Talk:Pre-colonial history of the Democratic Republic of the Congo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Untitled

  • Luba, Maravi, Lunda etc

im actually working on translating the german version of the article which i believe includes extensives info on those groups, are you planning on including some info on them on the page?--Gozar 23:51, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

de:Geschichte der Demokratischen Republik Kongo seems to have lots of info that the english version could use. i just left the above as a note in case i worked on it in the future. no immediate plans to though. so feel free to add stuff about those groups. looks like we have similar interests - the DRC articles all need a lot of work. - Xed 00:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i updated using (or attempted to anyway) a translation of the german version on the kuba and luba as well as the upemba, but for whatever reason info on the maravi and the lunda didnt get transferred into my translation (i deleted a bunch of stuff and it'd been a while since i actually looked at the translated text since i started working on it). anyway, i apparently lost some information on those groups, so ill look into that. i agree that there is certainly a lack of info (although there are African nations with even less info, the main page for Congo-Brazzaville is just horrendous) on the DRC, ive been attempting to update the main page and related articles fairly obsessively and collaboration based on our similar interests would definately be beneficial!--Gozar 13:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV regarding colonization

We have to be careful not to call thing with the colonisation as the post of reference, i.e. post-colonization, pre-colonization. The history of the Congo shouldn't be build around the occupation/administration of the country by Europeans. (occupation and administration are a bit extreme but could be more accurate than colonization). The historian Ndaywel è Nziem suggests calling the periods: "ancient period", "colonization (exploitation and administration)", "indepedance" and etc... What do you think? ---moyogo

Since colonisation started in the late 19th century, i don't think the whole pre-colonial period can be called "ancient", though the "pre-colonial" section could be split into ancient and pre-colonial. - Xed 11:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Put yourself into a normal Congolese's shoes for a minute... The period before the 19th century has only two major parts. The second one being the develpment of local bantu societies. This has to have a name, whether we call it ancient or not. Relative to the actual time, I think it's ancient (from a Congolese point of view), then came colonization and modern time (as in more technology), not to confuse with what Europeans call their modern period. ---moyogo 17:35, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
I think I see what you mean. In fact, when I came up with the title
Early Congolese History - Xed 17:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

i think 'Early Congolese History' has a nice ring to it, ulimately im going to be for anything that makes the articles less centered around European colonization, i just could not conceive of how it would be done. that said, renaming "pre-colonial" to "Early Congolese History" seems like a good first step. also, more Congolese input is definately needed, but i assume that this is also unlikely due to a lack of internet accessibility in the country. i guess the question now is, who wants to do all the changing of names!? (if you agree, that is)--Gozar 18:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article name changed to
Early Congolese History. I think we need a post-Second Congo War article soon too. The French wikipedia has one. Also, the history section on this page needs to be smaller, while the History of the Democratic Republic of the Congo page could do with being a little longer - Xed 20:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

yeah, the article on the main page is mostly pasted material from the section on the kongo. i think we should condense the section on the Kongo, as well as add info on the kuba, luba, and other groups (which Xed mentioned on the Early History talk page) so we may want to make it slightly longer to accomadate for more information.i definately want to make it fairly thourough to make up for the lack of information on the period as opposed to the post-colonial period. as Moyogo said, a lot of emphasis should be put on this section because it will be the only one containing much information on the country as a nation not defined solely by the European portion of its history. Congolese history certainly did not begin with the arrival of Europeans and I think this needs to drive that point home.--Gozar 00:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do the colonial names of the cities really have to be in the main article? Should there be a different article or in the articles about each city? Who still uses those names nowdays? How are they relevant on the main article about the whole country? ---moyogo 10:00, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Renaming is within living memory, so I think it makes sense to keep those names, especially when talking about the free state and belgian congo time period. - Xed 11:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, although i understand exactly where you're coming from (i put up most of the pre-colonial history, there was NOTHING there before, which was naturally just disgusting) i cant really come up with anything else to call the period. the fact of the matter is the area's history is split between two periods with a sharp dividing line: pre-colonial and post-colonial. and if you really read the whole page(i'm not saying you didnt, just pointing it out), it's pretty obvious that the brutality of European rule is definately not being glossed over.--Gozar 13:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying we should change everything, it's just that we could try to have a less european centered history or version of the article. I think we need more congolese contributing here ---moyogo 17:35, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I want to make a remark: please mind that there is a big difference between The Congo Free state-period and the Congo colonisation-period. During The Congo Free state, King Leopold II was the personal owner of the Congo, the Belgian Government had nothing to say there. Many reports, testimonies,... indicated that life situations improved very well when Belgium took over the Congo from its king.

