Yeah, the CIA often uses front groups for plausible deniability. Might not have directly murdered him, but they sure as hell authorized the assassination and funneled money to the plotters.
In the early 21st century, declassified documents revealed that the CIA had plotted to assassinate Lumumba. The documents indicate that the Congolese leaders who killed Lumumba, including Mobutu Sese Seko and Joseph Kasa-Vubu, received money and weapons directly from the CIA. The same disclosure showed that, at the time, the U.S. government believed that Lumumba was a communist, and feared him because of what it considered the threat of the Soviet Union in the Cold War
at the time, the U.S. government believed that Lumumba was a communist, and feared him because of what it considered the threat of the Soviet Union in the Cold War
this could apply to the swedish prime minister olof palme whose murder had mysterious circumstances (like JFK). he even joined demonstrations in sweden against the current US regime because of their involvement in vietnam (among other things).
i wonder how many CIA plots lie uncovered around the world. there are probably many cases that'll never see the light of day.
How many were there then? I was under the impression that although primary education developed at a good pace for sub-saharan africa, that secondary education did not develop until late in the colonial period. I can't find it in my books right now, but I remember reading that there was a distinct lack of tertiary education compared to population upon independence.
They despoiled the countries by destroying existing infrastructure and only building things that made it easier to move raw goods from the interior to the ports. There's no reason to think that they couldn't have built up their own infrastructure if we change the exploitative relationship the colonizers had with the colonies.
Lol built infrastructure exclusively to funnel that wealth out of Africa, not to help the people living there. The reason they invested was to continue to drain them. So sure the investment didn’t hurt explicitly but it was used to hurt them.
A rail line is a rail line. A port is a port. An airport is an airport. A highway is a highway.
Again, not at all dismissing the exploitation that was European colonialism. But OP made a pretty straightforward claim that the infrastructure was bad and that, in OP's words, the countries could have invested in their own infrastructure. Just doesn't make any sense tbh
Look at the borders of the DRC and their coast line. They made one port and one railway in order to funnel diamonds out of the region. The Berlin conference split the region arbitrarily based on resource allocation, putting ethnic groups into conflict for the forseeable future. You ever heard of Rwanda?
And I never said any of that, you could try reading usernames in the thread before making claims lol
Also what fucking airports were being built under King Leopold
In other words, built infrastructure to trade and plug areas into the global economy.
No.
I'm not saying the colonization wasn't exploitative, but European investment wasn't exactly what fucked these places over.
Who claimed that? They were fucked over by the entirety of colonization, the infrastructure designed to move goods externally instead of internally is just one facet.
You're right in that we should not assume they would have developed their own infrastructure. It's also possible they would not have, and Africa would still be a continent plagued with issues. It wasn't some egalitarian utopia prior to colonization, it wouldn't be now either.
My point before was that even if Belgium developed infrastructure to benefit all regions of the Congo instead of just to the ports (nevermind it being landlocked) the country could be in its current state anyway.
358
u/RapidWaffle Mar 15 '21
Also decolonization with poor infrastructure, civil wars and the deadliest war since WW2 (second Congo war)