BlackFor30
Liberation is a philosophy that must first exist in our minds before manifesting through our actions.
BlackFor30
Black in Time: Who was Patrice Lumumba?
Explore the rise and tragic fall of Patrice Lumumba, a beacon of the black movement and a nationalist leader whose dreams of an independent Congo were thwarted by internal strife, Belgian interference, and Cold War geopolitics. Join us as we unravel the profound implications of Belgian colonisation on Congo and how artificially imposed borders still affect the fabric of Congo and modern Africa.
As we contrast the transition of African societies from communal systems to those influenced by colonial feudalism and European capitalism, we delve into how European imperialists exploited Africa. By focusing on Lumumba’s efforts to unite diverse ethnic groups through the Mouvement National Congolais, we highlight the crucial lessons for modern African leaders. From Lumumba's impactful speeches to the challenges of unifying diverse groups, this episode offers a comprehensive look at the struggle for sovereignty and identity amidst colonial manipulation.
We scrutinise the geopolitical entanglements of the Cold War, the exploitation by foreign powers, and Belgium's symbolic actions to accept responsibility. Reflect with us on the necessity of genuine reparations and reconciliation, and the ongoing relevance of Lumumba’s legacy in contemporary Congo. Tune in for a thought-provoking discussion that not only revisits historical events but also questions their lasting impact on Congo today.
Host:
Fungai Mutsiwa
Co-host:
Sean Solole
BlackFor30 is a place for exploring Pan-African theory and praxis through discourse. Send us your thoughts and questions @blackfor30 or via email at admin@blackfor30.com.
Support BlackFor30
At BlackFor30, we believe that liberation begins in the mind and manifests through action. Your donation helps us amplify Afrocentric perspectives, foster critical conversations, and create initiatives that challenge narratives and inspire change. Together, we can keep the mission alive and impactful. Thank you for being part of this journey.
This is maybe for a future African leader out there. The idea really is that, like you know, as you're trying to bring all these different ethnic groups together, is to first understand the people you're speaking to. Right, because ultimately, I believe we generally all want the same thing, but how we want to go about it, or how we understand the problem, is what's different.
Speaker 2:I have a dream today. Is it too much to ask you to grant us human dignity? Who taught you to hate the texture of your hair? Who taught you to hate the color of your skin to such extent that you bleach?
Speaker 1:For so many, many years, we were told that only white people were beautiful. You're afraid that if you give us equal ground, that we will match you and we will override you.
Speaker 2:Black is beautiful, freehood Say it out. Black is beautiful, free. Say it out loud, free.
Speaker 1:Free, which means don't forget who you are or where you came from. Welcome to Black for 30. Thank you for coming through and joining us in another discussion on Black for 30. And, of course, before the episode begins, we just need to observe 15 seconds of just being quiet, just so you know you can wrap up whatever it is you're doing doing, and then we can fully engross ourselves in this discussion to come. So the 15 seconds starts now.
Speaker 1:Today's discussion is on patrice lumumba's legacy, so highlighting the complex forces that shaped congo's post-colonial struggles, particularly when you look at foreign exploitation and internal divisions.
Speaker 1:So we'll begin with belgian colonization and how that laid the groundwork. So part of that, we'll be talking about lumumba's rise as a nationalist leader who worked towards, you know, uniting an independent congo, and that includes the eternal conflicts that were going on around that time, such as katanga's secession and the cold war dynamics and how that, you know, eventually led to his downfall. Um, and speaking of his downfall, we'll obviously talk about his assassination, and you know how that showed the lengths to which imperialists went to protect their interests. So our conversation will show how this history continues to affect congo today, and it raises a lot of critical questions about reparations, reconciliation and the ongoing exploitation of congo. Um, you know. So, contrary to what a lot of people might think, uh, congo has been in a lot of strife. You know well before the, I guess, like recent Instagram fame or spotlight that it's been receiving. And with that to my co-host, welcome to this movement of consciousness that is Black for 30.
Speaker 2:Thank you. Thank you, good to be back again, as usual.
Speaker 1:This is definitely my I mean, I as usual. This is definitely my favorite. I love our series, though, because I enjoy having to focus on an individual and really get to understand the context of a lot of these historical figures, to know what was going on in and around their time, because you draw a lot of parallels to today as well At least I do.
Speaker 2:Oh, yeah, no, definitely. And the thing about, I guess, these specific people that we choose, they do epitomise, you know, the black movement at a specific time in history and because, obviously, you know, due to the systems and countries that we live in, like you know, that's not something that is readily information that's readily available to us. So it's always interesting now, I guess you know, to be able to have the time and the resources to look at, you know, the people who shaped our country, whether it's for a greater good or, you know, for the bad. So, yeah, it's a good series. I like it as well.
Speaker 1:And I'm thinking the best place to start our conversation is to give people the backdrop of, you know, everything that was happening before Lumumba, I guess, like what was happening before Lumumba came onto the scene and then you know, up till his assassination. So of course we'd start with, you know, colonization, right, where Belgium had imposed arbitrary borders that disregarded ethnic identities, so that forced a lot of hostile groups together and also split others that shared cultural ties. For example, I recently learned of how the Kingdom of Congo spanned parts of Angola, gabon and Western DRC, so they called the Luba and the Lunda kingdoms. In Katanga they operated independently, with distinct networks. So the Congo that we know of that time and Katanga were actually not even. You know, they shared no strong ties before the Belgians. So obviously those colonial borders merged these kingdoms into one entity, entity right.
