American Congo effects on Africa as a whole?

[Infinity]

California and Texas both receive substantial amounts of migrants which I don't think all too many people would be keen to move into much of the Congo. Maybe Katanga and the Eastern Provinces but not much anywhere else.

Because the TFR would begin to drop much earlier than OTL due urbanization, stability, and higher rates education/family planning. While it would be impossible to sketch out specific numbers without knowing the timeline's specific placements, it is highly likely fertility would begin to drop decades earlier due to urbanization and education.

Honestly, millions would probably still die in any colonization timeline due to terrible conditions for rubber, forced relocations, diseases, and endemic warfare. French Central Africa lost 5 million people during its colonization, for example.

The population who died under the harsh Belgium labor practices exceeds the total population which existed in Kongo at any given time. In addition to preventing this genocide, an American Kongo would allow a population boom to occur a century before otl. That century of growth would far exceed that which has occurred in the last 50 years. Note, the population of the DRC was less than 20 million half a century ago. In just half a century, their population quadrupled. Think of much more their population could have grown in a century of a booming American population. Additionally, tropical areas tend to reproduce more than temperate areas.

The more water a place has, the more people can be supported. As stated earlier, the Congo river is second only in quantity of water to the Amazon. They have ample room to grow. As part of America, most of the forest would be cleared, and turned into crops. This would support a much larger population than exists today.

Moreover, I'm not sure exactly why you say no one would want to move to Kongo. The pioneer spirit has long been an American tradition. Hostile natives and wilderness were obstacles that were overcome in order to inhabit new lands. What makes the Kongo any different?

As for harsh labor conditions when part of the U.S, it could happen, but it would also lead to strikes. Maybe the Haymarket riots would happen in the Kongo.

 

[Arkenfolm]

The population who died under the harsh Belgium labor practices exceeds the total population which existed in Kongo at any given time. In addition to preventing this genocide, an American Kongo would allow a population boom to occur a century before otl. That century of growth would far exceed that which has occurred in the last 50 years. Note, the population of the DRC was less than 20 million half a century ago. In just half a century, their population quadrupled. Think of much more their population could have grown in a century of a booming American population. Additionally, tropical areas tend to reproduce more than temperate areas.

The more water a place has, the more people can be supported. As stated earlier, the Congo river is second only in quantity of water to the Amazon. They have ample room to grow. As part of America, most of the forest would be cleared, and turned into crops. This would support a much larger population than exists today.

Moreover, I'm not sure exactly why you say no one would want to move to Kongo. The pioneer spirit has long been an American tradition. Hostile natives and wilderness were obstacles that were overcome in order to inhabit new lands. What makes the Kongo any different?

As for harsh labor conditions when part of the U.S, it could happen, but it would also lead to strikes. Maybe the Haymarket riots would happen in the Kongo.

Why would it cause a population boom when as pointed out, the Americans are still going to treat the vast majority of Congolese like shit. The population boom in places like the Congo happened because of the proliferation of modern medicine and agricultural improvements which decreased the death rate at all levels in the second half of the 20th century.

And no, not many Americans would want to move to the Congo. Like the Philippines, it would be mainly soldiers (and their families), missionaries, and the occasional businessmen. Your average would-be pioneer would rather try their luck in the "civilised" Great Plains or West than in a far more dangerous place like the Congo.

Yes, it would lead to strikes, which would lead to the local police and military being called out, which would lead to a lot of dead Congolese. Look what happened elsewhere in Africa where people refused to work for their colonial masters. And look how little people in the mother country cared compared to similar labour violence at home.

 

[Deleted member 67076]

The population who died under the harsh Belgium labor practices exceeds the total population which existed in Kongo at any given time. In addition to preventing this genocide, an American Kongo would allow a population boom to occur a century before otl.

I seriously doubt this due to reasons that DValdron and others have mentioned. Disease and overwork will start carving a swath in the population as they did OTL, nor are the Americans likely to improve much in the way of sanitation due to cost and scope. They didn't in their occupations in Central America. Certainly not going to do so under a virulently racist administration.

At the same time, hundreds of thousands if not millions are going to perish once forced labor kicks in and people flee their villages into the forest for years at a time (happened OTL to escape the Belgians, and is a common tactic in African societies eager to escape rule).

At best you might get this boom in the 1910s or so instead of the 30s.

That century of growth would far exceed that which has occurred in the last 50 years. Note, the population of the DRC was less than 20 million half a century ago. In just half a century, their population quadrupled. Think of much more their population could have grown in a century of a booming American population.

