AHC: Have the Congo claimed by powers other than Belgium

[SPJ]

After doing some studies of the Belgian Congo I've come to understand that the treatment of the natives within it was the most aborrent out of all the European colonies even though Leopold II promised to benefit the natives if gaining control over it. Due to this I'd like to offer the challenge of creating a TL in which the land within OTL's Belgian Congo is claimed by one or more European powers other than Belgium within the 1800s. As well try to have it so that the powers claiming the land treat he natives better then the Belgians did. Thats not asking for much though as I understand it even if the natives in other colonies weren't too much better off.

[LSCatilina]

The easiest would be to use the deal made between Leopold and France. If the entreprise failed, Lépold had to give a preferential price and brought opportunity to France.

Have, for some reason, Free Congo State fail, France would likely take this opportunity to take over all the Congo basin they could before Lépold's death that gave Congo to Belgium.

In fact, Belgium hesitated to accept the inheritance of Léopold that gave them the country. If they finally refuse, France would likely have it.

[erich von changstein]

That is going to be difficult on the treating the natives well part since it was rubber country and that is labor intestive meaning the Africans are screwed. On the other hand to prevent Belgium from getting the Congo just kill Leopold II. The Congo Free State was only supported by him and not anyone else. Now with out him there is going to be a dispute between France vs Germany vs Portugal vs Britain due to the reason Leopold got it in the first place he was the only neutral/weak power there. Portugal would most likely get it. IMO

[Socrates]

The treatment of the natives in Northern Angola and the French Congo was just as brutal as in the Congo Free State. The same heavy use of the lash, hostage-taking, and threat of execution were used in all three. In many cases it was the same private concession companies operating for different colonial powers. Indeed, many of the Congolese that crossed into the French Congo to escape Leopold's regime of terror actually ended up crossing back into the Free State because French rule was even worse.

So that rules out rule by the Belgians, French and the Portuguese to improve the lives of the natives. Given what the Germans did in Southwest Africa, I can't see them being any better. It's possible the British would be better due to parliament and humanitarian organisations having more influence in politics, but we don't really know.

[yourworstnightmare]

Perhaps the territory would be split between France, Germany and Britain, with France taking the lion share.

[miguelrj]

Natural expanding other colonies we'd have:

Littoral: Portugal
Northwest: France
Northeast: Britain, France or Germany
South: Britain
East: Germany

[jacobus]

Of all the colonial powers, the Belgians in the Congo Free State certainly behaved the worst. Having known a few Belgians, it's hard to understand. They don't really seem like the kind of people who could have done the things that were done in the Congo, in the name of profit.
On the other hand, I could never bring myself to do the things Firestone employees did on their rubber plantations in Liberia, nor can I picture my family or friends behaving in this way, to make themselves rich. Yet I can't deny that my countrymen did terrible things there.
For this reason, it's hard to say whether the Congolese would have done much better under another colonial administration. They aren't even doing very well as a sovereign country. Some of the blame can be placed on the colonialists, who did a poor job of preparing the Congolese for independence, and drew national borders arbitrarily, without regard for the ethnicities and languages of the Congolese themselves.
Let's make up a new country, they said in their arrogance, we'll call it Hopscotch or Jump-a-Stump or whatever, we can name it after a mountain range, or a river, or a European explorer, and the people who live there, who thought they owned the land on which they lived, will just have to get used to the fact that they're now citizens of our newly created country. And if we have to, we'll use force to make it stick!
An attempt by the Congolese province of Katanga to break away and form a national identity of its own was ruthlessly put down, with UN assistance: how dare these upstarts presume to claim the right to nationhood, to redraw the existing borders, and decide for themselves what constitues a "real" country. Even today, some believe that today's borders and countries are inviolable, and must be preserved in perpetuity, even though common sense tells us that few if any contemporary nation states will appear on a world map a thousand years from now. It's all about man's ego, and his desire to be able to tell others what to do.
I've always thought the Congo was too large, and too diverse, to ever have been made a single country. It should have been broken up into several smaller, more easily maneagable ethnically-based states. Who really wants to be governed by strangers eight hundred miles away, in a city you've never seen, who speak a strange language, follow different customs, and know nothing about you or what your people need?

[Flying Dutchman]

Mispost from my side. Tried to open a new topic.

[Socrates]

Originally Posted by jacobus

An attempt by the Congolese province of Katanga to break away and form a national identity of its own was ruthlessly put down, with UN assistance: how dare these upstarts presume to claim the right to nationhood, to redraw the existing borders, and decide for themselves what constitues a "real" country.

The attempt was made by Belgian mining interests as much as by the local people.

[scholar]

People may not want to hear it, but the Congo was strong enough industrially and internally that at the moment of its independence it was second to none in Africa apart from South Africa. It is only afterwards that things took a nosedive for the worse and it became the mess that it is today. This is not meant to excuse Leopold's actions, as those are inexcusable. What it is meant to do is provide some reference for measure of economic development pre- and post- independence.

[jacobus]

Originally Posted by scholar

People may not want to hear it, but the Congo was strong enough industrially and internally that at the moment of its independence it was second to none in Africa apart from South Africa. It is only afterwards that things took a nosedive for the worse and it became the mess that it is today. This is not meant to excuse Leopold's actions, as those are inexcusable. What it is meant to do is provide some reference for measure of economic development pre- and post- independence.

I'd like to read more about the Congo's "nosedive", can you suggest a good article?

[SPJ]

Originally Posted by scholar

People may not want to hear it, but the Congo was strong enough industrially and internally that at the moment of its independence it was second to none in Africa apart from South Africa. It is only afterwards that things took a nosedive for the worse and it became the mess that it is today. This is not meant to excuse Leopold's actions, as those are inexcusable. What it is meant to do is provide some reference for measure of economic development pre- and post- independence.

I'd like to read more about the Congo's industrialization.

[Stolengood]

In order to butterfly away the Belgian Congo, you must first keep it out of Leopold II's hands, no?

Therefore, the earliest POD you could use is having Princess Charlotte and Prince-Consort Leopold's baby survive, along with Princess Charlotte; once the Belgians declare independence, there is no Leopold to approach to become Leopold I, and without a Leopold I, no Leopold II -- no Belgian Congo.