Speaker 1:And at the time, you'd see, many african societies were transitioning as well from this communal to a feudal system, you know, shifting from collective ownership to a more hierarchical, based land of control, um, so control of land as well as, like you know, social classes as well. But with europe, europe was at a different stage of development, right, because they were coming out of feudalism and going into capitalism. So for them, private ownership and exploitation of the markets was basically their priority, right. So you had these European imperialists believe in. Well, of course they believed in the concept of imperialism. Believe in, well, of course they believed in the concept of imperialism. And that was through, you know, monopolies and and colonization, right. So a lot of them agreeing, a lot of their organized um corporations, and for them what was essential was to secure new markets and resources. Um, I remember reading something was quite interesting is it lenin's imperialism?
Speaker 2:I'm not familiar with that.
Speaker 1:Okay, yeah, so he wrote like a manifesto called I think it's called imperialism, and he in there he talks about cecil roads, which we are obviously both familiar with. Right how he argued that acquiring new colonies would solve issues of poverty in london. So by providing, providing markets for British goods and resettling surplus populations, that would allow them to also secure, you know, huge profits, because they would then control the resource extraction and be able to also manipulate the markets. Right.
Speaker 2:So basically controlling production through to sales and everything, and yeah, the whole, the whole line.
Speaker 1:You know, and one of the many good examples of it in terms of how they were controlling the, the extraction portion of that as well is where about congo, and I think back in 2017, workers were earning about $6 per kilo of coltan, while the market price was 120. And that just kind of really paints the picture right. So, when you think of all those things, what does this say about the racism and tribalism narratives that have not only been institutionalized but also used as justification for you know, whether it's our current situation or just the exploitation that we went through?
Speaker 2:Look, I think that's the whole process. You know, where nowadays people, especially like the media portrays in Africans, as always in constant war, constant war. And I remember being younger and always, you know, wondering like, why is it that you know multiple groups always fighting, always fighting, Like, how does that work? Like you know you're in the same country. Like you know your disagreements shouldn't be to the level where you're just killing each other off right, and I used to think that it was. It was something so trivial, so so crazy. And then, you know, the older you get, the more like, the more.
Speaker 2:I realized that, hang on, when you looked at, like, af African society prior to colonisation. Right, we didn't do borders. That's the start. We weren't too worried about borders because, firstly, they don't mean anything, because just because you say there should be a border doesn't automatically mean that it's just going to spring up in the earth and you know you can't pass it and blah, blah, blah. It's nonsense.
Speaker 2:Right, africans in general were not really like, yes, you would have a place where you're traditionally rooted, but that didn't mean that you were stuck there. So, you know, you could set up your home wherever you felt. You know that was your home. It was more of a nomadic lifestyle. You felt, you know, that was your home. It was more of a nomadic lifestyle not not, you know, to to its full definition, but, um, you know, you, let's say, you were born in one area. Um, you know, as an adult you wanted to find your own way and, you know, set up your own life. So you'd move from there, you know, you'd move from those roots and then you'd go set up your own with your new family elsewhere, and then that became your home. Then you know what I mean. But that doesn't mean that you forgot where you're from or you didn't acknowledge that that's where you're from. It just meant that you went to set up your own life and chart your own path.
Speaker 2:So when you fast forward to the scramble for Africa, which is where all the major colonial powers then just decided this is what we're going to do, and I think I've mentioned it before where, you know, I realised just the cunning and the well, I'll say, the deviousness, I guess, in that scramble, in that they didn't just look at where they would, you know, best, carve out, you know, the most out of whatever area that they chose. They looked at who was around them and then they said, look, we need to be able to control these guys. So let's pit a few of these groups against each other, right? Groups that generally had either zero dealings with one another or they had great dealings with one another. But you know, there were separate kingdoms, because that's what they were called back then, um, kind of like in zimbabwe, the roji empire, you know. And then you had a few others around, like the zulus and all that. Right, they existed, coexisted.
Speaker 2:Every now and again a skirmish would break out, which is natural because we're all people, but for the most part, you know, there was symbiosis there in that you leave me alone, I leave you alone, and then when we need to work with each other, we will. So, when you know, when the whole colonialist system started sort of springing up in different areas, what they would do is they would. Colonialist system started sort of springing up in different areas, what they would do is they would, instead of again them being, you know, the colonial powers, let's say England being, you know, at the head of the government, you know, locally, provincially, they would just have one governor and then you know, the chiefs would, you know, report to him, right, so what they were creating was a buffer between them and the general population. So instead of it being a class war, it became a culture war, if that makes sense, where, instead of you seeing, you know, the rulers as being the problem or the colonialists as being the problem, you're now worried about middle management. Who? Who are people that look like you.
Speaker 2:So when you mentioned, you know, like the places, like the Katanga province, which was its own separate thing, that's, like you know, the most mineral rich area in the Congo, right?
Speaker 2:So of course the Belgians' interest is going to be there and that's what they wanted to protect the most. So they were, you know, in favour of that area being sovereign or whatever else they wanted, as opposed to the rest of the Congo where they say you guys can rule there, but we keep this. So I guess, looking at that, you know it was a successful system in that it still has pretty much all of Africa mired down in some sort of tribal problems that you know were non-existent prior to colonization. And it's worked so well to, I guess, portray Africa as a continent that's constantly being impoverished, constantly under war, a coup happens, you know, every other day that's constantly being impoverished, constantly under war. A coup happens, you know, every other day, but that's, you know, that's because it was by design. And I think we're only now just realizing that these guys played the long game. And, you know, we're only slowly catching up to it now.
Speaker 1:And I actually think, like there's a part of me that thinks that they didn't even know just how deep this was going to go, right. So the way we're doing these things, like you know, you were talking about how they intentionally designed, you know. So, essentially, you know this was a, they constructed it, right. So, and you know, to what you were saying was non-existent before, like there was yeah, so, and to what you were saying was non-existent before, like there was a part where Belgians were introducing ethnicity identity cards, right.