Not that much once the Americans begin to forcibly relocate people to plantations and cities where they can better keep track of them while disease and overwork begin to cause a decline.

The DRCs boom is reminiscent of Iran's, except without the Islamic Republic arresting the birth rate in the 80s.

Nor are many Americans gonna move there.

Additionally, tropical areas tend to reproduce more than temperate areas.

No they don't. It only seems that way due to faster growth nowadays from a lack of education, access to family planning, and inertia from postcolonial pronatalist policies that many authoritarian regimes implemented.

For most of human history it's the temperate and cold areas that have the most growth. Europe had more people than Africa until the 70s!

The more water a place has, the more people can be supported. As stated earlier, the Congo river is second only in quantity of water to the Amazon. They have ample room to grow.

Nope. The river is full of rapids, disease, swamps, waterfalls, uneven terrain that's difficult to farm and build roads, and acidic soil outside of Bas Congo. It would take a massive investment to turn the river basin into a breadbasket, especially in Bas Congo.

As part of America, most of the forest would be cleared, and turned into crops.

Eroding the fragile soil's quality after a generation unless heavily managed. Doubt the Americans would care enough for that. They encouraged deforestation during the occupation of Haiti. You bring that to the Congo and you'll get an environmental disaster that would force food imports earlier than OTL.

Moreover, I'm not sure exactly why you say no one would want to move to Kongo. The pioneer spirit has long been an American tradition. Hostile natives and wilderness were obstacles that were overcome in order to inhabit new lands. What makes the Kongo any different?

The fact barely any Americans decided to settle the Philippines or Puerto Rico. That the Congo would be seen as a disease ridden wilderness where Heart of Darkness narratives would do nothing to dissuade that. That Central Africa is much harder to settle than North America, period. And their natives have more numbers, more guns, and more resistance to disease.

The pioneer spirit doesn't mean much at this time as America was majority urbanized by the turn of the century.

As for harsh labor conditions when part of the U.S, it could happen, but it would also lead to strikes. Maybe the Haymarket riots would happen in the Kongo.

That would just lead to an army crackdown and a massacre. Maybe several of them.

Happened during the Belgian rule. The absurdly racist Americans aren't going to let any Africans have a say.

 

[Infinity]

Why would it cause a population boom when as pointed out, the Americans are still going to treat the vast majority of Congolese like shit. The population boom in places like the Congo happened because of the proliferation of modern medicine and agricultural improvements which decreased the death rate at all levels in the second half of the 20th century.

And no, not many Americans would want to move to the Congo. Like the Philippines, it would be mainly soldiers (and their families), missionaries, and the occasional businessmen. Your average would-be pioneer would rather try their luck in the "civilised" Great Plains or West than in a far more dangerous place like the Congo.

Yes, it would lead to strikes, which would lead to the local police and military being called out, which would lead to a lot of dead Congolese. Look what happened elsewhere in Africa where people refused to work for their colonial masters. And look how little people in the mother country cared compared to similar labour violence at home.

Labor history of American Kongo would be more like the labor history of America, not colonial Europe. May 1st, workers day is celebrated across the world. Suppose the Haymarket riot happened in Kongo instead of Chicago. It makes absolutely no sense to compare Leopold to American capitalism. Leopold was responsible for genocide. In contrast, in America the worker prevailed. We now have shorter working hours and better labor conditions due to civil (and occasionally violent) protests. An American Kongo would have unions with collective bargaining.

As for disease, that too would be conquered. Modern medicine would likely advance much faster out of necessity. Vaccines are created earlier and anti-biotics are a more profitable business than otl.

acidic soil

Many fruits and vegetables are tolerant of acidic soil. As a result, Kongo will have a much lower incidence of diabetes than the other 50 states. Not being able to grow carbohydrate rich crops would turn out to be a blessing in disguise.

 

[Deleted member 67076]

Many fruits and vegetables are tolerant of acidic soil. As a result, if Kongo will have a much lower incidence of diabetes than the other 50 states. Not being able to grow carbohydrate rich crops would turn out to be a blessing in disguise.

Not if the country is full of food deserts that rely on cheap imports to feed their population. I doubt the US would want to build up native agriculture when they could have a major captive market to sell cheap food to.

 

[Arkenfolm]

Labor history of American Kongo would be more like the labor history of America, not colonial Europe. May 1st, workers day is celebrated across the world. Suppose the Haymarket riot happened in Kongo instead of Chicago. It makes absolutely no sense to compare Leopold to American capitalism. Leopold was responsible for genocide. In contrast, in America the worker prevailed. We now have shorter working hours and better labor conditions due to civil (and occasionally violent) protests. An American Kongo would have unions with collective bargaining.

