American Congo effects on Africa as a whole?

[DG Valdron]

Yeah, I'm really can't decide whether we're dealing with staggering ignorance (which can be fixed, as every one here knows from personal experience), or simple racist trolling.

I don't think I would call it ignorance. Without any disrespect or aspersions on Infini, he or she seems to be dedicated to reading, and cites a number of references. But the extreme age of these references makes me wonder just how old Infini is. Or what sort of cloistered library provided formative reading experience. It does lead to an interesting, if occasionally frustrating conversation filled with strange assumptions and odd gaps. It's almost like speaking with a well read, thoughtful, literate, even progressive person from the late 19th century.

I note that throughout, Infini, has been courteous, respectful and prepared to discuss and argue. I would not call being fixedly wrongheaded about things or sticking to guns racist trolling. I have no sense that Infini is posting to get a rise out of or to deliberately offend or attack anyone. He or she is not a troll. This is simply a very different perspective.

For what it's worth, this is one of the oddest threads I've seen.

 

[SenatorChickpea]

You may well be right, and perhaps I'm being rude and uncharitable.


I'm in the middle of a doctorate that's largely concerned with the British Empire, and I've had to sit through too many people explaining to me how imperialism either was or could have been benevolent. Perhaps it's just that the thread keeps touching an exposed nerve.

 

[Brunaburh]

I read this thread about a week ago but didn't have time to comment. I just wanted to add to what others have said about this topic and its slightly implausible premises.

1. The idea that Americans were more likely to treat subject peoples better than OTL colonial powers is given the lie by US colonial and neo-colonial activities OTL. Philippines, Cuba, Nicaragua etc.

2. The idea that a less-exploitative politico-economic relationship would be formed with Africans by Americans is without foundation. The US was, in 1876, still involved in wars whose declared aim was the subjugation and ethnocide of "savages", they were only 11 years past treating people of African-descent as chattels. The only reason I refrain from suggesting the US Congo would be worse than the Belgian Congo is that it is difficult to imagine anything worse than the Belgian Congo.

3. It was suggested at one point that colonial control of the Congo might improve the position of black people in the US. European racism developed as an ideological justification for slavery and colonialism, a fact which has been quite well-studied. Adding colonialism to the US's existing racial baggage seems more likely to worsen racialist attitudes and policies.

4. The expansion of rubber production into areas governed by non-Western societies occurred in both the Congo and the Amazon. In both cases horrendous atrocities and relations of production worse than chattel-slavery occurred. The idea that American capitalists, among them former slaveholders, would refrain from such behaviour is unlikely. It is the easiest way to make money, so they would take it.

So, in my view, this scenario is interesting in the sense that US presence in Africa may lead to conflict between France, Portugal and Britain; and the US and Germany. WWI in this scenario may be very different. However, Congo will not be a happy state in a rainbow US.