Black Feminism & Feminist Histories

The paper *E.D Morel (1873-1924), the Congo Reform Association, and the History of Human Rights* by historian Nathan Alexander examines the misconstrued usage of the label ‘human rights campaign’ to address the Congo Reform Association (CRA). Alexander accomplishes such by recounting the troublesome views of its founder E.D. Morel and his intellectual influence Mary Kingsley. Further exploring the ideas presented in this paper, this essay frames the story of Morel and the CRA primarily through the lens of black feminism, with a focus on intersectionality. Intersectionality is a significant aspect of black feminism, it “refers to the way gender, race, and other social categories interact to influence life outcomes” (“A Brief History of Black Feminism”). In addition, this essay touches on Mary Kingley’s relation to feminist histories, specifically the first wave feminist movement, which “refers to the first concerted movement working for the reform of women’s social and legal inequalities in the nineteenth century” (“First Wave Feminism”).

During the Berlin Conference of 1884, in an attempt to settle colonial disputes in Africa, European powers gave Belgian King Leopold II the Congo Free State as his personal property. Leopold’s rule was brutal, he claimed the natives’ land as his own and forced them to collect rubber under cruel conditions. When reports of Leopold’s exploitive reign caught the attention of Edmund Dene Morel, a shipping clerk, and journalist in Liverpool, he began to research the obscenities occurring. Outraged by what was happening, Morel formed the CRA in 1904. The CRA publicized the crimes transpiring in the Congo Free State in Britain to garner attention from the government. This campaign was successful, and in 1908 the British government annexed Leopold and began to instate reforms in Congo. Despite not being fully content with the reforms, the CRA declared its mission a success and disbanded in 1913.

*E.D Morel (1873-1924), the Congo Reform Association, and the History of Human Rights* by Nathan Alexander looks at the frequent usage of the terminology ‘human rights’ to describe the CRA. Alexander argues that to call this association a ‘human rights movement’ is misleading and not contextually correct. In his own words,

> “the CRA’s conception of human rights and their solution to the atrocities differ dramatically from those of present day human rights organizations. Morel and the other CRA members were not human rights pioneers, but political activists who found solutions that were available to them within their own historical context” (215).
>
>

Morel and his associates saw the natives of Congo through a lens that would be immediately dismissed by human rights activists of today. Morel was heavily guided by English author and explorer Mary Kingsley, she was the “strongest intellectual influence in his life” (221). Kingsley was a believer in polygeny, the theory that different racial groups had evolved from separate origins. She regarded Africans as lesser, in her book *Travels in West Africa* Kingsley wrote, “I own I regard not only the African, but all colored races as inferior - inferior in kind not degree - to the white race” (220). In regards to her race as well as her higher standing in class, Kinglsey saw Africans as fundamentally different from her.

Despite the derogatory and appalling nature of these ideas, Alexander does throw in smaller claims that Morel’s views of the natives were not completely detrimental. He notes that Morel rejected the Europeanisation of Africans, supported the education of African children on local geography and history (as opposed to British or European), and dismissed portrayals of natives as brutish and lazy. And there is, of course, the fact that Morel formed the CRA, ultimately helping the people of the Congo Free State rid themselves of a tyrant leader. The thing is, Morel’s ‘positive’ views regarding Africans have the feel of a backhanded compliment. Not only that, but much of Morel’s drive to help Congo’s natives derived from the desire to encourage free trade and ‘civilize’ the African state. Alexander writes,

> “The CRA’s criticism of the Congo Free State was not criticism of colonialism itself...The outrage of this violation was not only because the rights to land and to trade were tied up in other rights, but also because commerce had a vital role to play in the civilizing mission” (225).
>
>

Additionally, Morel and the CRA had financial gain lying in African free trade. In spite of this, Alexander makes the point that it “does not mean their motives were cynical or self-serving. They believed both parties would benefit” (229).

Although aspects of Morel’s actions were laced with good intention, the question really lies in, why? Freeing the Congo natives of Leopold was obviously the righteous course of action, plus CRA had the bonus of a financial gain for their efforts, but why was Morel so concerned with the government of a state that already had an established government? Morel and the CRA’s beliefs scream white savior complex. The concept of white saviorism is often discussed in terms of its appearance in films in books, in which a white person assumes a paternalistic view of people outside of their own race. In a review of the book *The White Savior: Content, Critics, and Consumption* author Andrew Tudor describes it as “the belief that it is the role of the benevolent white savior to rescue the (often exotically viewed) nonwhites from their own failures and from oppression” (2). There is no doubt Morel takes on this role, he even writes in his novel *Black Man’s Burden* that it was the ‘proper function’ of European colonialism in Africa to be the “trustee, and protector of the native people” (Alexander 231). Morel believed that he was above the indigenous people of Congo Free State and that they could not be successful without his help and the aid of colonialism. Despite the fact that these people already had established their own government, the Morel viewed the natives as uncivilized and in need of his reform.

