America's Fault?

One of the questions that Kingsolver poses is who is at fault for what happened to the Congo? This novel, The Poisonwood Bible, takes place during the time in which the Congo was becoming independent. Kingsolver uses the Price family as a way to convey what is happening in the Congo itself during one of the most controversial times for that nation. Kingsolver writes this novel after finding out about the assassination of Patrice Lumumba was under orders by President Eisenhower at the time. Many find that after reading this novel it is America who is at fault for ruining the Congo after Belgium granted the region its independence in 1960. The  Congo being able to run as an independent country was not ruined by the United States when President Eisenhower had Lumumba killed rather it occurred much earlier. I think this is where Kingsolver seems to forget that by killing Lumumba and placing someone pro-United States in power did not ruin the country it gave it a stable government and recognition throughout the world. The beginning of the end for the Congo was in 1908 when the Belgian army marched in and claimed it. