Slog
News & ArtsMonday, January 17, 2011
History Today in the History of American Imperialism
Posted by Charles Mudede on Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 11:09 AM
World Socialist Web Site:
On the night of January 17, 1961, Patrice Lumumba, who had been elected prime minister of the Congo only months earlier, was secretly shot by a firing squad with the approval and collaboration of Belgium and the US. Two of Lumumba’s associates, Maurice Mpolo and Joseph Okito, were also executed.When you talk about the Congo, about its misery and mountains of crime, do not miss this and other important parts of its sad history. When you talk about American greatness, to not miss and other important parts of its brief but brutal historyLumumba had been removed from his jail in Thysville earlier in the day and transported, bound and gagged, to Katanga province. The firing squad was organized and overseen by Belgian officers, and at least one CIA agent was involved.
4
I am so glad that now that the mean old CIA moved on, the Congo has become the world's fairest and most stable democracy...rivaling Sweden for its peaceful and prosperous lifestyle.
6
@4 God, to be you and float in a timeless void without cause or effect. You sit in the first world, and wonder why hungry people in the third don't just hop in their car, and drive to the Seven Eleven and buy some Twinkies.
History matters fucktard.
History matters fucktard.
7
Along with Rousseau, Camus, Chico Marx, Genghis Khan and Sholem Aleichem, Lumumba was name-checked by none other than Rick Rubin's new BF, Neil Diamond (in his old song "Done Too Soon").
8
Good Morning Charles,
I Agree. I tend not to miss (that is I read about) the other side of American Imperialism and its fallout. FTR, I am aware of the then nascent CIA's involvement in the overthrow of elected Pres. Arbenz of Guatemala in the 50s & most famously in the deposing of Pres. Allende of Chile in 1973 among other "incidents".
Yes, wrong. And, I don't justify them but it was the era of Superpowers pitted against each other & possible Mutual Assured Destructution (MAD) and the Cold War being played out in proxy battles in far flung developing countries. Another age. All of the parties have/had blood on their hands. Our Allies & our adversaries. The Great Game is quite ugly.
Look Charles, I don't necessarily advocate breaking the law to get a point or policy across no matter how "righteous" it is. But, sometimes some "means" are justified. In this same vein or logic one might want to consider this:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/201…
The extra-judicial killing of an American citizen? Pres. Obama knows this. The stakes are quite high and different. Yet, is this too different from Pres. Bush's actions? Is this not an example of American imperialism?
I won't compare the hell that is currently in Congo with American (or Belgian in this case) Imperialism. I remain dubious that an assassination evidently authorized by Kennedy's CIA augered the dictatorship of Mubuto and the subsequent graphic Civil War from (1995-2005?) that by one estimate has about 3 million fatalites. Congo is still going through hell and I doubt it has anything to do with American or Belgian intervention.
BTW, I highly recommend this film:
http://www.zeitgeistfilms.com/film.php?d…
More...
I Agree. I tend not to miss (that is I read about) the other side of American Imperialism and its fallout. FTR, I am aware of the then nascent CIA's involvement in the overthrow of elected Pres. Arbenz of Guatemala in the 50s & most famously in the deposing of Pres. Allende of Chile in 1973 among other "incidents".
Yes, wrong. And, I don't justify them but it was the era of Superpowers pitted against each other & possible Mutual Assured Destructution (MAD) and the Cold War being played out in proxy battles in far flung developing countries. Another age. All of the parties have/had blood on their hands. Our Allies & our adversaries. The Great Game is quite ugly.
Look Charles, I don't necessarily advocate breaking the law to get a point or policy across no matter how "righteous" it is. But, sometimes some "means" are justified. In this same vein or logic one might want to consider this:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/201…
The extra-judicial killing of an American citizen? Pres. Obama knows this. The stakes are quite high and different. Yet, is this too different from Pres. Bush's actions? Is this not an example of American imperialism?
I won't compare the hell that is currently in Congo with American (or Belgian in this case) Imperialism. I remain dubious that an assassination evidently authorized by Kennedy's CIA augered the dictatorship of Mubuto and the subsequent graphic Civil War from (1995-2005?) that by one estimate has about 3 million fatalites. Congo is still going through hell and I doubt it has anything to do with American or Belgian intervention.
BTW, I highly recommend this film:
http://www.zeitgeistfilms.com/film.php?d…
9
@5, don't be a jackass. Kennedy wasn't sworn in when Lumumba was killed, and that's the least of it. Look to Allen Dulles, aided by Eisenhower and his National Security Council, who sped up his plot to remove Lumumba by any means necessary before Kennedy took office and changed everything. Kennedy had no idea Lumumba was already dead when in one of his first acts he ordered a complete about-face in U.S. policy toward the Congo.
10
Ah, you're correct, Gus. Here's a tip: Don't rely on your own memory for details like that. While I remember his inauguration, I would have sworn it was 1960.
11
@8: I'd put part of the blame for Congo's hell on Belgium. Especially 19th century Belgium.
You can't unleash that level of brutality on a population and then entirely wash your hands of it. The ripple effects of a violent colonization are lasting. (See King Leopold's Ghost.)
But more recently murdering or deposing a democratically-elected leader generally doesn't exactly help a country, either. Look what happened to Iran after we decided to force the Shah back in.
When you remove a country's leader by force and strip the democratic process of its power, how do you think future leaders are likely to come in? (And, heck, how do you think the puppet leaders will act to prevent those future leaders from overthrowing them?)
You can't unleash that level of brutality on a population and then entirely wash your hands of it. The ripple effects of a violent colonization are lasting. (See King Leopold's Ghost.)
But more recently murdering or deposing a democratically-elected leader generally doesn't exactly help a country, either. Look what happened to Iran after we decided to force the Shah back in.
When you remove a country's leader by force and strip the democratic process of its power, how do you think future leaders are likely to come in? (And, heck, how do you think the puppet leaders will act to prevent those future leaders from overthrowing them?)
12
No worries, 5280. Chilling that Kennedy so clearly signaled a change in the wind to try slowing Dulles down, but instead it just sped him up.
14
@11,
I read "King Leopold's Ghost" by Adam Hochild(?) many years ago. A chilling book. And yes, Belgium is somewhat accountable. But, I believe the dictatorship of Mubuto was more accountable. I lived for 6-7 weeks in Bukavu, Kivu Province, Zaire (as the country was then know as). His corruption was rapacious and widely known. In one speech, he actually instructed his audience on how to embezzle money. He probably died a billionaire.
In addition, Congo's history is more complicated than it seems. The UN intervened during the "Katanga Crisis" when that SE province attempted to secede largely d/t its plethora of minerals (copper, tungsten, cobalt & gold). Congo was bloodied before Joseph Mubuto seized power.
Yes, it was an example of a "proxy battle" fought between the Soviet Union and the Western Bloc (ie. Communist vs. Capitalist). And, I don't doubt it added to some of the protracted trauma that that unfortunate country has endured.
I believe you have a point regarding "removing a leader forcibly and stripping the country of the democratic process". However, the dictatorship of Mubuto and the ensuing civil war are responsible to this day for some if not a majority of Congo's misery and turmoil. The assassination of Patrice Lumumba occurred more than 50 years. Today the young President Joseph Kabila and son of the assassinated Laurent Kabila needs all the help he can get. He does't appear to be authoritarian but he is held accountable for Congo's future.
I read "King Leopold's Ghost" by Adam Hochild(?) many years ago. A chilling book. And yes, Belgium is somewhat accountable. But, I believe the dictatorship of Mubuto was more accountable. I lived for 6-7 weeks in Bukavu, Kivu Province, Zaire (as the country was then know as). His corruption was rapacious and widely known. In one speech, he actually instructed his audience on how to embezzle money. He probably died a billionaire.
In addition, Congo's history is more complicated than it seems. The UN intervened during the "Katanga Crisis" when that SE province attempted to secede largely d/t its plethora of minerals (copper, tungsten, cobalt & gold). Congo was bloodied before Joseph Mubuto seized power.
Yes, it was an example of a "proxy battle" fought between the Soviet Union and the Western Bloc (ie. Communist vs. Capitalist). And, I don't doubt it added to some of the protracted trauma that that unfortunate country has endured.
I believe you have a point regarding "removing a leader forcibly and stripping the country of the democratic process". However, the dictatorship of Mubuto and the ensuing civil war are responsible to this day for some if not a majority of Congo's misery and turmoil. The assassination of Patrice Lumumba occurred more than 50 years. Today the young President Joseph Kabila and son of the assassinated Laurent Kabila needs all the help he can get. He does't appear to be authoritarian but he is held accountable for Congo's future.
15
@14 - Umm, Mobutu was involved with the CIA-sponsored coup that resulted in Lumumba's arrest and eventual assassination. Without support from the CIA, Mobutu may never have had the resources to seize power and would never have had the chance to fuck up the Congo for 30+ years. So the argument could be made that Mobutu's reign was a consequence of US involvement.
16
@15. History is more complicated than "Without support from the CIA, Mobutu may never have had the resources to seize power and would never have had the chance to fuck up the Congo for 30+ year." The Congo is barely a country, an arbitrarily set boundary around land seized during colonialism by King Leopold. The bloodshed and destruction of the Congo is well documented and horrifying.
As to American involvement, we definitely made things worse. But it was not the CIA creating an enormous scheme to supplant a socialist leaning president with a brutal dictator. The Congo began to fall apart as soon as it was created. The hundreds of ethnic, tribal, and cultural differences led to (most notably) the Southern provinces to rebel. The CIA supporting Mobutu was based on their goal of finding someone who was 1) anti-communist and 2) capable (or brutal) enough to hold the country together. Once the Cold War ended, the US cut off support.
Finally, it is worth noting that the event that set off the CIA coup was Lumumba threatening to bring in the Russian military to retake control of the break-away regions. Is there any reason to believe that the Soviet influence would have been any better? Do we really think the Soviet army would have simply walked away from the Congo after going in?
As to American involvement, we definitely made things worse. But it was not the CIA creating an enormous scheme to supplant a socialist leaning president with a brutal dictator. The Congo began to fall apart as soon as it was created. The hundreds of ethnic, tribal, and cultural differences led to (most notably) the Southern provinces to rebel. The CIA supporting Mobutu was based on their goal of finding someone who was 1) anti-communist and 2) capable (or brutal) enough to hold the country together. Once the Cold War ended, the US cut off support.
Finally, it is worth noting that the event that set off the CIA coup was Lumumba threatening to bring in the Russian military to retake control of the break-away regions. Is there any reason to believe that the Soviet influence would have been any better? Do we really think the Soviet army would have simply walked away from the Congo after going in?
17
Lumumba was an idealist. He had enormous faith in people, so much so that he thought he could reason with the various Congolese factions. I have respect for the man, but I wouldn't want him governing even a peaceful, stable country, let alone a powder keg like Zaire. He would've wound up exiled or dead even if the U.S. had stayed the fuck out of it.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
All You Motherfuckers Complaining That aPodments Are Too Small at 200 Square Feet by Dominic Holden
-
SL Letter of the Day: Did You Think I Was Going To Tell You Not To Come Out? (PLUS: Help Free Kate!) by Dan Savage
-
Rightwing Anti-Gay French Activist Commits Suicide at Notre Dame Cathedral by Dan Savage
-
It's Spring! Who's Ready for Street Harassment? by Cienna Madrid
-
Spoiled Rotten: Star Trek Into Darkness by Paul Constant
-
America's Epidemic of Toddler-on-Toddler Gun Violence Continues by Goldy
-
Well-Regulated Beaverton Militia Accidentally Fires Shot into Neighbor's Bedroom by Goldy
-
Slog Overnight by Dan Savage
-
Saint Genet Re-Creates "Shoot" by Brendan Kiley
-
There Are No Atheists In Foxholes by Dan Savage
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (17) RSS