Talk:Patrice Lumumba

Assassination?

You could call it unjust imprisonment and execution but it was not an assassination. From the Free Dictionary:

as·sas·si·nate (ə-săs′ə-nāt′) tr.v. as·sas·si·nat·ed, as·sas·si·nat·ing, as·sas·si·nates 1. To murder (a prominent person) by surprise attack, as for political reasons. 2. To destroy or injure treacherously: assassinate a rival's character.

Al Legato (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I've thought about this too. The thing is, scholars often talk about his death as an assassination (probably to point to the level of conspiracy surrounding it), most notably Lude de Witte, also Georges Nzongola-Ntalaja, Thomas Kanza, and Godfrey Mwakikagile. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Then I think it depends on the definition one is using. If the emphasis is on 'surprise attack', then it wasn't an assassination but an execution. But Black Law's dictionary (quoted in the Wikipedia article about assassination) calls it "the act of murdering a prominent or important person", making this case definitely an assassination. And indeed, authoritative sources have called it an assassination. So I don't think there's a problem calling it as such. CBJH (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Such a definition would imply that Muammar Gaddafi was assassinated. Does that seem right? The word does not normally apply when someone is no longer in power and is in the hands of their enemies. LastDodo (talk) 16:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that technically Lumumba's death was the immediate result of an "extrajudicial execution", or plainly a "murder", but the lions share of sources call it an assassination nonetheless. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Well the sources have it wrong then. So I guess this is just one of those wikipedia rules I can't get along with. Oh Well. LastDodo (talk) 09:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Belgian involvement section

I would like to make a comment on this section.

After the section on de committee report it states that Ludo de Witte found out about a cable talking about the definitive elimination of Patrice Lumumba by Count Lynden. This order makes it seem like this was new evidence after the committee report in Belgium. This is not the case. They knew about all these cables and afterwards concluded that Belgium did not order the assassination of Lumumba. The cable by Lynden was part of the political elimination of Premier Lumumba. It would be nice if someone added an actual proper link to the committee report. LouisBStevenson (talk) 12:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

US Was Not Involved In Lumumba Death

This article has the U.S. ‘involvement’ in the execution of Lubumba. Its content describes an aborted assassination, one having nothing to do with the killing. The Church Senate Committee Report on Foreign Assassination attempts includes the sentence: "It does not appear from the evidence that the United States was in any way involved in the killing." This in reference to the killing of Lumumba. That should be made clear.

Maybe this website should not so often work to merit its nickname "Wokepedia" by always skewing articles to the left politically. Sychonic (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

• While I agree that the present coverage of this is outdated, deficient, and somewhat misleading (according to what we know now), to say "US Was Not Involved In Lumumba Death" is probably not true. I have a copy of White Malice, so I might get around at some point towards rewriting this section. If you believe portraying the reality of this situation is a politically biased thing to do, that's a personal problem. There are many myths perpetuated about Lumumba which do serve political ends and have political slant, but the involvement of Belgium and the US in his downfall is not one of them -Indy beetle (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, the idea that the US assassinated him has been a popular conspiracy theory among some left leaning people for a while now. The only hard evidence is that his assassination was brought up by Eisenhower once, but that’s it. He never authorized anything, nor was any mission to kill him carried out. I do think the sentence from the Church Committee report that explicitly says that the US didn’t kill him should be included, since it is brought up multiple times and referenced in other articles to make the case for the alleged assassination plot.Friedbyrd (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, maybe the section should be renamed “alleged foreign involvement” at least for the US since there has never been any solid evidence provided. I am not very familiar with Belgium and if they had a planned to assassinate him.Friedbyrd (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

It is well documented that the Eisenhower administration wanted Lumumba dead (whatever Eisenhower's vague words on the subject were) and the CIA tried to make this happen (the whole toothpaste plot and all, for example). That rises above mere allegation, but the operations started by Eisenhower's order were eventually suspended when Lumumba was placed under house arrest. It gets murkier after Lumumba's escape and recapture. This also happened around the time of the transition between Eisenhower and JFK's administrations. JFK didn't like Lumumba but did not want him killed, and was very alarmed to learn of his death shortly after he came into office in 1961. Where the popular romantic narratives get this wrong is by essentially implying the CIA organized Lumumba's execution because "muh imperialism", but that does not mean there was no involvement on the part of US officials. Belgium was much more clearly and directly involved in the sequence of events which put Lumumba before a firing squad, with Harold d'Aspremont Lynden, the former Belgian Minister of the Colonies, having sent a telegram to the Congolese central government advising them to take Lumumba to Katanga, where he was almost immediately killed. The UK involvement is much more speculative than either the US or Belgium. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Eisenhower flirted with the idea of assassinating him at one NSA meeting, and the evidence for this was the note taker of that meeting recalling it years after the fact. That’s literally all the evidence for Eisenhower hand in his supposed murder by the USA. There is nothing that exist that JFK did anything to try and kill him. Other than this there are rumors and speculations and left wing conspiracy theories, but no actual evidence. This segment of the article if padded out by simply repeating the same information over (the note takers recollection of the NSA meeting), but as it’s been pointed out, this was part of the Church investigation which out right stated that there was no evidence found.Friedbyrd (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - our article cites 19 references describing discussion within the CIA or US government of a possible assassination of Lumumba, the planning of his assassination, and aborted attempts shortly prior to Lumumba's killing. The references also describe CIA arming and training of the political forces that ousted Lumumba from power, and CIA officers seeking to dispose of his body. The Church committee report does state that it could not find evidence that Lumumba's actual execution was plotted by the CIA. But it also states that given the secrecy of such operations, the committee can only become aware of any given plot if "facts are brought to the attention of an investigating body." Given these references, uninformed and unreferenced certainty about the US being uninvolved in Lumumba's death is tendentious and should be disregarded by editors. -Darouet (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Blackwashing

The reference to the alleged white prostitute was added solely to infuriate many readers. Lumumba wanted to repatriate the diamond mines that has been taken by force, to the economic detriment of Belgium and New York. Thus branded a Communist. LoveOfMoney (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)