As for disease, that to would be conquered. Modern medicine would likely advance much faster out of necessity. Vaccines are created earlier and anti-biotics are a more profitable business than otl.

What do you think was happening in Europe at the time? European workers were winning all manner of rights. Indian and African workers? Not so much. Same goes with Filipino, Hawaiian (pre-statehood), and Puerto Rican workers, and that literally goes to this day with workers in the Pacific territories of the US. Americans aren't magically better colonists than Europeans for whatever reason.

Medicine? Why would medicine advance faster because the US is there? You do know the European pharmaceutical industry was and is huge, right? And that Americans colonised tropical places too, right?

Your arguments to me seem full of American exceptionalism which can be disproved in large part by examining actual American colonies.

 

[DominusNovus]

Not sure the Philippines is the best comparison, as the timeframe is a few decades different, and the Philippines were intended, from the very beginning, to be set up as an independent nation... eventually. If the US were to assume authority over the Congo, would the same expectations be made?

Next, within the confines of what we can expect for this time period, what differences between this American Congo and the Congo Free State can we reliably count on? That certainly depends on what we expect the Americans want do with the Congo. There is certainly the economic aspect that will be present no matter who takes the region. There’s also likely the missionary/humanitarian angle, which the Americans would take more seriously than Europeans (as a way to show our superiority). These two aspects will likely conflict as the years go on.

I think ‘Back to Africa’ is more or less dead by this point, but I could see economic opportunies for black Americans in the American Congo, due both to disease resistance and to perceptions of suitability.

Overall, I’d expect thingns to be better, but not ‘Congo is a powerhouse today’ better. I don’t think American possession of the Congo would change much about American policy in the 20th century, ofher than perhaps opinions on colonialism, which might change.

The big question is the fate of American Congo. What would it be in 2017? A commonwealth like Puerto Rico? A US state? Independent? If independent, how does that happen? Peacefully or through insurrection? How quickly? I’d say the best case that is plausible would be a commonwealth, simply because that removes any instability from the military (then again, so would something like the Compact of Free Association).

 

[Infinity]

What do you think was happening in Europe at the time? European workers were winning all manner of rights. Indian and African workers? Not so much. Same goes with Filipino, Hawaiian (pre-statehood), and Puerto Rican workers, and that literally goes to this day with workers in the Pacific territories of the US. Americans aren't magically better colonists than Europeans for whatever reason.

Medicine? Why would medicine advance faster because the US is there? You do know the European pharmaceutical industry was and is huge, right? And that Americans colonised tropical places too, right?

Your arguments to me seem full of American exceptionalism which can be disproved in large part by examining actual American colonies.

I was assuming that Americans would actually move to Kongo. If they don't move en masse, then I agree, America's influence wouldn't be that different from the rest of Europe.

When I look at DRC, all I see is untapped potential. I think of what could have been. If I had been around in the 19th century, I would have lobbied for it to become the 51st state.

Since you mentioned labor struggles in Europe, that brings up a curious point. The period of the luddite rebellion is often depicted as an anti-technology movement. When the real problem was that workers didn't have access to other work. They had trained in one mindlessly repetitive task. They knew nothing else. Such mind numbing tasks impair one's ability to imagine an alternative. When displaced, they could have moved to another town to look for work, but they didn't know which towns had work available. Iron works would have been glad to hire more workers, with higher pay than their previous job. I'm not sure why these earlier struggles are dismissed as simply anti-technology. Those laborers who were killed were essentially martyrs. Granted, the fact that the equipment that they destroyed cost more than their labor was a factor in why their lives were disregarded. Nevertheless, it seems like history does not give their struggle enough credit.

Moreover, you mention to examine actual American colonies. Every state was once an American colony. It's those which I look to when I consider the effect of American culture.

Philippines were intended, from the very beginning, to be set up as an independent nation.

Same with Cuba. Considering there were concentration camps at the time in Cuba, clearly America had a softer hand than European powers.

 

[Arkenfolm]

I think ‘Back to Africa’ is more or less dead by this point, but I could see economic opportunies for black Americans in the American Congo, due both to disease resistance and to perceptions of suitability.

Plus I wouldn't be surprised if a significant amount of the segregated units/Buffalo Soldiers end up being the ones sent to the Congo for pacifying the locals and keeping the peace. And as in the Philippines, at least a few would settle there.

