Originally Posted By

Africa will right it’s own history. And to the north and south of the Sahara, it will be a glorious and dignified history. I know that my country, which is suffering so much, will know how to defend its independence and its liberty.

Long live the Congo, long live Africa.

Patrice Lumumba (taken from the last letter he wrote, shortly before his assassination by Belgian, US and Congolese forces)

The Road to Genocide
(Previous post about Rwanda)
For the next few decades, tension and violence between the Hutu and the Tutsi grew. The power of the Tutsi eroded, and as they became a target of violence, many fled to other countries to live in refugee camps. Tutsi exiles launched attacks against the Hutu authority from neighboring countries throughout the 1960s.
In 1973, Juvénal Habyarimana overthrew the previous government and established his own. For the next 20 years, he favored the Hutu and discriminated against the Tutsi, continuing the legacy of his predecessor, Grégoire Kayibanda. 
In the refugee camps, Tutsis and Hutus opposed to Habyarimana’s regime organized and formed the Rwandese Patriotic Front, aimed at overthrowing Habyarimana. They attacked in October 1990, but were defeated by the French, Zairean and Belgian troops brought in to defend the Rwandan government. The Rwandan army started receiving arms from Egypt (with French help), South Africa and the United States. 
From 1990-1993, an estimated 2,000 Rwandans were killed by the Rwandan government, many of them Tutsi or members of Hutu opposition parties. A newly organized RPF, with the help of the Ugandan government, launched a series of attacks again in 1994, forcing Habyarimana to the bargaining table. The Arusha Accords brought reform to the Rwandan government and guaranteed the RPF a place in the new government. This development greatly angered many of Habyarimana’s supporters and Hutu extremists throughout the country. 
On April 6, 1994, the airplane bringing Habyarimana back from Arusha was shot down, killing everyone on board. The crash has never been fully explained, but it is thought that Hutu extremists brought the plane down in an attempt to sabotage the Arusha Accords.
Source: Reader, John. Africa: A Biography of the Continent. New York: Vintage Books, 1997.

The Road to Genocide

(Previous post about Rwanda)

For the next few decades, tension and violence between the Hutu and the Tutsi grew. The power of the Tutsi eroded, and as they became a target of violence, many fled to other countries to live in refugee camps. Tutsi exiles launched attacks against the Hutu authority from neighboring countries throughout the 1960s.

In 1973, Juvénal Habyarimana overthrew the previous government and established his own. For the next 20 years, he favored the Hutu and discriminated against the Tutsi, continuing the legacy of his predecessor, Grégoire Kayibanda. 

In the refugee camps, Tutsis and Hutus opposed to Habyarimana’s regime organized and formed the Rwandese Patriotic Front, aimed at overthrowing Habyarimana. They attacked in October 1990, but were defeated by the French, Zairean and Belgian troops brought in to defend the Rwandan government. The Rwandan army started receiving arms from Egypt (with French help), South Africa and the United States. 

From 1990-1993, an estimated 2,000 Rwandans were killed by the Rwandan government, many of them Tutsi or members of Hutu opposition parties. A newly organized RPF, with the help of the Ugandan government, launched a series of attacks again in 1994, forcing Habyarimana to the bargaining table. The Arusha Accords brought reform to the Rwandan government and guaranteed the RPF a place in the new government. This development greatly angered many of Habyarimana’s supporters and Hutu extremists throughout the country. 

On April 6, 1994, the airplane bringing Habyarimana back from Arusha was shot down, killing everyone on board. The crash has never been fully explained, but it is thought that Hutu extremists brought the plane down in an attempt to sabotage the Arusha Accords.

Source: Reader, John. Africa: A Biography of the Continent. New York: Vintage Books, 1997.

Okay, I lied. I don’t have any more updates at the moment.

But I do have a good excuse. For those of you who don’t already know, I’m one of the admins over on Stand with Free Iran. So I’m working my butt off right now on that. As much as I love writing up history lessons, I’m a human rights activist first and foremost.