Speaker 1:Yeah so they were basically categorizing people based on how them, the Belgians, perceived the ethnic origins of the Congolese right? So they were enforcing segregation based on that, and they would assign specific roles and territories to different groups. And, of course, to what you're saying before, part of it would be to use brutal methods and policies to reinforce those ethnic hierarchies, right? So part of it would mean um, you know, you're now being tortured or, you know, in some cases, sexually violated by someone who looks just like you, right? So it's difficult for me to be mad at my oppressor when the most immediate danger to me that, or at least what I perceive to be the most immediate danger is, you know, the, the person that looks just like me, right?
Speaker 2:yeah, and that's wherein lies, again, the, the, the deviousness and the genius as well, in that the belgians got out spot free. Right to this day, they're still controlling vast levels of minerals and resources coming out of there. De Beers is based, either, I think, in Belgium, but I don't know if Belgium ever mined a diamond in their life. Same as Israel, they're the third largest importer or second largest, but again, I didn't know that Israel had diamonds. So there was a lot of interested parties who are happy to maintain this chaos because it means again filling their pockets. What you were saying before regarding, you know, control of production all the way through to sales that's, you know that's to be is down to a t. They control the production of the diamonds, they control the flow of them. You know how much is in uh rotation, how much they cost everything. So start to finish. This is. You know the result, it.
Speaker 2:And that's when you mention people like Cecil Rhodes. We know that he's had that dream of maintaining, you know, the British Empire. These were his words, verbatim that you know he wants to see the empire flourish even well after his death. That's why that's pretty much the main reason why the Rhodes Scholarship exists. I know people believe it to be this, you know, educational scholarship right, or they think it to be that. That's why a lot of Africans are like, oh, he's a Rhodes scholar, blah, blah, blah. But I look, congratulations. Obviously, you know you're an intelligent person and you know you're getting, I guess, recognized for that.
Speaker 2:But it's that scholarship is for different reasons. It's due to, you know, a certain group of people's need to maintain a certain ideology that's pertinent, you know, only to the British Empire or only to white interests. That then you know, I guess, has rebranded. You know, to look at it that way, to be able to offer, you know, black people, asians, whoever else, way, to be able to offer you know, black people, asians, whoever else, an opportunity to be a Rhodes Scholar. It still has that prestige to it. But certain people there, you know, they're still elevated to certain positions in certain companies, depending on, obviously, the year of your skin. So these are very much the systems that were still a part of that were started from back then, you know people may say, oh, those people died, but colonialism just changed names.
Speaker 1:I just want to go back to like what you were talking about before, about the idea of identity, right? So do you think the answer for achieving national solidarity begins with the Congolese? And you know greater Africa as well, learning about the pre-colonial history of Congo and conscientizing ourselves about the actions and intentions of Belgians on. You know both social and political dynamics.
Speaker 2:Oh for sure. Look, not just, not just Congo, but the whole of Africa. I think I would say for me personally, you know, because of all these years of research and looking into all these different systems, I am of the belief that we should do away with those national borders in Africa Like those are inconsequential because they do not really afford any sort of benefits to Africans. Correct, If you look at any region in Africa, you notice that people don't just speak one language, unless you know they're. I don't know from a remote village where they just live one language, unless you know they're. I don't know from a remote village where they just live by themselves and, you know, don't really venture out.
Speaker 2:Most people are bilingual or trilingual or, you know, multilingual. Right, they speak two, three, four, five different languages. And that's due to the fact that you know like people move around, they don't just stay in one spot. You have in Zimbabwe, for example, you have a lot of Malawians who live in Zimbabwe and Zambians who live in Zimbabwe, South Africans who live in Zimbabwe and vice versa, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Zambia, Malawi, everywhere else. But that doesn't mean that, you know, it's not a different feeling, it's not like you're so far away from home. It's people that know you, that speak the language too, and they understand it. And you know we, we're not separated by much, so that identity is what you carry with you. It's not a physical place, right?
Speaker 2:yes, a physical place may aid in that idea, it exists and it aids in. You know a say look, this is where we began our ideas, our culture. But culture is not a place, it's the people, it's how you express yourselves as a group of people, and that can go anywhere.
Speaker 1:It's not rigid.
Speaker 2:Yeah, so you know, borders mean nothing. All they do is confine and constraint, right. But these are imaginary borders. But we've been conditioned to believe that just because someone holds a different passport or a different country to you, they look like you, you probably speak similar language or, if not, the same language. But just because you're on one side and they're the other, is now all of a sudden this divide, and that's why you know xenophobia, so it's so big, especially, um, I don't know if you've seen like lately, between south africans and nigerians it's been heating up quite like it was humorous at first, but now it's it's. It's sad how it's like you know, blown up into this massive thing, all because of a Miss Universe pageant. So they were mad that a South African-born woman of Nigerian and Mozambican parentage who was born and lived there her whole life, but because of where her parents are from, they wanted to disqualify her and then a white person goes and wins the thing.
Speaker 2:I think that has to be like the greatest joke out of all of this. You know what I mean, and that's again. That's a lack of identity. Now we're losing who we are as a people. Right, southern africans have a lot more in common amongst each other than you know any other a group of people, but that doesn't mean that just because they're from nigeria or whatever, they're not african like. We all look the same, at the very least, and if you go back far enough, we all shared similar language. You know we are part of the bantu people right which came from again west africa. Yeah, and here we are now thousands, the Bantu people right which came from again West Africa, yeah.
Speaker 2:And here we are now, thousands of years later, all of a sudden. It's almost as if, oh okay, you know, just because borders exist now we just immediately leave that alone. So there definitely needs to be a lot of unlearning about, you know, just that colonial period, and a lot more learning of our history prior to that, in order to, I think, to reinstill that, that identity of who we are as a people so I'd love to, I guess, look at the early life of Lumumba right.
Speaker 1:So part of his education was through missionary schools. So he was obviously exposed to Western values, but through that he also realized the contrast between the values and ethics that they were being taught in these schools versus the treatment of Congolese. So that stark inequality between how natives were treated versus the colonial elite was one of the things that really sparked the beginning of his political career.
