Patrice Lumuma

This podcast episode discusses the life and objectives of Patrice Lumumba, the first Prime Minister of the Congo. It explores the colonization of the Congo by Leopold II, the violence and exploitation that occurred under his rule, and the international movement that arose as a result. It also delves into Lumumba's rise to power, his advocacy for equality, reform, and racial integration, and the ambivalence of his views towards Belgium. The episode concludes with the achievement of independence by the Congo in 1960. Hi, everyone. My name is Sarai Simpson, and welcome to my podcast, Resistance in the Global South. Today, we will be discussing Patrice Emery Lumumba, the first Prime Minister of the Congo. Specifically, I want to discuss his objectives for the Congo, which changed throughout his leadership, the way it was perceived by Belgium and the United States, the two countries that were involved in his death, and a little bit about how student activist groups challenged and supported him. Truthfully, a TikTok brought me here. I saw a TikTok about how there was a lot of conspiracy surrounding his death, and so I decided to do a little bit of research, and I figured I would do my final project about Lumumba. Okay, so to jump right in, I first want to briefly discuss the background of this topic, namely, the colonization of the Congo by Leopold II. All right, so Leopold was a little late to the colonization of Africa, so in fear of losing potential land, he attended the Berlin Conference in 1884. First, I want to note here that he had already had his eye on the Congo since the mid-1870s, and actually hired one of his associates, Henry Morton Stanley, to explore the Congo River Basin. Anyhow, during the Berlin Conference, Leopold was awarded international recognition for his private estate. Yes, you heard that right. The land of the Congo became his own private estate. He could now exploit the land for its resources, primarily its wild rubber, to the extent of his choosing, and that is exactly what he did. He used extreme violence to get these resources, including, but certainly not limited to, forced labor, physical punishment, such as the chopping off of the laborer's hands, and coercion. Luckily, reports of the violence that occurred on his estate were investigated and released to the public, which were, for the most part, appalled. It became an international movement, primarily because of the work of E.D. Moreau. I do want to say here that Leopold, in the beginning, tried to rally up support from the Belgian populace, but they weren't actually that interested in the colonial projects, very different from their other European counterparts. This probably explains why they were so appalled by his actions. Anyways, E.D. Moreau, although angered by Leopold's brutality, did not really condemn colonialism, but rather Leopold II's actions. In fact, in 1908, the Congo was transferred to the Belgian state and wasn't given freedom. The Congo, then, is essentially a European invention. I don't really like that word, invention, because, of course, the land prior to colonialism was there, and there were many different tribes and different things like that and regional differences. So when I say European invention, the words of Kevin C. Dunn, I mean that Leopold and Henry Morton Stanley produced a social identity, spatial identity, and a colonial script in order to colonize the land. As for the social identity, they homogenized these diverse lands, something that I think even today happens when it comes to the entire continent of Africa, a very diverse continent, one of the most diverse continents with having the most countries in the world, but it's very homogenized, right? So as Kevin C. Dunn puts it, quote, a collective they was invented whose identity was discursively linked to the territorial construction now known as Congo, end quote. For starters, the Congolese were a non-European other, meaning they lacked the, quote, unquote, the qualities of being European. So the Africans needed increased contact with Europeans through colonization and forced labor in order to be civilized and achieve salvation. The salvation point is actually important because it was used in 1492 by Christopher Columbus to justify colonizing Native American lands, this idea of salvation through European contact. By defining the Congolese socially, they became known subjects. Moreover, a colonial script was produced which allowed the justification of colonization. Quote, the continual production of a knowable Congolese subject resulted in the images of Africans as emasculated, dehumanized, passive, and the antithesis of the colonizing whites, end quote. That quote is actually really interesting because that narrative will be used later by the United States when they decide to intervene and ultimately assassinate or help assassinate Lumumba. Now that you have the background, let's skip a bit to right before independence. Belgium still maintained a narrative that justified the exploitation and colonization of Congo, but this narrative was undermined when, in January 1959, riots broke out in Leopoldville, the capital. There were already nationalist