Talk:Atrocities in the Congo Free State

Cannibalism section

I have suggested that the cannibalism section should be removed. There are several reasons for this. The proposed text clearly fails WP:V and relies heavily on a literal reading of some extremely tendentious primary sources. As one writer notes: "From the pages of the missionaries and expeditionaries [sic] quoted above, I have to conclude that cannibalism was indeed practiced by some tribes in some parts of the Congo, but that the nature of the practice being widely taboo, it was naturally exaggerated by the Africans themselves (usually speaking of tribes other than their own) and by Europeans from a mixture of prejudice and bravado." (Gill, 'The Fascination of the Abomination: Conrad and Cannibalism', p. 4).

Aside from the fact that cannibalism receives only passing coverage in any of the major historical works on the Congo in this era, the gloss in the extract proposed for inclusion here reads to me as WP:FRINGE or at least WP:OR. One of the very few academic works on the Congo to deal with cannibalism directly states as follows:

"But brutal as Leopold and his representatives were, they did not introduce cannibalism, human sacrifice, shamanism, or tribal dances into the Congo. These were already well-established traditional practices, deeply rooted in Central African society." (Firchow, Envisioning Africa : racism and imperialism in Conrad's Heart of darkness, p. 116)

The same source also explicitly notes that there is no evidence for white colonials practicing cannibalism and describes the suggestion as "profoundly misleading" (p 115). There is a discussion to be had about how we present cannibalism in Congolese history, but that this article is definitely not the place to do it. —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Most of the section is sourced to secondary sources: Pakenham, Van Reybrouck, and Siefkes, and in the longer Congo Free State section (which you deleted as well), also Edgerton, Forbath, and Slade. These are serious academic sources which you cannot ignore just because you don't like them. If you feel there are viewpoins that are insufficiently reflected, they should be added to these sections, but summarily deleting what's there is a bad option and would amount to hiding part of the unpleasant truth about the Free State.

As for the quote from Firchow ("These were already well-established traditional practices"), that's not at all in conflict with what the section says? It starts: "Cannibalism was widespread in [some areas], and the colonial administration seems to have done little to suppress it, sometimes rather tolerating it among its own auxiliary troops and allies". If you think that's wrong and know of RS that state that the Free State effectively suppressed cannibal customs, and that such acts never occurred in the Force Publique or among unofficial troops engaged by the State (such as the Zappo Zap, referred to by Edgerton), then by all means add these sources. I'm not aware of any such statements, though.

Regarding "white colonials practicing cannibalism", there is nothing in the section of this page that suggests it, but the Free State section has the single sentence Indeed, "some European officers" working for the Free State themselves "developed a taste for human flesh", according to Forbath. This statement is explicitly sourced to the historian who made it, and I don't think this single sentence is giving it too much weight. I suggest you add Firchow's statement about such claims being "profoundly misleading" in that context, though I wonder how closely the author has really looked at the evidence, seeing that his book is about a piece of literature rather than the actual situation in the Congo. Anyway, that's just a single sentence and even if we decide to remove it as too contested, that wouldn't affect the rest of the sections. Gawaon (talk) 06:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if the section or all its material should be removed, but I generally agree that the Edible People source seems to "heavily on a literal reading of some extremely tendentious primary sources" and reworking might be in order. The publisher seems serious but that author's credentials seem odd to say the least and reviews are few and far between. Van Reybrouck and Packenham are more well established historians, but it seems their work isn't the basis for this section. I have a copy of Packenham's book in a box somewhere, I might have to dig it up to see what he really says in pages 439–449 (which is a rather large page range). I think there is a question of the significance of these reports and their relevance to the colonial regime. Page 2 of this paper serves as an excellent warning on the difficulties of understanding and interpreting accounts of cannibalism and their veracity. An expanded lit review might do us some good. The white colonials cannibalism thing seems like a red herring, from what I can tell the text in this Wikipedia article doesn't deal with that, and most sources that discuss it affirm that it was a genuine fear of some Congolese people at this time but basically dismiss that it occurred at any meaningful rate. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

The re-written section is much better, I think. Thank you. But I still question why this subject is dealt with in this article in particular - failing to suppress a pre-existing local custom with sufficient vigour is hardly an "atrocity", especially akin to some of the others discussed in this article. I also question whether there is evidence that cannibalism was "widespread". —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I have changed "widespread" to "well-established", as in the quote you gave above. Some authors such as Edgerton clearly say it was widespread in some areas (not everywhere), and the evidence seems to confirm this, but that's just background, it's not essential for this article. As for the State tolerating killings followed by cannibalism among its own troops and auxiliaries, I'd say that's part of its regime of terror and at least deserves to be mentioned. It's a fairly short section in a long article, so I don't think we're giving it undue weight. I have removed the paragraph about "little interest in stopping cannibal customs", as I see your point that that by itself is not an atrocity. I'd argue, however, that it should remain in the related section in the Congo Free State article, as that article is about the behaviour or non-behaviour of the state in general, and it contributes to showing where the State's priorities lay. Gawaon (talk) 08:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)