Speaker 1:Right so like in 1958, that's where he founded the mnc mnc, yeah, yeah movement uh national national congolese, yeah yeah, it's in french, so so yeah yeah, you know, I guess, yeah, the national movement of congo, I guess, if you were an anglicized, yeah, yeah and so, yeah, um, and so mnc was basically a political party which is aimed at uniting, uh, the congolese, despite, you know, the different ethnic groups, and a lot of his work in the beginning was through articles, pamphlets and powerful speeches, right, um, yeah, and that brought him to becoming this leading figure of independence. Right, and I believe that one of the biggest threats, not only them, but today as well, um, to oppressive systems is the awakening of the masses, right, especially when we use our native tongues to inspire unity, you know, in pursuit of our liberation. So, what are your thoughts about, you know, lumumba and other African leaders as well, you know, but obviously, since we're talking about Lumumba, on using, you know, local languages to inspire solidarity between the different social classes and a fight against the colonial systems.
Speaker 2:Look, that's a very good strategy to use, because imagine you using the language of the oppressors to try and mobilize your own people. Like it's not going to land well, and again, that was the same with everyone else, with all the other African leaders. If you do not, you know, present yourself as one of the people, then you're not going to be trusted. It's a very quick, you know study in what not to do If you wanted to mobilize people. You don't use the language of the oppressors and then expect something different. It's a very in terms of I guess you know his way of organizing, you know the people. He did try to cast a very wide net and for a certain amount of time it worked. However, I feel that because that net was so wide, he didn't solidify enough of those people like to actually coalesce. What he just did, was it was? It was a loose bringing together of of groups of people who you know are still in, because you know, in the 50s, the belgians are still in charge. They're still very much in charge. This is just the beginning of that revolution. It's not even it's in its inf. So you know, the Belgians are still very much in charge. So the people are still very raw and are still going through. You know the colonial rule right.
Speaker 2:So what he failed to do, I think, was to really nail down like one single thing, like Pan-Africanism, for example. Yes, he was Pan-Africanist, but not to the level of, say, samora Machel or Kwame Nkrumah. He was a very politically moderate person. His stance was more on neutrality when it came to foreign policy, which I think sort of hurt him in that it didn't gather as many supporters who were like ardent supporters of him, as opposed to his other opponents.
Speaker 2:And I think that's one thing that separates him from other leaders is that he did not stand on his as much as the other ones did. He wanted, he really truly believed in the unity, which is a good thing, but that meant that he also allied with Europeans. So you know he went to he relied heavily on, you know, un involvement in a lot of issues that arose at the time. He went to the United States to ask for help, which you know. If he had any sort of I guess I would say trust issues when it came to the Americans and the Europeans, he would know that they were pretty much all trying to eliminate him in and around this time. You know that they were pretty much all trying to eliminate him in and around this time.
Speaker 2:You know, that was something unbeknownst to him. So he very much presented, you know he wanted to present as a unifying leader. But I feel like that didn't do him any favours and instead, you know, he left him open to a lot of, I guess, attacks and accusations, because one side believed he was a communist, the other side believed he was still very much, you know, one of the colonial pets. So he couldn't, you know, win either side.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and I think like it's. You know. You know, of course hindsight is always 20 20 right, but just thinking on that, there's like as a, for example, as a zimbabwean, as a, as a person from the shona tribe, if I'm to approach the debila people, you know, trying to coalesce them towards whatever common movement or struggle it may be, I should not make the mistake of assuming that what I think and feel is automatically what they do as well, because we live in the same country, right?
Speaker 1:our experiences are different, so I think, in as much as I can approach them and because of course you know nebula, a Ndebele, people speak, or at least understand Shona, right? So if I'm going to go to talk to them, you know there is also that I guess that, understanding that you're, you almost have to humble. You have to humble yourself to listen, to understand the people first, because you can't ignore the fact that all these tribal issues have existed and therefore they have led us to where we are today. So, in as much as we may talk about how these borders are socially constructed, well, the impact of those borders is real, right.
Speaker 1:So, yeah, this is maybe for a future african leader, right there, the idea really is that like you know, as you're trying to bring all these different ethnic groups together, is to first understand the people you're speaking to. Right, because ultimately we all I believe we generally all want the same thing, but how we want to go about it, or how we understand the problem, is what's different, you know. So I think being able to speak to each one of the groups in that sense kind of helps bring us together into the same place. You would previously just mentioned something about bel, or, I guess like, or America as well, like it got me to think about, like you know how there was a lot of global pressure that was going on at that time as well for the Belgian government Right For them to, or rather King Leopold right to free Congo, right.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:And so they decided to have a roundtable conference, and that was in 1960, right, yeah, 1960.
Speaker 1:They brought different Congolese leaders, of which Lumumba was included, within that, and that then set the stage for Congo's independence, right, which they achieved on the 30th of June that same year. So so, on independence day, right, I listened to lumumba speech, which is really dope, and it was just basically reminding congolese of the struggles that helped secure oh, sorry, they didn't help, but the struggles that secure, uh, they went through to secure their sovereignty, right, um, and we urged them to, you know, unite across the different ethnic differences to build a, to build one nation. Essentially, right, yeah, and he almost had, like this phrase that he left people with, which I think was really dope. You know, he was just saying no congolese worthy of his name will ever forget that it was through fighting that this freedom was won. You know, yeah, do you think Congo's state, despite its, you know, vast mineral wealth, shows not just the Congolese but also, you know, africans, our unwillingness to take bold action, unwillingness to take bold action to reclaim our resources from foreign imperialists or some of these African stooges and unpatriotic leaders.
