Read this 1961 C.I.A. internal report on Pan Africanism

[get these nets]

I'm sure that most are aware of CIA direct involvement, meddling, orchestrated coups in developing countries. Ive seen footnotes when these documents have been cited before, but this is my first time reading CIA document about how Pan Africanism was viewed in this time period.

Based on the text, you can tell how the propaganda to counter it was crafted.

Historical Documents - Office of the Historian

history.state.gov 3.0 shell

history.state.gov

 

[Chrishaune]

It's always infiltrate and destroy anything that goes against the Roman Catholic -Jesuit-Freemason-Global government agenda-World religion-European supremacy -Central bank system.......

 

[Tupac in a Business Suit]

CIA was right about nepotism and petty corruption. Look no further than the current system in place in America.

 

[CopiousX]

I find it interesting that more then 70 years later the This sahell alliance mentioned in conclusion point4 actually came to fruition. And it would have been perfect if Ghana wasnt c00ning. But Burkinafaso replaced them



And point 6 proved to be true all these years later.


It's very sad that most of the things in that paper are still true today because they're all bad things. The only things that that paper got wrong were urbanization and the Sahel alliance. We are very quickly running away from the situation of 85% of the population being rural. But other than that all the same divisions and dysfunction are still there.


I will admit that I learn something new. This document taught me the significance of money in the Pan-African push.

Spoiler: what i learned panAfro and money

I was unaware of this previously. We can see From both nasser's successful efforts to fund movements in sub-Saharan Africa gaining him a loose union of allies, And also we can see thhis in the disillusion of the Gabon, Chad, Congo , and Central African Republic Union because Gabon refused to share its wealth.

We also see this in the way that white people were able to arbitrarily create the African Union with their money. And hiw they still begrudgingly hold the union together by funding it 70% today. Which was a task that native africans failed to do over 40years of their own volition

From both these realities I realize now that Pan-Africanism most likely failed at the beginning due to poverty. Ideas were brought to the table, but funding was not. The few people that could fund and were willing to do so like Egypt did not have enough funding to stitch together all the countries.


This leaves me to wonder that maybe the better path to pan africanism is

Spoiler: a possible solution

would be the economic advancement of a single country, and this one country buying out its neighbors ,thus coercing them into a union. The one thing we know for sure is that the beautiful poetic appeals of kwame nkrumah and the modern-day PLO lumumbas don't work. So I think leading the pan-African effort from a money perspective may work.

I envision a modified version of the monrovia doctrine (in contrast to Casablanca under nkrumah) . Effectively regional players using their wealth to buy off smaller neighbors into the union lead by them.


Almost like a leveraged acquisition in banking, this would mean that The more small neighbors a country has eaten through financial mergers into their union, the more leverage this country's union will have to financially coerce more wealthy countries to join. Im picturing something like a snowball turning into an avalanche of Pan-Africanism.

I think the only issue in a theoretical money push towards Pan-Africanism is

Spoiler: a possible objection...

is selfishness like in the case of Gabon. We see this today where South Africa could very easily coerce all of its neighbors into a single union, The relative selfishness of South Africans prevents a union, instead forcing the southern block into a loose association of sadac. I think the selfishness is extremely shortsighted because such a dominant player would have full access to the markets of the poor members, meaning the selfishness is unfounded and it prevents the accumulation of more wealth by the dominant nation.

 

[Amestafuu (Emeritus)]

Good luck discussion that on this forum.

 

[Justin Nitsuj]

All this really tells me is that white people is and were always obsessed with Black people, more specifically Black Americans. They knew back then that Pan Africanism is a failed experiment. But of course, they had a hand in making it a failed experiment by brainwashing Africans into believing they (white people) were the good guys and Black Americans are the bad guys. Which is why so many Africans come over here thinking that they are better than us and that is far from true. Africans are comfortable with being white people’s lapdogs as long as it gets them a seat at their table.

 

[Brolic]

 

[get these nets]

@CopiousX

Interesting take.
My take is that Pan Africanism did not fail. The stated goal of it after WW2 ended was independence from Euro countries. At the time this study was done, several countries had done that, with more to come within the following ten years. Due in large part to the actions of Kwame Nkrumah who agitated for, leveraged Ghana's resources and relationships, and worked with independence activists in the respective countries after Ghana gained theirs in 1957.
Eventually, that goal succeeded as every country has become independent.