Lastly, you mention to examine actual American colonies. Every state was once an American colony. It's those which I look to when I consider the effect of American culture.

The experience of the Congolese would be more akin to American Indians than the white settlers, or perhaps the slaves frontier settlers brought with them, really a mixture of both. Not to mention the pre-statehood territories were set up with the intention of becoming states. Any politician suggesting the Congo be set up for becoming a state in the future would be checked into an asylum, the idea would be profoundly ridiculous at the time to basically everyone.

 

[Richard V]

Congo's main problem is that their water is undrinkable. Change that variable and the worst case scenario is that they're like Brazil.

In contrast, Puerto Rico has less to offer the U.S. There would be a much stronger economic incentive to make Congo the 51st state.

Yet, if Puerto Rico had become a state, they'd replace Florida as a place for vacations and retirement. Since they're not a state, they remain second class citizens.

Some perspective

Brazil: $8,727
Philippines: $2,924
R. Congo: $1,784
D.R. Congo: $495
Liberia: $480

2016 GDP per capita from the IMF

 

[DG Valdron]

When I look at DRC, all I see is untapped potential. I think of what could have been. If I had been around in the 19th century, I would have lobbied for it to become the 51st state. ..... Moreover, you mention to examine actual American colonies. Every state was once an American colony. It's those which I look to when I consider the effect of American culture.

I really think you have to address the pervasive and toxic racism of America during this period.

Same with Cuba. Considering there were concentration camps at the time in Cuba, clearly America had a softer hand than European powers.

Are you serious?

http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/war.crimes/US/U.S.Philippines.htm

Some estimates hold that as many as a million of the nine million Phillipinos died as a result of the American invasion and occupation.

 

[Arkenfolm]

Are you serious?

http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/war.crimes/US/U.S.Philippines.htm

Some estimates hold that as many as a million of the nine million Phillipinos died as a result of the American invasion and occupation.

Well, if you believe what the United States Army said before the Senate in 1902, the concentration camps in the Philippines "could no more could be compared to [the Cuban concentration camps] than mercy could be compared to cruelty."

 

[DominusNovus]

I really think you have to address the pervasive and toxic racism of America during this period.

Only insofar as it would be contrasted with the historical treatment of Congo. Do you think it would lead to anything worse than the Congo Free State?

 

[DG Valdron]

Well, if you believe what the United States Army said before the Senate in 1902, the concentration camps in the Philippines "could no more could be compared to [the Cuban concentration camps] than mercy could be compared to cruelty."

I'd ask for a Philipinno perspective.

 

[DG Valdron]

Only insofar as it would be contrasted with the historical treatment of Congo. Do you think it would lead to anything worse than the Congo Free State?

It's possible that it could be worse. The Congo Free State was a centralized operation directed by Leopold. A laissez faire American fiefdom with investors and freebooters all rushing in to loot the place and competing with each other for rape-opportunities could be more nightmarish. An outcome that is a cross between American Indians having their land stolen out from under them, and the pseudo-slavery of Jim Crow could well be terrifying.

I'd hope that nothing could be worse then Leopold. But honestly, there's no floor to human depravity.

 

[DominusNovus]

It's possible that it could be worse. The Congo Free State was a centralized operation directed by Leopold. A laissez faire American fiefdom with investors and freebooters all rushing in to loot the place and competing with each other for rape-opportunities could be more nightmarish. An outcome that is a cross between American Indians having their land stolen out from under them, and the pseudo-slavery of Jim Crow could well be terrifying.

I'd hope that nothing could be worse then Leopold. But honestly, there's no floor to human depravity.

I find that unlikely, particularly given the ‘city on a hill’ mentality that many Americans had/have.

A laissez faire scenario could be argued to be less likely to lead to abuse, as there would be an incentive to rat out anyone too brutal. Who was there to check Leopold?

 

[Luminous]

I think the biggest question that needs to be asked here is this: why does the USA have Congo? It's pointless to hypothesize whether the USA will be Doubleplus Good and manages to make it the best place in Africa with butterflies and rainbows or whether the USA could potentially be even worse than Leopold's Congo cough nudge cough not saying that they would be but they would without actually establishing the motivation behind the colonial acquisition.

As that will guide a lot of your answers on quite a few things. Why was it established? For what purpose does it serve? How did the US acquire this interest when, OTL, it had no desire at all for any sort of African territory of any type? As pointed out earlier, Liberia was an independent collection of colonies that declared independence and, eventually, banded together to form what is now Liberia.