Btw, the old names of the cities are still used somethimes in reports, etc. So I'm sure it's necessary to keep them in the article.

Early Congolese history

im seriously considering an earlier suggestion that the Early Congolese History should be split in two(at least on the main page) with one section one pre-/ancient history and one with a title similar to the one on the Early Congolese page (On the Eve of Colonial Rule doesnt seem academic enough for its own section on the main page). i will likely wait for the input of others before updating. also, i created the geography, politics, and wildlife sections for the main page and havent had much feedback. if anyone could let me know what they think (i feel like i have a tendency to add a lot of unneccessary information) it would be appreciated. thanks. --Gozar 00:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've no strong feelings either way about splitting the early history section. the geog , politics, and wildlife sections are good. wildlife should probably be renamed "flora and fauna" (see South Africa and Australia), shortened, and made broader in scope. the full length version of wildlife could go in a separate articles - 'fauna in the drc' and 'flora in the drc'- Xed 10:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Someone said that you wanted some Congolese input here. I wonder why you all assumed that none of the people already here was Congolese. But if you want one extra, here I am. I like the title "Early Congolese History", much more considerate of the Congolese equal status in the human family (as opposed to being some savages who were lost until the mighty colonizer came to give them a meaning, and a purpose). I am also for plumping up the separate "main articles", and streamlining some of the section on the main page.Themalau 10:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


ambiguity with other Congo

The title Early Congolese history could be for either of the Congos. Is this article covering both Congos or just the DRC as it seems to be? ---moyogo 21:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit vague, but it's mainly DRC. Maybe it should be changed to "Early DRC history", but that would have other problems - like the DRC didn't exist then. - Xed 21:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not history!

Most of this article is actually about prehistory - i.e. the period that predates written records. TharkunColl 08:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with this strict definition of 'history'. History in its most common use just means 'how it was before now'. That's what this article is about. Besides, especially in the context of African nations for which 'written history' starts with the sparse notes on trade by West-Europeans, it doesn't make sense at all to call everything before that 'prehistory'. —
✎ 17:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Propose change title to "Precolonial history of the Democratic Republic of the Congo"

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Since two-thirds of it is "eve of colonial era", and covers events as recent as 1890s, which is hardly early. Rexparry sydney 13:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to deal quite consistently with history before the European conquest, in this case by Leopold. It seems somewhat silly to divide the history of the Congo by the present boundary along the river; why not move to "History of the Congo basin" and expand to include any kingdom now omitted in the present territory of Congo-Brazzaville? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's part of a Democratic Republic of the Congo Series as indicated by the History of DR Congo infobox and would have to be taken out of that if expanded to include Republic of Congo and Cabinda. Rexparry sydney 03:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to agree with PMAnderson here. It doesn't seem like a good idea to parse information on prehistory retroactively based on very recently-set national boundaries. Dekimasuよ! 06:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, just add it to infoboxes on both countries, if they both exist.... (and Angola if necessary) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 09:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised the introduction accordingly, would one of you now add the Congo-Brazzaville and Cabinda coverage. Thanks. Rexparry sydney 12:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this link reprints much of a paper from Phylon ("The Old Congo", by John Henrik Clarke; Phylon , Vol. 23, No. 1. (1st Qtr., 1962), pp. 61-65. JSTOR which should be useful. I am out of my field here, but if I'll be back to do something with this, if noone else does. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

question on Upemba section

I'm just passing through and have no deep knowledge of the historical issues so I'm mostly just doing a copy edit -- expanded one reference which otherwise was a dead link, etc... Anyway, I understand and agree with some of the concerns expressed above but have no solution to propose. Just wanna say "The 5th century saw this societal evolution develop in the area around present day Kamilamba at the Kabambasee, which was followed and replaced by a number of other cultures which were based around the cities of Sanga and Katango." contains four (4) redlinks, which is usually undesirable unless the point is to strongly indicate that there *should* be an article. I am however unable to identify these places with certitude so I'm just noting the issue here. For instance does Katango=Katanga? Don't think I should guess and it's peripheral to the research I am doing as I edit. So. Should be fix, imho. Elinruby (talk) 01:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pre-colonial history of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article Quality

This article is terrible, frankly. Good lord! Makes lots of claims, no sources, no citations, nothing. Sounds really POV. 2404:4402:3A1F:7C00:7982:AB26:1EFE:F97C (talk) 05:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pre-colonial_history_of_the_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo&oldid=1195358474"