movements moving across the continent at the time, and as we see later, people were passionate about independence. The Belgian government quickly started the decolonization efforts, and during the national elections in the Congo, Patrice Lumumba, the star of this podcast episode, was elected prime minister, and he appointed Joseph Kassavubu as president. So wait, let's stop here. Let's get into the personal political life of Lumumba before discussing the terrible circumstances of his leadership. As said earlier, his full name is Patrice Emery Lumumba. He was multilingual, educated, and primarily rose to power through his position in his Movement National Congolese, or MNC. Interestingly, he has been to prison, as many of the greats have, twice in life. Actually, one of those times was for the embezzlement of funds. So he rose to power through the MNC. He was the leader, and so that's how he became the prime minister. The MNC won the most votes in the national election. So now let's kind of discuss what he advocated. So this can be found in his contentious speeches, policies, and his book, Congo, My Country. Before diving into the book, which we definitely are, I would like to recite to my listeners an excerpt from his Independence Day speech. Quote, our lot was 80 years of colonial rule. Our wounds are still free and painful to be driven from our memory. We have known tiring labor extracted in exchange for salary, which did not allow us to satisfy our hunger, to clothe and enlarge ourselves decently, or to raise our children like loved beings. We have known irony's insult blows, which we had to endure morning, noon, and night because we are, quote, unquote, Negroes. We have known that the law was never the same, depending on whether it concerned a white or a Negro, accommodating for one group. It was cruel and inhumane for the other, end quote. This speech definitely opposes the narrative of a benign colonizer. This, of course, will be explored later. Now I want to dive into his book, which ultimately disappointed me. I went into this project thinking that Lumumba was some type of, like, Fred Hampton-level radical. But after reading Congo, My Country, I was beginning to think that he was on the side of Belgium. So I did a little bit of research and found out that he did, in fact, write the book, which disappointed me even more. However, in the foreword of his book, written by Colin Legume, he explains that Lumumba would later ditch some of his assertions made in his book. Of course, this book was published, or it was written in 1956. So, you know, he changed his position a little bit throughout his life. Kevin Dunn solidifies this contention in his book, Imagining the Congo, by explaining that Lumumba radicalized his ideas after visiting Ghana in 1958 for the All-African People's Conference. With this being said, even at the end of his life, his feelings towards Belgium remained ambivalent. So, I mean, in my opinion, he wasn't too radical. So I found it very shocking that the United States, you know, repudiated his regime. And so did Belgium. Well, with these concerns stated, let's look at some of his political objectives stated in his book. For one, equality in the labor market. He felt that the laborers in Congo had not reached their fair share of living standards. He proposes multiple ways to achieve this, such as better training to achieve a higher output on production. He also had other admirable concerns, such as reforming the police and reforming prisons, which he felt that prisoners shouldn't only be reformed or be punished, but also reformed, and they shouldn't have to live in inhumane environments as they currently did. He also was for basic education, and he was a devout advocate for racial integration. So I know what you're thinking. You're like, Sarai, what's wrong with that? My issue was, throughout the book, you could tell that he was influenced by the colonial narrative. I mean, he is human, and I still definitely admire his leadership, but I just felt like this should be discussed. For example, quote, this rapid development is explained easily enough by the fact that the Belgians had to toil for centuries to reach their present stage of development, we are merely benefiting from the fruits of their experience and work. Hence, our development will be much quicker than theirs. To whom do we owe this fortunate situation? To the Belgians. Any genuine, humane, and reasonable man must show gratitude and respect for the immense work achieved in this country at a cost of incalculable material and human sacrifice. End quote. Even in his discussion of basic education, he kind of not even implies, but directly says that the Congolese wish to live amongst their European counterparts so they can adapt to their lifestyle. I found this all a little odd, and going along with, you know, the colonial narrative, but of course, his positions did change throughout his time, and I think that that's very important to acknowledge. And also, we should give him grace considering the context of his rise to power. On June 30th, 1960, four years after him writing this book, the Congo achieved its independence. However, just a few days