Interesting take on it. If you’re blaming the British, just say “the British”. Terms like “Anglo-Saxon scheme” make it sound like you’re issuing a press release from Wilhelmine Berlin.
I like the way you’ve made Belgian genocide the British’s fault though. Very good logic. FYI, Malaysian rubber production was in response to raised demand and increased prices by Congolese producers, not protectionism.
I take offense from the claim of being an actor of Wilhelmine Berlin, I much prefer to think of myself as dispatches from the Quai d'Orsay
Anyway, I find myself at a loss of where I implied responsibility for the Congo genocide as belonging to England. Conversely, my entire post related to the English government being involved in a program to lead to its exposure and end. I of course condemn without any reservation the horrors of the Belgian Congo, which even more than most colonial regimes was evidently responsible for a reign of terror and brutality which killed numberless amounts of Congolese in the most horrifyingly possible way and which has left a dark and poisonous legacy in the region, but that doesn't remove English state-backed involvement against it. Anything which led to a reform of that was good, which the English humanitarian campaign, even if it was self-serving, was. Just because something is self-serving doesn't mean it is bad.
I would say rather that the logical error is assigned to you for having claimed that I did so.
Eh? The Congo Reform Association wasn’t a government body. You’re ignoring the American and Swedish missionaries in all this and even Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness. But yeah, it’s Perfidious Albion’s fault.
There's a reason why all of those figures were English, and the English government ordered Casement to do something for a reason. Anglo-Saxon liberal humanitarianism most always has strategic goals itself: this is hardly unique. All governments use humanitarian, ideological, and propaganda concerns. The English I might say, are simply the best at it, since they've been the most successful at presenting themselves as neutral, unbiased, and concerned about humanitarian concerns, instead of simply doing it for power purposes, even if those power purposes are most often still in play and give the English advantages.
If you want to bend the facts to fit your attack on Britain (great work, by the way - it’s London’s fault, not Leopold’s) why would London publicise it in the way they did? Quietly go to Leopold, put the thumb screws on and get concessions that way.
I would think that if you're pro-British, you would take pride in that your government involved itself actively against the Congo humanitarian crisis, instead of trying to deny it. As for going to Leopold, why? The English got what they wanted in a way which gave them additional humanitarian bonus points and helped clear up their reputation from the Boer war. Simply going to Leopold for concessions wouldn't achieve such benefits.