The problem with this lies substantially in the use of the word ‘civilized’. Morel and the CRA’s definition of ‘civilized’ aligns with the European way of life, the way Europeans dress, interact, and go about their daily lives. In Morel’s eyes, “By essentially turning Africans into consumers of European goods, they would become more civilised” (Alexander 228). He sees the natives of the Congo Free State, ultimately, as primitive. When in fact, what Morel defines as fundamental in terms ‘civilized’ is merely one definition. *Our History is the Future* by Nick Estes, a book that looks at the history of indigenous resistance in the US, includes a quote that applies to this situation from an older member of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, stating, “My people were civilized before the white came and we will be civilized and be here after the white man goes away (15). The indigenous way of living appears lesser in the eyes of Morel and CRA because the native people do not wear tuxedos or live in two-story homes. This alone is a significant driving factor as to why Morel wants to colonize the Congo-Free-State. When in actuality, what he views as primitive is simply a different way of living.

In the words of Audre Lorde, author of *Age, Race, Class and Sex: Women Redefining Difference*, racism is “the belief in the inherent superiority of one race over all others and thereby the right to dominance” (115). While you could argue that Morel and the CRA may not align with the ‘right to dominance’ portion of this definition, once again referring back to their annexing of a leader who no doubt does, Morel had some questionable ideas when it came to African land. He thought the Congo Free State would “always remain unsuitable for European colonisation” because he had “accepted the idea that certain races were better suited for certain environments than others” (Alexander 223). It makes one wonder if the climate of African land was more ‘suited’ for a white person if Morel would still have been a huge advocate of the natives “right to dispose freely of their own labour, their right to freedom of their daily movements, their rights over their very bodies!” (Alexander 225). Morel’s enthusiasm for the Congo Free State’s personal benefits of participating in free trade seem less legitimate when framed by his beliefs about the inhospitality of African land for the white man.

Additionally, the woman of great influence in Morel’s life, Mary Kingsley, had her own, similarly troubling take on this subject. In Kingsley's work *West African Studies* she writes,

> “If you were to-morrow to kill every native there, what use would the country be to you? No one else but the native can work its resources; you cannot live in it and colonise it. It would, therefore, be only an extremely interesting place for the zoologist, geologist, or mineralist, but a place of no good to any one else in England” (Alexander 224).
>
>

At face value, Kingsley appears to be an extraordinary woman for her time. In *Mary Kinglsey: A Different Type of Feminist* author Crystal A. Bartelt writes, “Mary Kingsley is one such woman that was breaking the mold of a Victorian woman” (2). Kinglsey traveled the world and invested in her own education, she challenged the stereotype that women of the early 1900s desired a husband and children. She lived during the first feminist movements in England, a period which many began to question gender roles and advocate for women’s rights to vote. Despite these change of times, however, Kinsley “was adamant that she was not a supporter of the feminist movement” (Bartelt 26). The movement that merely advocated for “basic legal rights for women” (An). In addition, she held some aforementioned, very prejudicial views when it came to race. Kinglsey’s existence and her lifestyle might have been a bit revolutionary, but her world views lacked the same progressiveness.

As a whole, this essay focuses largely on the intersection of racism and classism in regards to E.D. Morel’s views of the indigenous people of the Congo Free State. In many instances, intersectionality focuses on the disadvantages the overlap of sexism, racism, and classism have on minority groups. In this case, however, one could argue that the people of the Congo Free State are rewarded by Morel’s misconstrued views, as he ultimately frees them of a tyrant leader. In reality, however, Morel is not a hero. In some sense, you could perhaps call him an ally, but what fits the bill is he’s just a man with a white savior complex. Yes, Morel does something incredibly good for the natives of the Congo Free State. But giving a community *their* land back and freeing them of an abusive dictator, while a strenuous ordeal, should just be common courtesy. In addition, helping people develop a free trade system, mostly because you believe of your own race cannot colonize their land due to the warm climate, is not really a favor either.

## Work Cited

1. “A Brief History of Black Feminism.” Blackfeminisms.Com, 13 Aug. 2016, https://www.blackfeminisms.com/black-feminism/.
2. Alexander, Nathan G. “E.D. Morel (1873-1924), the Congo Reform Association, and the History of Human Rights.” Britain & the World, vol. 9, no. 2, Sept. 2016, pp. 213–35. EBSCOhost, doi:10.3366/brw.2016.0238.
3. An, Tara. “A Brief Summary Of The First Wave Of Feminism.” Feminism In India, 23 Apr. 2018, https://feminisminindia.com/2018/04/24/summary-first-wave-of-feminism/.
4. Bartelt, Crystal A. Mary Kingsley: A Different Type of Feminist. 2008. McIntyre Library, University of Wisconsin Eau Claire, https://minds.wisconsin.edu/bitstream/handle/1793/31752/Bartelt.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y
5. Estes, Nick. Our History Is the Future. 2019. Verso, https://www.versobooks.com/books/2953-our-history-is-the-future.
6. “First Wave Feminism.” BCC Feminist Philosophy, https://bccfeministphilosophy.wordpress.com/tag/first-wave-feminism/.
7. Lorde, Audre. Age, Race, Class and Sex: Women Redefining Difference. 1984. Crossing Press, https://www.socialism.com/drupal-6.8/sites/all/pdf/class/Lorde-Age%20Race%20Class%20and%20Sex.pdf.
8. Tudor, A. The White Savior Film: Content, Critics, and Consumption. Social Forces, [s. l.], v. 94, n. 4, p. 1–3, 2016. DOI 10.1093/sf/sou121. Disponível em: https://search-ebscohost-com.cobalt.champlain.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=115226852&site=ehost-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 24 abr. 2020.