The second phase of the goal was trying to help the countries start off on the right foot, as they transitioned. The Pan Africanists were, in point #16 from CIA perspective promoting " goals couched in negative terms".


For their efforts, the leaders who wanted to protect the interests of their countrymen were met with extreme resistance......from outsiders who wanted to protect their own interests.

Nkrumah removed from office by CIA involved coup in 1966. Lumumba removed from office by CIA involved assasination ahead of the publication of this document in 1961.

Each country has gone through the natural growing pains and cycles since then. Internal issues and external ones. Just like the United States and every new nation did.
And the modern concept of Pan Africanism is a tool in the fight for development.

As you extract yourself from the influence/money from the West, you have to replace the resources that they provide to you. There is the rest of the continent + diaspora out there with consumer markets, investors, professionals, entrepreneurs,etc.

 

[get these nets]

Good luck discussion that on this forum.

But that's the reason the ignore button exists. The Real House-Clowns of the Coli can be avoided forever.

They dont get to dictate anything here.

 

[Tupac in a Business Suit]

@CopiousX

Interesting take.
My take is that Pan Africanism did not fail. The stated goal of it after WW2 ended was independence from Euro countries. At the time this study was done, several countries had done that, with more to come within the following ten years. Due in large part to the actions of Kwame Nkrumah who agitated and for, leveraged Ghana's resources and relationships, and worked with independence activists in the respective countries after Ghana gained theirs in 1957.
Eventually, that goal succeeded as every country has become independent.

The second phase of the goal was trying to help the countries start off on the right foot, as they transitioned. The Pan Africanists were, in point #16 from CIA perspective promoting " goals couched in negative terms".


For their efforts, the leaders who wanted to protect the interests of their countrymen were met with extreme resistance......from outsiders who wanted to protect their own interests.

Nkrumah removed from office by CIA involved coup in 1966. Lumumba removed from office by CIA involved assasination ahead of the publication of this document in 1961.

Each country has gone through the natural growing pains and cycles since then. Internal issues and external ones. Just like the United States and every new nation did.
And the modern concept of Pan Africanism is a tool in the fight for development.

As you extract yourself from the influence/money from the West, you have to replace the resources that they provide to you. There is the rest of the continent + diaspora out there with consumer markets, investors, professionals, entrepreneurs,etc.

Good points. From my experiences traveling in my 20s and early thirties, all countries across the globe experience some kind of foreign interest, influence and then interference. I’d be interested in reading these kinds of papers on Asian and Euro countries movements as well. Wherever there are black people, there will be interest because we are interesting people. Panafricanism does not equal Wakanda and anyone who is against it can rock that way. I choose to avoid a pattern of brushing with broad strokes.

 

[Nkrumah Was Right]

Interesting discussion in this thread...

 

[get these nets]

Good points. From my experiences traveling in my 20s and early thirties, all countries across the globe experience some kind of foreign interest, influence and then interference. I’d be interested in reading these kinds of papers on Asian and Euro countries movements as well.

At the same link in OP, there is a searchable archive of the

The Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) series presents the official documentary historical record of major U.S. foreign policy decisions and significant diplomatic activity.

Wherever there are black people, there will be interest because we are interesting people. Panafricanism does not equal Wakanda and anyone who is against it can rock that way. I choose to avoid a pattern of brushing with broad strokes.

Agree. People are free to support/explore it or not. In the modern era, it's about synergy and people having expanded access, exchange, options and opportunities.

 

[Tupac in a Business Suit]

At the same link in OP, there is a searchable archive of the

The Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) series presents the official documentary historical record of major U.S. foreign policy decisions and significant diplomatic activity.




Agree. People are free to support/explore it or not. In the modern era, it's about synergy and people having expanded access, exchange, options and opportunities.

I gotta rep another 25 users before I can bless you again so that might take a minute but I appreciate you following up. Africa nor the Caribbean have to be America in order to do business. ”Integrity has no need for rules”. If someone doesn’t have that upon first meet, I remove myself from their presence.

 

[WIA20XX]

 

[Kasgoinjail]

Patrice Lumumba