I’ll try to get some more material posted this week, but for now, I just need to focus on Stand with Free Iran. And I could use your help! If you want to get involved, just send me an e-mail (freeiranblog@gmail.com) or message me on SwFI or on my main blog.

Also, I take submissions here on World History. So if anyone wants to create a few lessons to post (on any topic, just cite sources), drop them in the submissions box.

Thanks for understanding. :)

I suck at updating

I’ve been pretty busy lately, so sorry for the lack of posts. I’ll work on some new ones today.

Leave me questions/comments.

Submit posts.

lalalimonada-deactivated2010122 asked: Give me a week and I'll have a great big post ready for you on the Wars of the Roses.
ANGLOHISTORIANSSSS.

Word. I’ll leave it to you to cover that kinda stuff.

oh-theplacesyoullgo asked: Oh! Something about the Wars of the Roses would be lovely!
(I may ask for random requests from time to time...heads up :D)

Sure. I’ll need to refresh my memory a bit first, but I’ll see what I can dig up.

And requests are always welcome. :)

mllediabolique asked: Alright, I'm biased, I'll admit - but Zimbabwe is a fantastic country (in which I was born) in a whirlwind of trouble pretty continuously as of late. Though I do blog about it sometimes, I have nowhere near the following that you do.

So, that's my request: can Zimbabwe get a little love?

Absolutely. I’ll probably cover all of Africa, but Zimbabwe is of particular interest to me as well, so I’ll get to it soon. :)

summersearlysway-deactivated201 asked: Have you covered Uganda? There is a petition going on right now for Dr. Coburn, senator of Oklahoma to say "Yes" to the "LRA Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act." He is single-handedly preventing the passing of this bill, which would allocate $40 million dollars over the next three years to the aid of Uganda. This bill NEEDS to be passed so that we can put an end to the longest running war in Africa and stop Joseph Kony from abducting more children and making them child-soldiers. There is a hold-out happening in front of his Oklahoma City office, day and night, until Coburn agrees to meet in regards to the bill and it gets passed. There is more information on www.coburnsayyes.com. It would be lovely if you could spread the word and/or sign the petition. If you have more questions, contact me, or go to www.livestream.com/invisible children where you can talk to them live. Thanks a ton!

I haven’t gotten to Uganda yet here, it’ll be up after I finish Rwanda.

But on my other blog about human rights, I’ve covered Uganda a bit. And I’ve covered the Great Lakes region extensively, so there’s plenty of information over there.

Here’s the thing though: I do support giving aid to Uganda, but I’m also skeptical about the impact such aid has when it isn’t followed up with political pressure and calls for accountability. The Ugandan government hasn’t always been terribly proactive in stopping the LRA because many Ugandans would rather forget about the war and have some semblance of peace than try to get the LRA under control by force. Past attempts at cracking down on the LRA have resulted in massive revenge killings, so it’s understandable that citizens would be hesitant to engage with the LRA again.

Central Africa as a whole is extremely volatile, so stopping the LRA isn’t just a matter of throwing money at the Ugandan government and hoping for peace. The entire Great Lakes region needs to have stability in order for Uganda to see peace, and it will only happen with political support from constituents around the world. The Obama administration has taken some steps toward ending the conflict in the DRC, but until the entire region begins to recover from decades of war/genocide/terrorism, no one country will see an end to conflict.

So I’ll sign the petition and I hope others will as well. But I’d take it all a step further and write to my representatives, asking them to make stabilizing central Africa a primary security concern.