later, the force publique demanded pay raises and the removal of white officers. Although Lumumba conceded some of their desires, this did not do much because Belgian officers refused to step down. Violence intensified, primarily because Belgian military forces intervened against the autonomy of the Congolese minister of defense, which was Patrice Lumumba. Lumumba did turn to Soviet Union for assistance, which sent supplies. So again, his rise to power was kind of chaotic, considering the context. So as stated in the beginning, I really want to discuss the narratives of Belgium, the United States, and Lumumba himself. I'm going to start with Belgium. It changed from, you know, being explicitly racist, this idea that Africans were subhumans that needed European assistance, to more of a paternalistic narrative. And essentially, Belgium had a very paternalistic understanding of the Congo. And what I mean by this is that Belgium felt that it was the, quote unquote, father of its child, the Congo. In this way, Belgium was employing this idea that it needed to teach and raise the Congo. Some other implications of paternalism is that it naturalized social hierarchy and violence against the Congo became apolitical and necessary. You know, like you discipline your child. Another part of the colonial narrative was that the Congo was still developing. And so it did have some civilization. They had a long way to go. And Belgium had to be a part of this quest of finding civilization for the Congo. Lastly, a major part of the narrative was viewing the Congo as an extension of Belgium, thus justifying its economic interest and justifying any intervention as they did a few days after independence. So that was essentially the narrative of Belgium summed up. Another important narrative was, of course, Lumumba, which acted against that of Belgium. As Kevin C. Dunn puts it, quote, he offered an interpretation of the previous 80 years that focused on colonial exploitation, repression, and resource extraction, end quote. But remember that paternalism kind of implies this idea that Congolese are children and therefore children should not talk back. So Lumumba was dangerous. Of course, this did not stop Lumumba at first. In the end, he, as we know, was assassinated. But during his life, he continuously fought against Belgian oppression. He continued to advocate for a national identity, which was a little different than some of his competitors who wanted more regional or tribal identities. And this national identity was found on the basis of this idea of shared oppression from the exploitation and colonization of Belgium. The last prominent narrative that I really want to discuss, and I'm sure you all have been waiting for, is the narrative employed by the United States. As we all know, the Cold War was happening during this time, and the U.S. was very influenced by the Cold War and the defense of Western ideals. And what I mean by that is some even could call the Cold War a war against communism, at least from the Western perspective. And so the United States was very anti-communist and did not want to see the possibility of another nation falling to the possession or the influence of communism. And when they discussed the Congo question, they tended to use old rhetoric that was employed by Leopold, such as the barbarity of the Congolese. Moreover, the U.S. interpreted chaos as what Dunn calls, quote, a fertile from which red weeds grow, end quote. So because of the situation in the Congo, specifically the violence throughout the nation that occurred after independence, the Congo was vulnerable or supposedly vulnerable, I should say, to communism. Furthermore, Patrice Mbombo was portrayed as the cause of the Congo's problems, which couldn't be further from the truth. I'm sure any intelligent or any intellectual would say that it was primarily Belgium. But anyways, what really helped me and what will help you understand the U.S. narrative was explored in Fassie Guhaar's essay titled The United States, An Overthrowing of Democracy in Congo. He explains that the U.S. and subsequently the CIA had self-serving motives in their involvement of Belgium. He claims, quote, its main objective was to create condition for U.S.-led economic investment, trade and business. At the same time, the United States relied heavily upon its secret agency, the CIA, to execute the imperial design in Congo, end quote. In order to achieve its economic interest, the United States was not only involved in the death of Lumumba, but the rise of Joseph Mobutu, who was fully supportive of protecting Western economic interests and took leadership in the mid-60s. So I know this sounds very conspiratorial, but this is the historical truth, although there are different ways to interpret it. I think that we have enough evidence of the United States capabilities, our exploitative capabilities and imperialistic capabilities. All right, now that we've discussed both Lumumba personally and his political goals and the way this was perceived by Belgium and the United States and even by Lumumba himself, I want to briefly discuss the part that students played for one in the independence of Congo. And a little bit after the death of Lumumba, and I want to discuss that briefly just because their positions kind of changed, just as Lumumba's did, just as we all do. And in the beginning, actually, or not in the beginning, but in 1959 to 1960, many students were actually averse to the idea of democracy and liberalism, which is totally fair. And actually, side note, I'm doing a paper on the Haitian Revolution, the revolution in New Spain, revolution in the United States. And to be honest, democracy is not always received well. It's very radical and often very different than what a certain society may be used to. So getting back to my main point, a lot of the students didn't really appreciate democracy. But the one point that a lot of students kind of resonated with Lumumba's policies was the fact that he wanted a unified Congo. So while they didn't always agree with Lumumba, and actually during his life, most students didn't agree with most of his policies and felt that he was uneducated. And they did agree with the fact that the Congo needs to be decolonized. So the question is now, how did they participate in the decolonization of the Congo? And I love this just because I'm a young student and to imagine people my age participating in such a big change in their life, I just really admire that. So the primary way in which they participated in the independence of Congo was, of course, through their own edification, through what they learned. Obviously, inside of the Congo, but a lot of the students actually traveled to Belgium and other Eastern European countries to pursued their degree and education. And so that was one of the main ways that they contributed to the decolonization and independence of the Congo. Specifically, actually, in January of 1960, there was a roundtable discussion for the future of Congo that was held in Brussels. And students actually participated in this, partially because a lot of the Congolese politicians saw how intelligent the students were in their universities. So again, while the students didn't always agree with Lumumba, and even these disagreements would culminate to violence between those who supported Lumumba and the students on campus, the students were always very much pro-decolonization and independence, just merely in a different way than Lumumba was. But this actually changed after his assassination. His assassination, by the way, was known globally, not just within the Congo or just within the United States. People in China, actually, roughly 8 million, according to their government, came and protested his assassination. So yeah, just to conclude, after his death, it really affected the way that many students began to see the violence of neocolonialism, and it changed their worldviews. And many students began to implement his legacy for their own political motivations. Specifically, students began to challenge neutrality, specifically within the General Union of Congolese Students. This organization had a very neutral stance and was very reluctant to use militancy after his death. In the mid-'60s, there was what people like to call the Second Independence. Of course, the Congo already had their independence, but there were many insurrections, an unstable regime, and the future of the Congo was very precarious. But students no longer wanted to have this neutral stance, and factions within the General Union of Congolese Students actually sprang. One of them was the Congolese Patriots or the FTC, which is like a research group that was a little bit more militant and Marxist, and wanted to use the legacy of Lumumba as a revolutionary force. So of course, this was just a very, very brief discussion of the activism that students did then, and even, I didn't really get into it, but the legacy that Lumumba has today as this kind of anti-colonialism pro-Black leader. I just felt that this was a very interesting project, and I think that he should be taught more, and his legacy should be taught more. I love history, and so I was very surprised that I hadn't heard of him until just a few months ago. This was a very fun research project, and for all my listeners out there, I beg you to do more research on his assassination, which I did not want to get into. I didn't really want to extensively discuss that. It's a little outside the scope of my research. But just everything that went into his assassination, the aftermath of his death, I mentioned that a little bit. We saw Joseph Mbutu kind of rise, and there were a few leaders before him, but the support of the United States and his leadership, and I think it's even important for those out there to kind of go and discover how the United States, not discover, but explore the way that the United States involved itself and kind of inserted itself in a lot of African countries, considering that the 1940s, 50s, 60s was kind of decolonization throughout Africa and throughout certain parts of Asia. So I think that's all I have to say for today, but I'm glad that you stuck through till the end. Everyone out there, have a nice day, and stay tuned for the next episode, where I will be discussing the political evolution and life of the Malcolm X. Bye, everyone.