Speaker 2:I don't think it's an unwillingness. What it is is trying to navigate within the confines of the remnants of that colonial system is, I think, probably a way I'd put it, because it's not that people don't want to, but they've closed themselves off to the way of thinking of what their ancestors did, in that we were very much, you know, autonomous, as you know, as different cultural groups, which you know goes back to what I was saying about the whole idea of borders being useless over there, because you could move wherever you wanted, you could do whatever you wanted, right. So there is when you look at the idea of autonomy, right, you have to understand that we. That means that you're thinking outside of the box. You want to break out from that system. That's not what these leaders are trying to do.
Speaker 2:For example, lumumba wanted to unite just one united Africa, in that you'd have leaders from those. Each group is represented. Everyone is autonomous. You have your province, you do whatever you want, but in that province, and then you come together as as Africa and say this is what we're doing. You have representatives from each place, right, kind of like an EU, but without the borders, yeah. So when you think of trying to break away from the West. They're trying to break away from the West but still maintain Western values, western ways of living. Now I don't mean, you know, go back to Hudson, all that sort of stuff, but what I mean is that if you're going to really yeah, we're too late for that.
Speaker 2:Yeah, look, we're in a modern stage, it is what it is. But when you try to break away from the United States, don't go to the UK thinking that they're going to help you, as opposed to the US, right? Or, if you look at it now, you know Russia and China are very much at the fore of developing, you know, or developing relationships with those breakaway African countries that want nothing to do with the West, which is, you know, in itself a good direction to head, because, again, we're in a society whereby we have to interact. Now we have things that they need, they have things that we need, but because of, you know, underdevelopment and whatever it's gone to, we are slowly trying to dig away out of this Western mentality. So, yeah, it's not, sadly, it's not an unwillingness, it's one there's's, you know, trying to maneuver within the system whilst talking about getting out of the system, so you can't really get out of it.
Speaker 2:If you're talking about maneuvering through it, you know what I mean. You have to truly separate, you need to sever certain bonds and and and start afresh and say enough's enough, we're going to suffer, but we have to do, you know, things differently. That's not what's happening. Two, you've also got to remember that we still have cowards and snitches within our ranks, people who are easily swayed by material positions, money, wealth, status, whatever that in and of itself. If you look at any of the African freedom movements, you've had snitches in there left, right and center. For Lumumba it was Mobutu. He had ties to the CIA, mi6 and other foreign intelligence services. The president, joseph Kasavuba as well, I think. He had also ties to certain foreign governments and a few other people. So you find that everyone is in fact acting of their own self-interest.
Speaker 1:That they were a Western sympathizer.
Speaker 2:Exactly so. They were, you know, indoctrinated into the Western ideology and they loved it. And unfortunately, of course, they're going to be put in a position of power because you're a good puppet. So we still have those people and we still have those snitches who gladly sell out anyone, including their mom, for, you know, a certain amount. So I think that is one of the largest contributors to, you know, the underdevelopment of Africa. It's not necessarily an unwillingness, but it's just there's so many obstacles put in place.
Speaker 2:And in this day and age, when you talk about, you know, the amount of money that is to be made from these endeavors, like it's a simple greed issue. Unfortunately, the sad thing is people want money. So that's why you know, you see all these companies that will lobby the hell out of any government to be able to destroy a certain area or or destroy a certain group of people to access their resources. You know, build a, a warehouse, a plant, a factory, whatever. They don't care what they have to do. They want to circumvent that, make as much money as possible, and you know, damned be the human cost.
Speaker 2:And the unfortunate thing is that humans are now for money rather than for other humans. Yeah, so, in effect it's. The sad reality of things is that we're more, I guess, attached to that greed which is part of the Western system. You know, the empire was to flourish and increase its profits and to increase its power and its hold over a group of people. Right, it's about control as well. So you can't have control without money, you can't have power without money.
Speaker 1:Two things you make me think about. Right, Like early on, you know you were talking about, you know, within and outside of the system. Right, and that's how I see the difference between reform versus revolution. Right, we have been looking at reform for so long and I think it's safe to say that that's failing, because a lot of the systems that we're operating within are designed to work exactly the way they're working, right.
Speaker 2:Yeah, exactly, yeah.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 1:So for me, I guess, especially having looked at a lot of our history, my interest is more towards revolution or revolutionary actions that actually show an attempt of something more radical, because we have been trying to better ourselves.
Speaker 1:But clearly there's so many elements that you then have to navigate, but there's always going to be a roadblock somehow some way right. And then on top of that, you've got the human problem, to what you were alluding to, right? People just being greedy, right, and a lot of leaders running the countries as if they're their own, but ultimately they are a civil servant. Regardless of whether you are the president or you're a council member, they're all civil servants and ultimately their job is to serve the people, right? So if the people are unhappy about a situation, then it's the people who need to stand up for themselves, especially when the system that we've put in place to represent us is failing us. Right, because for me and I know it's very, I guess you could you could say this as reductionist, right, but for me, to think about a scenario where one person is fucking up shit for millions, it's wild it comes back to the fact that we've somehow managed to allow politicians to really inflate their worth.
Speaker 2:And that's what they're good at. They're good at talking. They're good orators. I'm not going to lie, they'll whip up anyone into a frenzy at the drop of a hat. But when you really take a deeper look at politicians, you realize that we really do not need someone who just talks a lot. You just need people who do the job.
Speaker 2:If you ever look at any sort of like ministerial appointments, you ever notice that you know the people who are appointed to those portfolios have no idea what the hell is going on in there. All right, and that made me wonder. I was like look, if someone has no idea about the law, why the hell are they? The Minister of Justice, like you, are the person who's deciding how an entire country dispenses and you know, acts upon the law. That's your job. But you've somehow you have zero experience within the sector. Health, same thing, uh, you know. Agriculture same thing. We've stopped putting people who have the experience in those in those roles yeah, in the in that area as to be the ones in charge, and have gone the opposite way, where someone just has to convince you that you know they, they just have to talk, talk you to death and convince you that either you vote for me and this stops, or you vote for me and I give you this and it's even wild when you think about it.