Colonial Rwanda
Rwanda began the colonial period in the 1880s as a territory belonging to German East Africa. Under German authority, the colonizers undertook an effort to understand the people they were now dominated. As part of cultural surveys, the Germans established that Rwanda was composed of three separate tribes: the Tutsi, the Hutu, and the Twa.
The Tutsi were regarded as ethnically superior, in part because of the generalization that Tutsis were tall and elegant in appearance (a misleading generalization, but that never seems to deter people from repeating this as fact). More important to the Germans was that the Tutsi were cattle herders and possessed more economic wealth, in colonial eyes, than the agricultural Hutu did. Because of a perceived “aristocratic demeanor” stemming from an ill-conceived physical description and the economic wealth of the group, the Tutsi were considered by the Germans to be suitable for positions of power over the Hutu.
During World War I, the Belgians captured the territory and began  treating it as an addition to their colony across the border, the  Belgian Congo. Many Rwandans were sent to the Katanga region of the  Congo to work in the mines, because of the lack of mineral wealth to be  found in Rwanda. Belgium essentially had a whole new workforce to drive  the wealth they received from the Congo, and they used this to their economic advantage.
When the Belgians took over in 1916, they continued a preference for the Tutsi in government positions. The luxuries of being in the ruling class created more and more importance attributed to tribe. “Wherever privilege could grant favours, tribal affinities became important: people holding positions of power and authority were morally obligated to assist their kin” (Reader, pg 620).  Not surprisingly, this created animosity toward the Tutsi from their Hutu countrymen.
Ethnic divisions grew deeper in 1926, when the Belgians began issuing identity cards that specified tribal identity. Whenever appearance or lineage could not determine a tribal identity (as all of these groups had intermarried for several generations), anyone in possession of 10 or more cows was considered Tutsi. Furthermore, the Belgians began insisting that schools, both secular and missionary, only educate the Tutsi for positions in the government. The Hutu were only educated for work in mines and industry. This furthered the disparity in opportunity among Rwandans. Even members of the Hutu who managed to receive higher education and were completely qualified for jobs within the civil authority were left to manual labor. Only Tutsi were hired for any positions that had potential for governmental authority.
By 1957, resentment over their mistreatment by the Belgian authorities lead to the publishing of The Hutu Manifesto. “The political monopoly of one race, the Tutsi race, which, given the present structural framework, becomes a social and economic monopoly” was identified as the main grievance. The Belgians were late to acknowledge the frustrations described in the Manifesto, and did nothing to assuage the suffering of the Hutu. The Tutsi remained in power, and interpreted the Belgian’s lackluster response to Hutu complaints as confirmation of their political superiority over the Hutu.
Source:Reader, John. Africa: A Biography of the Continent. New York: Vintage Books, 1997.

Colonial Rwanda

Rwanda began the colonial period in the 1880s as a territory belonging to German East Africa. Under German authority, the colonizers undertook an effort to understand the people they were now dominated. As part of cultural surveys, the Germans established that Rwanda was composed of three separate tribes: the Tutsi, the Hutu, and the Twa.

The Tutsi were regarded as ethnically superior, in part because of the generalization that Tutsis were tall and elegant in appearance (a misleading generalization, but that never seems to deter people from repeating this as fact). More important to the Germans was that the Tutsi were cattle herders and possessed more economic wealth, in colonial eyes, than the agricultural Hutu did. Because of a perceived “aristocratic demeanor” stemming from an ill-conceived physical description and the economic wealth of the group, the Tutsi were considered by the Germans to be suitable for positions of power over the Hutu.

During World War I, the Belgians captured the territory and began treating it as an addition to their colony across the border, the Belgian Congo. Many Rwandans were sent to the Katanga region of the Congo to work in the mines, because of the lack of mineral wealth to be found in Rwanda. Belgium essentially had a whole new workforce to drive the wealth they received from the Congo, and they used this to their economic advantage.

When the Belgians took over in 1916, they continued a preference for the Tutsi in government positions. The luxuries of being in the ruling class created more and more importance attributed to tribe. “Wherever privilege could grant favours, tribal affinities became important: people holding positions of power and authority were morally obligated to assist their kin” (Reader, pg 620).  Not surprisingly, this created animosity toward the Tutsi from their Hutu countrymen.

Ethnic divisions grew deeper in 1926, when the Belgians began issuing identity cards that specified tribal identity. Whenever appearance or lineage could not determine a tribal identity (as all of these groups had intermarried for several generations), anyone in possession of 10 or more cows was considered Tutsi. Furthermore, the Belgians began insisting that schools, both secular and missionary, only educate the Tutsi for positions in the government. The Hutu were only educated for work in mines and industry. This furthered the disparity in opportunity among Rwandans. Even members of the Hutu who managed to receive higher education and were completely qualified for jobs within the civil authority were left to manual labor. Only Tutsi were hired for any positions that had potential for governmental authority.

