Please let me correct Cecil on one historical point.
He cites the selling of a Pygmy slave by a Belgian official servant.
By 1904, Congo was still a private property of Leopold II, on the other hand King of the Belgians. Leopold had a very hard time getting Belgium to adopt Congo as a colony. He succeeded only by making it a part of his will. As such, the territory only became “Congo Belge” by 1909, when Leopold died.
Before 1909, many, if not most, of the people cutting up Congo (and its inhabitants) for the King were not Belgian. Leopold hired his executioners in all countries, prominently British and German (in addition to Belgians). All of this was private enterprise.
After the inheritance, the Belgian government made its best to (a) hide the horrors that had been perpetrated by Leopold’s hired men, and (b) change the policy with regard to a more humane treatment of local populations.
This is not to present the Belgians as more unreproachable than other colonist nations. But historical truth should prevail.
Forgive me, elestat, but I’m still a bit confused about some details. The fellow who was enslaved from the Congo, four years before the Belgian Congo, Ota Benga; was he sold by Belgian slavers who, um, harvested him from the Congo, or was he sold by his own countrymen? Now, obviously, the ownership of Mr. Benga was illegal in the US after the US Civil War (War of the Northern Aggression, whatever.)
It was dirty business, whoever nabbed Mr. Benga, but I’d like to know who grabbed him and sold him. Does history hold any more details?
I’ve read the book about Ota Benga that Cecil referenced in the article, so I can answer some of your questions, AskNott.
Ota’s wife and child were killed by members of La Force Publique, Leopold’s official thugs in the Congo. These particular thugs, I believe, were black Africans, not whites. They captured Ota and sold him to someone in a Baschilele village. (The Baschilele were a tribe of non-Pygmy Africans). Verner bought him there for $5 worth of salt and fabric. Verner sometimes claimed that this was freeing Ota from slavery, but it’s not clear whether Ota knew or believed he was free. He doesn’t appear to have objected to going with Verner to St. Louis, but we don’t really have his side of the story.
On the other hand in a St. Louis Post-Dispatch article (04 September 1904), Verner referred to Ota as “human chattel” belonging to the Louisiana Purchase Exposition Company. This claim I think was just sensationalism and not something he really believed. In any case, there is no legal basis for it under U.S. law. The other Pygmies who went to St. Louis with Verner were never slaves and were definitely free. They chose to go with him in return for what amounted to trinkets. (Verner himself was promised $8500 for taking them all to St. Louis). After the exposition Verner, Ota, and the other Pygmies returned to Africa. When Ota went back to America again in 1806 it was almost certainly of his own free will. Indeed, he had to convince a reluctant Verner to take him.
I only mention this to show how much times don’t change, but I seem to recall from last year there were reports of one or more of the warring factions in the Congo making use of Pygmies as “bush meat”. See:
yes, he googles, like we all do to get our relevent 411 (though none will admit it). and this predisposes us to mistakes. but as long as we sound clever in the process, we’re ok, and maybe, just maybe, lynn won’t ban our ip address. (knocks on keyboard)