Speaker 1:Right, for any job that I apply for, they ask for my qualification. They'll ask whether I've gone to uni to ask me all this shit. If you're working for the government, somehow they can gloss over the fact that you are in a ministry, that you completely have zero capabilities or knowledge.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:I'd love to talk a bit more in depth about the Katanga secession, right. And so obviously this was after their independence and Congo's central government, which was led by Lumumba and the president, joseph Kasavubu. So Lumumba was obviously pushing for a united Congo and part of also what he wanted was industries to be nationalized so they could manage the country's mineral wealth. So the resource rich Katanga region was at that time backed by local elites and the Belgian mining company, right, I think it's called UMHK, yeah, yeah, and you know they obviously wanted the secession because they wanted to protect their wealth. So the Belgian colonialists, you know they were obviously manipulating the ethnic divisions which were between Katanga's leadership and, I guess, wider Congo, right, and they were supported by Belgian military and, of course, their political interests, right. So you then consider how that whole region was vital to the economy right, because they had access to cobalt, uranium and diamonds. And it was crazy because I just found out recently that the uranium which was used in the nagasaki bombing and the hiroshima bombing came from con. No, yeah, wild right.
Speaker 2:You know I watched that movie Oppo Nima and they never mentioned that.
Speaker 1:Yeah, well, like so, you know it may be. You know I think it's worth, you know, fact-checking, because I can't remember where I came across that. But anyway, so you know, obviously this session showed how foreign interests and local elites, you know current foreign investment, sorry involvement rather, in not just Congo but, you know, in all of the places which are minerally rich.
Speaker 2:Look, it goes to show that again, the Belgians were happy to let the Congolese ruin the rest of the country and by ruin I'm going to put quotation marks there. But they were pretty much saying look, you can have the rest, we just want this part right, which again shows you just exactly where their interests lay. And they were willing to go through, you know, and kidnap Lumumba. Ironically, he was murdered in the state of Katanga as well.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:Which again just goes to show you exactly who was in charge over there. I think he was under. What was his name? The party leader of the had their own party in Katanga.
Speaker 1:Chombe, I think yeah.
Speaker 2:Moisey Chombe, I think it was yeah.
Speaker 1:I think that's how you pronounce it, yeah yeah him.
Speaker 2:I would be willing to bear any money that that man was owned, bought and owned by any number of Western governments, the Belgians included, because you know the amount of money just involved would be mind-boggling and that's tempting to just about anyone. But unfortunately those are the people that I'm telling you about, who are happy to sell out their own people just for that little slice of wealth, for however long they live for, Mind you, that same person who has been elevated to this position. The moment you displease the monsters, you're off too, oh for sure.
Speaker 1:And people never think of that yeah, and and like, also, like, I think some of these people didn't really, and that's the thing, right, like if you're a pawn, you never let into the bigger picture. So you only understand your own little role. So they're thinking at a very small scale of, oh, how much money I'm gonna. Your own little role. So they're thinking at a very small scale of oh, how much money I'm gonna make from this, but then they're not seeing the bigger picture in terms of you know what the belgians were really trying to do. You know and for me it was it was wild that the belgians wrote their, I guess their I don't know if you'd call it a letter of uh, requesting or, or insisting on, you know, um, their secession. So this was actually drafted by belgians, right? Yeah?
Speaker 1:shocking, yeah, because the thing is that the party, even though Chombe was the leader of the party.
Speaker 1:They had that alliance with the Belgian mining company, right? So they basically, yeah, they were at the forefront of the secession. Going back to America a bit, you know like I'd love to uncover more in terms of their role during, you know, the early times of colonization. You know, because you also have to realize that america had ascended to becoming a great power around this time as well because europe had gone through the second world war, right? So while europe was going through the second world war, america had the those exact benefits to be able to not only sustain but grow their economy, but then also their influence. Yeah, because most of europe was um involved in the cold war. Right, I'm sorry, the the. The second world war, yeah, so they are.
Speaker 1:I think they're just like one sneaky character, like I'd love to, like um, learn a little bit more about, you know. And and I guess this is a perfect time for us to touch on the the cold war as well, you know, because obviously that influenced what was also going on in Congo. Then, right, because Lumumba had just like, well, one of his ideals, right, was to African, to Africanize the army. Right, yep, yep, um, because it was previously led by Belgian officers. But, surprise, wild, but that then led mobutu to then, uh, field a mutiny. Right, um, and because obviously he was, you know, a western sympathizer, amongst other things, and that increased the instability and paved way for his own rise to power.
Speaker 1:Right, right, yeah, and because of the internal rebellions and the external interferences that were going on, lumumba then requested the UN to, you know, help maintain Congo's sovereignty, especially in Katanga. Right, and the UN then went to deploy their peacekeepers and of course, they failed to protect not only Lumumba but then Congo as a whole, because they chose to remain neutral. They had this whole mandate of observe but don't interfere, which is so wild I was watching the same documentary I was watching right, they employed people who would basically go and clean up messes. So when people are being killed because of whatever commotion is going on, so they wouldn't interfere, but then they would just come and then clean up. So and then they would actually send locals and they're employing locals and paying them thousands of dollars to basically, you know, remove human debris.
Speaker 1:So well, but um I love the word human debris so their stance for me was obviously, you know, confusing in terms of so what's really your purpose? Right? So you just want to observe and watch all these atrocities happen, right? Um, it only is confusing until you then realize, um, that the un security council well, at least their army is sponsored by the US.
Speaker 1:There you go. So obviously that then meant that unofficially it wasn't in their best interest to intervene and achieve peace within the Congo. So Lumumba then turned to the Soviets, which obviously then alarmed the US and you know, and parts of Europe over potential Soviet alignment and this was kind of seen, as you know them being, or it being, a fight against uh communism, yeah right yeah.
Speaker 1:So when you then look at the cold war, like ultimately at least the way I interpret it right, it was nothing to do with ethics or morals or how to govern a people, necessarily, but more to do with protecting capital interests, there you go. Or capitalist interests, right yeah, because nationalized industries under communism would block capitalists from the super profits that they would get to enjoy.
Speaker 2:They'd be taxed at the appropriate amount, which is it's not that you're not allowed to set up your business there, but pay what you owe.
Speaker 1:Simple as that. So again, had the Congo just been a pawn to a much bigger game.
Speaker 2:And that's it. That's pretty much what is happening still actually across all Africa, even like you look at Nigeria right now, where they were blocking what's his name?
Speaker 1:Damgote's oil refinery yeah.
Speaker 2:Like Nigeria, is what the third, fourth, largest producer in the world?
Speaker 2:Yeah, and I only realized recently that they were sending their oil to be refined offshore again, just like everything. What so? Then the man you know Africa's richest man then says all right, I will build a refinery, keep you know the profits in-house, make sure we have jobs for our people and make it cheaper, you know, because I'm sure Nigerians are paying an arm and a leg for the stuff that they produce too. And then you have the president block. That. Doesn't that tell you something? These are red flags that we should be looking for. Why is it that the president of Nigeria doesn't want an oil refinery in Nigeria? That's a boost for the economy, jobs, whatever, like. There's so many things.
Speaker 1:Because, like the fuel, for your price is cheaper and that not only affects, you know, the commute of of um citizens, but you then start to think about industries as well.
Speaker 2:Yeah, infrastructure grows because the costs are now less, even though you produce it, the costs are now less, so then you spend that money elsewhere, like a smart government should. So these are the things that go to show you that these puppets, they're there for their own personal interest. Now, when I was reading up on the refinery there, I did see a video of a man who was describing this exact situation. Now he alluded to the fact that it's because, uh, president tanubu has his own refinery in qatar or somewhere in the middle east. Um, I haven't been able to to fully fact check that, but that's something that I want to look at, because then again, that'll show you just exactly where his interests lay.
Speaker 1:He's a greedy man, I mean, and even then, right so he had money to make a refinery, so why not make it in nigeria? Some, you see, because he's a greedy man, I mean, and even then, right so he had money to make a refinery, so why not make it in nigeria?
Speaker 2:some, you see, because he's not the one truly in charge someone said we'll allow you to be president if you do abc, which again is what you see here with uh lumumba, despite his best efforts to to try and nationalize things. He was saying all these things and the un was, you know, nodding silently, but in the background they were just saying now we're not going to let him do that and it's even funny.
Speaker 1:You remember how I was talking about that, like when, when quamitoria was making the argument that, like, even when you do think about people who are against communism, if you then actually ask them to define what communism is, you will be surprised that a lot of them don't actually know how to define it, don't actually understand what it is, but they are strongly against it, you know. And then it's just like wouldn't it behave you if you are, you know, strongly against something.
Speaker 2:To actually understand what it is that you're against, yeah, you you know you just described, I guess, also the racist mentality there. It's mind-boggling right that you are so vehemently against something, but yet you don't understand what it is.
Speaker 1:You know segue into Lumumba's assassination right. So at that time, you know know Mobutu was colluding with the president to have him removed from power. You know. So after Lumumba was dismissed as the prime minister, he was captured by Mobutu's army and he was held under arrest or under house arrest and then transferred to Katanga right, obviously you know his oppositions where he would obviously be so safe yeah and treated so well, yeah, um, um, we're being facetious.
Speaker 1:So he definitely got brutally beaten and executed by, you know, a firing squad, and that was under the Katanga authorities, as well as Belgian officers.
Speaker 2:Under their direction.
Speaker 1:yeah, yeah, and then you fast forward to 2002. I just randomly came across this article where Lumumba's tooth was returned by the Belgian government, which was an action. That's that's tooth, yeah, just his tooth. For what An action that's that's tooth, yeah, just as tooth. Right For what? So obviously symbolic, but I believe it does very little about taking meaningful accountability.
Speaker 2:Yeah, it's very disrespectful. I think it's tooth. That's all we have left.
Speaker 1:And the thing is, you know, their gesture focuses on Lumumba as a historical figure, right, but it avoids confronting Belgium's colonial atrocities and their lasting impacts today right, it almost offers them a false sense of absolution without addressing the deeper issues. And when you then think about how you know his like, lumumba's assassination was obviously driven by their fear of his advocacy for Congo's sovereignty, right? Do you think dissolving his body in acid was a strategy not only to erase evidence of the crime, but also to erase his memory?
Speaker 2:Yeah, look, it was mostly to, I guess, try to um, erase their, their involvement, um, as far as legacy goes, I think people, by even back then, knew that you, once someone has has ingrained themselves into into the national you know, um, like a national movement's memory, like you're not going to escape, which is why we're talking about him now. His murder only serves as a testament to that, because, as Jay-Z once said, you either live long enough. Sorry, you either die a hero or live long enough to become a villain.
Speaker 2:So we would never really know whether Lumumba was going to stay that good a man or if he was going to snap and turn into a villain. They've ensured that his martyrdom essentially enshrines him as a legend. But I think it was more just to hide evidence of their involvement or to at least give them plausible deniability and say, look, we don't have his body, we don't know where it is, because they buried him right. And then, upon realisation, or someone probably said, hey, why are you burying him? Get rid of the evidence. Then they dug him up and then went and dissolved his body right. So it's more just to wash their hands of any sort of involvement.
Speaker 2:The Americans they love using that word plausible deniability, where people know that you did it, but prove that we did it. You know what I mean. Just where's the proof? That's pretty much what that was. It had nothing to do with, I guess, absolution on their behalf, and it's funny that only the Belgians seem to cop the blame. When there was, you know, the United States was involved, the UK was involved, israel was involved, like so many countries, had their little fingers in his assassination and yet none of them are held to account. But in saying that none of them have been held to account for it.