By 1957, resentment over their mistreatment by the Belgian authorities lead to the publishing of The Hutu Manifesto. “The political monopoly of one race, the Tutsi race, which, given the present structural framework, becomes a social and economic monopoly” was identified as the main grievance. The Belgians were late to acknowledge the frustrations described in the Manifesto, and did nothing to assuage the suffering of the Hutu. The Tutsi remained in power, and interpreted the Belgian’s lackluster response to Hutu complaints as confirmation of their political superiority over the Hutu.

Source:
Reader, John. Africa: A Biography of the Continent. New York: Vintage Books, 1997.

Originally Posted By worldhistory

There were no tribes in Africa

tupsyturvy:

This might have been the case for Some african countries but it’s definitely not the case for Nigeria, on the contrary, the tribes were established kingdoms and chiefdoms that were ignored when Nigeria was carved into existence.Going by the write-up, it is impossible for a Hausa man of the north to ‘become’ a yoruba of the west by accepting the leadership of the ruling king or oba or by learning the language. The people each have distinct physical features and the languages and culture all differ greatly. While it is refreshing to read on Africa before the arrival of the colonial masters, the right information should be used.

Certainly there are exceptions to the rule of how Africans identified themselves prior to the colonial period, it is impossible for there to be such a vast continent that doesn’t have exceptions to the rule. Nigeria in particular is a special case, because of the British method of indirect rule under Lord Lugard, a system of conquer that was not used on much of the continent. Also, the area’s role in the slave trade brought more advanced weaponry into what is now know as Nigeria, which not only increased the resistance to colonial encroachment, but also infighting between ethnic groups.

However, that does not diminish the fact that colonial powers exploited these ethnic identities for their own gain, providing a historical explanation (at least in part) for current tensions on the continent. Not only that, the British at times reconstructed these identities during their conquer.

…the British government immediately took measures to consolidate the gains of the company and further extend them, if necesssary by force. The West African Frontier Force, a colonial army was established with its headquarters at Jebba…The emirates of Kontagora and Bida were violently attacked in 1901 after being accused of slave trading, and new kings, supporters of the British, were appointed for them. (Falola, 59)

…the sultan and other political leaders, now acting as appointees of the British government, not only refused to cooperate, but they allowed their men to join with the British. (Falola, 61)

…As in the case of the Itsekiri, one chief could be used against another to undermine collective resistance. Rivalries among the states played into European hands…(Falola, 63)

But even here the British did not, as is sometimes assumed, simply proceed on the basis of preserving existing rulerships with which to collaborate; Lugard at least considered the alternative of restoring Hausa dynasties displaced by the jihad, before deciding to build the new system of colonial autocracy upon the structures created under the caliphate. The northern Nigerian system of ‘indirect rule’ was a response to local circumstances before it became the basis of colonial dogma. (Fage, 285)

So you see, while there are differences in African identities throughout the continent, and they did exist prior to colonialism, tribalism as we know it today is, in part, a creation of the colonial period. And the way we’re presented with African identities today, as if the West has had no part in the creation of the conflicts we see now, is simply a misrepresentation of history.

Sources:

Falola, Tony. The History of Nigera. Greenwood Press, 1999.

Fage, JD. The Cambridge History of Africa: From the earliest times to c. 500 BC, Volume 1. Cambridge University Press, 1986.

There were no tribes in Africa

[Since I’m going to write up a few posts about the Rwandan genocide and the Congolese wars that followed, I think it’s important to understand that the erroneous way we’ve been presented these conflicts has been largely the fault of generalizations made during the colonial era. I’ll try to keep this explanation as short as possible.]

Prior to European colonization, Africans did not identify themselves solely by ethnicity. The idea of tribes, and the geographic borders surrounding them, is a European construct more than anything. During the fifteenth century, when Europeans began venturing further into Africa, Europe was torn by national/ethnic lines. Spanish, British, French identities were based, like they are today, very much on patronage. European traders, explorers, settlers, and colonizers brought this construct to Africa.

Prior to colonization, African identities were much more fluid. Take for example, the Swahili of Kenya and Tanzania. One can “become” Swahili and adopt it as an identity by speaking the language (Kiswahili) and converting to Islam. The Niumi of The Gambia incorporated anyone who acknowledge the overlordship of a ruling family, not just anyone born into the group. They became a part of this ethnic group, but because identities were always so multi-layered, one cannot lump an entire group of people into an ethnicity and make sweeping generalizations. As Donald Wright points out, more often things like extended family, class/occupation and village were used as a basis for an identity, much more so than ethnic group.

The idea of tribes was brought to Africa for several reasons. For one thing, the European sense of cultural superiority makes it understandable that they would transfer the ethnic divisions of European states onto the African map. It was easier to place people into categories based on perceived divisions of ethnicity than it was to try to understand the multi-layered, fluid identities that prevailed. Secondly, colonial authorities found that placing people into “tribes” with “chiefs” was an effective way of creating a political order. The colonial period was one of significant upheaval, socially and economically, for Africans. They sought a sense of order in the European perception of African society. “Africans wanted effective units of action no less than colonial administrators wanted effective units of government. And so, because Europeans believed Africans belonged to tribes; Africans built tribes to belong to.” (Reader, pg 616)

When we discuss the Rwandan genocide, particularly in the mainstream media, it is presented as a “tribal conflict”. While the Tutsis were the primary target of the genocide, and the perpetrators were mainly Hutu, to boil the massacre down to some ancient concept of identity that the rest of the world had nothing to do with is entirely false. These identities were created by colonizers, pitted against one another and exploited for material gain. The Rwandan genocide is not only the responsibility of the international community because of its inaction during the slaughter; the rest of the world must acknowledge their own history on the continent that contributed to these explosive ethnic tensions.

Sources:

Wright, Donald. “What Do You Mean There Were No Tribes in Africa?”: Thoughts on Boundaries— And Related Matters— In Precolonial Africa. History in Africa, vol. 26 (1999): 409-426

Reader, John. Africa: A Biography of the Continent. New York: Vintage Books, 1998.

“I am not a Westerner—I am a Zaïrean, an African. I live with technology like anyone else in the world, but this is an African democracy. It has one chief, not two, not three.” - Mobutu Sese Seko
Mobutu as Kleptocrat
Once Lumumba was out of power, Joseph Mobutu (the Army commander of the Congo) ousted President Kasa-Vubu. From 1965 until 1997, Mobutu reigned over the Congo with brutality and greed.
While plotting to kill Lumumba, the CIA worked closely with Mobutu to get the job done, supplying him with an American-piloted plane to use in the country, and cash to pay his soldiers. When he consolidated power in 1965, it was with the aid of US financed mercenaries.
For the next few years, Mobutu essentially did away with the political system entirely, establishing one-man rule and ridding himself of the inconvenience of political rivals by hanging them in public executions. He began his cult of personality at this point, pushing further and further the idea that the President was “the embodiment of the nation”.
Mobutu began with a policy he called “Authenticité” (also called “Zairianization” and “Mobutuism”), in which Western styles were done away with. The country was renamed Zaire (“Zaire” is actually a Portuguese mispronunciation of the local name of a river. So much for doing away with European influence…) Mobutu began advocating for a return to ancestral names (changing his own to Mobutu Sese Seko), and non-Western styles of dress. Leopard-print Mao-style tunics became his trademark look.
His power was absolute and he used this power to build his own wealth. Mobutu amassed a personal fortune valued at FIVE BILLION DOLLARS while his country’s inflation rate rose to 7,000% by 1993. Some of his favorite extravagances were Mercedes-Benz cars (of which he owned a fleet) and chartered Concorde flights to Paris. He also had complete control over the people he was surrounded with, and their families. Political associates would often trade him sexual encounters with their wives in exchange for fancy cars and cash.
Keep in mind, Western powers were supplying the country with aid up until 1990, when Mobutu killed an unknown number of pro-democracy students at the University of Lumumbashi. After an international outcry over the crimes, the US, France, and Belgium withdrew aid, along with several other countries. The end of the Cold War brought about the end of Mobutu’s strategic importance to the US.
In 1994, Mobutu supported the Hutu extremists who carried out the genocide in Zaire’s neighboring country, Rwanda. Even now, those responsible for the genocide that killed 800,000 people in 100 days in a country the size of Maryland are still hiding in Zaire (now named the Democratic Republic of Congo).
This support for the genocide and Zaire’s political and economic devastation under Mobutu’s rule brought a wave of opposition that eventually ousted him in 1997. He went into exile in Morocco and died 4 months later, reportedly of prostate cancer.
“If ever I leave power, it will be only in conditions of beauty, never  under pressure.”

