of action, and it will not be
influenced by whatever the commission’s report may contain.” Comment
upon this observation is superfluous.
Upon the Atlantic steamer which brought us from Antwerp to New York City
there was a young Canadian returning from three years abroad. He knew
that we had been in the Congo Free State, and on several occasions
conversed with me about my journey. We had never referred to atrocities,
nor conditions, nor politics. One day, with no particular reason in the
preceding conversation for the statement, he said: “Of course, the
Belgians will lose the Congo. We have got to have it. We must build the
Cape-to-Cairo road. You know, we wanted the Transvaal. We found a way to
get it; we have it. So we will find some way to get the Congo.”
Of course, this was the remark of a very young man. But the remarks of
young men, wild and foolish though they often sound, usually voice the
feelings and thoughts which older men cherish, but dare not speak.
[Illustration: CONSTRUCTING NEW HOUSES AT BASOKO]