Speaker 2:The myriad other assassinations that happened before and happened after and are still happening now, you know, at least of which being muammar gaddafi, that's one of the biggest ones. He was politically assassinated. He was doing the same thing. He was trying to nationalize, he had nationalized everything, and he was trying to, you know, turn the turn the African Union into an actual African Union, and people weren't happy with that, so they went and got rid of him too, and we can see America's grubby, fat fingers all in that pie, can't we? Yeah, so it's just plausible. Deniability is what that was ability is what that was.
Speaker 1:So when we talk about, you know the idea of reconciliation or reparations, right I, I believe like this requires, you know, financial compensation, systemic change, and another important part is the educational efforts to prevent, I guess call it historical amnesia yeah so belgium's symbolic gesture sidesteps these critical issues and avoids, you know, confronting the brutal nature of what they did, their murder of lumumba, but then also all the other things that they did right.
Speaker 1:and to contextualize what we're discussing as well, I think it's very important for people to realize that all of these things happened about 60 years ago, so it's not in another lifetime, it's exactly in this lifetime. So, obviously, its impacts are still felt today and there's always this illusion of how, you know, we should move on, which allows, you know, those in positions of power to minimize ongoing consequences and avoid, you know, meaningful restitution. So, until the rest of the world is ready to move past such conversations and is actually ready to act, like where do, where do you think us, as Africans, should begin when it comes to issues of reconciliation and reparations? For you know what continues to happen in the Congo.
Speaker 2:Well, I truly believe that those two words reconciliation and reparation should be maybe second, third or fourth in that conversation. The first one should be revolution, reconciliation. Again that word to move on is annoying because it's like, okay, yes, I did you dirty, but you know, let's let bygones be bygones, let's move on. No, that's disrespectful, I feel, for there to be any sort of meaningful change. Reform is definitely not an hour word I would use because, again, you're working within the bounds of the system to try and change something using the thing that you want to get rid of.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:Yeah, that doesn't make no sense.
Speaker 1:And just to clarify, like on reconciliation yeah, yeah, that doesn't make no sense. And just to clarify, like on reconciliation I I'm not referring to the reconciliation that we'd get from the same people who've oppressed us, I mean on our part, because I think you know we're talking about how there are a lot of internal failures when we look at the oh, definitely, our leaders, for example, right. So it's like, so how do we come? Because part of the revolution, I guess, is in us coming to terms with that, and and not just as far as everyday kind of conversation, because we all know that most of our leaders are corrupt, right.
Speaker 1:But then yeah I guess like reconciliation with the intent to act.
Speaker 2:Okay, you know. Look, yeah, from that perspective, yes, again, it's still, you know, second on the list. Revolution needs to be first Purge the old system. Purge all those people who you know, your what's his name? Your William Rutos, your Paul Kagame's and your Museveni's? That's Kenya, uganda and Rwanda's presidents.
Speaker 2:Those type of people, even Tenubu and the Ghanaian one, I forget his name they're all political stooges. They're just puppets for the Western governments. Right, get rid of all of them, start again and then reconcile with those people, you know the, the underlings, and say look, you were caught red-handed. Either you do a or b happens. You know what I mean. It's either or option.
Speaker 2:So that reconciliation has to come from the fact that, yes, we did ourselves dirty.
Speaker 2:Um, you know people were snitching on their own family members and getting them killed, all because you know they were told that there'd be a reward, right?
Speaker 2:So revolution is the first bit before we go into reconciliation of the old system and set up a system that benefits people, that gives each group autonomy, a representative, because the issue that we have here is like we're adopting again the Western system where there's a president and a vice president. If you try to do that, like in Zimbabwe we had a president, but he was Shona speaking right, and then the vice president was in Debele. The president had all the power. The vice president has jack shit. So if we move from that system and actually say we'll give you autonomy, each place, each tribe or group will have their own leader. You do you because what you may do in your culture is different to what we do in our culture, but that doesn't minimize the impact of either you have your own, but then from there you have a representative who then speaks as part of the national government. Right, we're not going to have, you know, a president or whatever. Do it Switzerland-style.
Speaker 2:They have that executive council, right, you know where you have representatives from each province, district, whatever you want to call it. And then you come together and say we've done this, we've done this, we've done this. Here we are. That's a purging of the old system. You're now working towards something else. And then, once you've done something to that regard, then you come up and say to the Western governments all right, we've outlined blah, blah, blah, blah. We want our reparations for A through Z.
Speaker 2:But because now, if you look at you know reparations only small groups of people talk about reparations. I don't really think that talking about reparations is a constructive conversation to have, because there's still problems. So people are skipping to step three or four without actually addressing step one, two, right, you can't talk about getting money when the system is still being run by the people you're trying to get reparations from. They're going to tell you to go fuck yourself, right? So we have to redo everything, revolt, start again, then reconcile and then, as a united front, we talk about reparations, because they won't hear you if they can still circumvent you and go to the next best person and say we'll put you in power if you get rid of him, which is what happened to Lumumba and the thing is, when we then get to the conversation about reparations, for example, you know there's no point in really asking because we know a lot of their investments are on the continent, so we just impose.
Speaker 1:I know we've obviously spoken about a lot of things here, but I hope that this not only highlights who Lumumba was but then also kind of paints a bigger picture of what was going on in Congo, because you know you can't talk about Lumumba without talking about Congo. You know, before, during and after colonization, you know. So I hope this is definitely. You know, giving people a few things to think about is definitely, you know, giving people a few things to to think about, but then also just understand when it comes to the complexity of some of these issues. Well, to everyone that's come through to listen, you know. Thank you for coming through for another episode and, as always, stay black.