See my previous posts about the Congo.

Sources
Leaving Fire in His Wake: Mobutu Sese Seko
Mobutu Sese Seko, 66, Longtime Dictator of Zaire (NYT obituary)
Suharto, Marcos and Mubutu head corruption table with $5bn scams
Mobutu: ‘One Chief, Not Two’

“I am not a Westerner—I am a Zaïrean, an African. I live with technology like anyone else in the world, but this is an African democracy. It has one chief, not two, not three.” - Mobutu Sese Seko

Mobutu as Kleptocrat

Once Lumumba was out of power, Joseph Mobutu (the Army commander of the Congo) ousted President Kasa-Vubu. From 1965 until 1997, Mobutu reigned over the Congo with brutality and greed.

While plotting to kill Lumumba, the CIA worked closely with Mobutu to get the job done, supplying him with an American-piloted plane to use in the country, and cash to pay his soldiers. When he consolidated power in 1965, it was with the aid of US financed mercenaries.

For the next few years, Mobutu essentially did away with the political system entirely, establishing one-man rule and ridding himself of the inconvenience of political rivals by hanging them in public executions. He began his cult of personality at this point, pushing further and further the idea that the President was “the embodiment of the nation”.

Mobutu began with a policy he called “Authenticité” (also called “Zairianization” and “Mobutuism”), in which Western styles were done away with. The country was renamed Zaire (“Zaire” is actually a Portuguese mispronunciation of the local name of a river. So much for doing away with European influence…) Mobutu began advocating for a return to ancestral names (changing his own to Mobutu Sese Seko), and non-Western styles of dress. Leopard-print Mao-style tunics became his trademark look.

His power was absolute and he used this power to build his own wealth. Mobutu amassed a personal fortune valued at FIVE BILLION DOLLARS while his country’s inflation rate rose to 7,000% by 1993. Some of his favorite extravagances were Mercedes-Benz cars (of which he owned a fleet) and chartered Concorde flights to Paris. He also had complete control over the people he was surrounded with, and their families. Political associates would often trade him sexual encounters with their wives in exchange for fancy cars and cash.

Keep in mind, Western powers were supplying the country with aid up until 1990, when Mobutu killed an unknown number of pro-democracy students at the University of Lumumbashi. After an international outcry over the crimes, the US, France, and Belgium withdrew aid, along with several other countries. The end of the Cold War brought about the end of Mobutu’s strategic importance to the US.

In 1994, Mobutu supported the Hutu extremists who carried out the genocide in Zaire’s neighboring country, Rwanda. Even now, those responsible for the genocide that killed 800,000 people in 100 days in a country the size of Maryland are still hiding in Zaire (now named the Democratic Republic of Congo).

This support for the genocide and Zaire’s political and economic devastation under Mobutu’s rule brought a wave of opposition that eventually ousted him in 1997. He went into exile in Morocco and died 4 months later, reportedly of prostate cancer.

“If ever I leave power, it will be only in conditions of beauty, never under pressure.”


See my previous posts about the Congo.


Sources

Leaving Fire in His Wake: Mobutu Sese Seko

Mobutu Sese Seko, 66, Longtime Dictator of Zaire (NYT obituary)

Suharto, Marcos and Mubutu head corruption table with $5bn scams

Mobutu: ‘One Chief, Not Two’

other news is designed by manasto jones, powered by tumblr and best viewed with safari.