Frankly, the only way that the US would even be in the state to contemplate such a colonial region would be if they had the temperament and desire for colonial ambitions at the time. And, after going through a Civil War that devastated their population (taking a greater percentage of their population of casualties than Great Britain during WW1, when comparing best case for the US vs worst case for Great Britain), the US is in no mood for overseas adventures at the time of the Berlin Conference; they need about 25 years to reach the 1890s and begin to flex their muscle. Simultaneously, the frontier of the United States had not yet been settled, so the majority of settler population will be pushing in through that direction as well.

So, as far as I see it, you need a few things to happen.
1. You need the USA to have a direct interest in Africa. If Liberia is a colony (or the various state colonies remain part of their states) there is an interest in the region that might promote American explorers and adventures to delve into the continent; it's certainly the easiest POD.
2. You need the USA to be in a period of expansion, not a period of consolidation, at the time of the Berlin Conference or its alternative. This means that the Civil War is averted, occurs sooner, or is far, far less damaging than it was OTL.
3. You need the USA to be willing to... modify the Monroe doctrine some, as part of its understood meaning was that the US would not allow any exchange of European territory in the Americas without its consent... and as such, the US would keep its nose out of old-world affairs. Liberia is in the Western Hemisphere, so that can be a "technicality" if it is a US possession, officially.
4. You need the USA to have a reason to go out of its way to counter a European power's claims - as by doing so, the European power might make a play in a region far more vital to the USA (Most important is Continental North America, then the Caribbean, then the Pacific, then South America. And I'm sure there are a few things between that and Africa on the list).

So, my proposal would be:

• Liberia is founded as a collection of state colonies, and instead refers to the region in general, at least at first. Colonization is kept to the edge of the continent, truly intending to be more of a homestead act. The colony experiences horrible rates of attrition as before.
• This doesn't affect the Civil War too much, excepting some increased black immigration from the US to these colonies. It may even become a pseudo-penal colony, at least in some forms. At the outbreak of the war, the various colonies of the seceding states become independent. And, after persuading northern states (Maryland, Pennsylvania) to give up their territory, the region is founded officially as Liberia
• If this is too much to believe, then consider it as a US territory from the start, with the states slowly selling their claims to the US. Works either way.
• In any case, the US takes a much more aggressive stance against the South, and the South starts off on a worse foot (some states don't secede? Perhaps secession is pushed back another 5 years, or more, and the North is even stronger than it would be OTL. or altogether). Within six months, the South is essentially defeated.
• Slavery is abolished through some manner of expedited manumission, and is potentially coupled with a homestead act that applies to the Midwest, Liberia, etc. It is hardly completely successful, but more blacks leave the South than left OTL
• An alt!Congress of Berlin occurs, with multiple powers laying claim to the Congo (Germany, France, Britain, Belgium, etc).
• In order to ensure that no one European power takes it, the Congress deems it into the trust of the US, who has shown capable (to European sensibilities) management in Liberia and has no major favorite.
• It really helps if the US has a slight falling out with the United Kingdom leading up to this.
• The USA starts working to claim parts of the Congo, but doesn't get as much as Leopold does. the French get their piece of Congo, the British get Katanga (as having boots on the ground is far more important, and alt!Britain still would like Cape to Cairo). Other bits are nibbled, but the USA is left with majority of Congo as it is OTL, minus Katanga.

As such, the USA ends up with the Congo, not out of any particular desire for it, but because they are the only ones who didn't particularly desire it in the first place (AKA: the Swiss Solution. Make everyone unhappy). Development of Congo Rubber in this situation should parallel the Firestone National Rubber Company in Liberia. While the Liberian operation only came to be due to the US's desire to have their own personal supply, the number of alternate suppliers would be lower, and production would certainly start in earnest much more quickly. It depends on the share of the worldwide rubber production that the Congo was responsible for.

As for population comments... I believe that the Congo lost about half of its pre-Free State population during the time of Leopold's reign. I think that comes to about 5 million, but I'm just attempting to remember numbers off of the top of my head; I could be wrong.

 

[DG Valdron]

I find that unlikely, particularly given the ‘city on a hill’ mentality that many Americans had/have.

http://portside.org/2017-12-04/hidden-history-how-california-was-built-genocide

Hill? Or mountain of skulls?

A laissez faire scenario could be argued to be less likely to lead to abuse, as there would be an incentive to rat out anyone too brutal. Who was there to check Leopold?

Hmmm. This is an outcome of Laissez faire not previously seen in history.

 

[DG Valdron]

Luminous, good post.

 

[dianaswordofsappho]

Luminous, good post.

Agreeded!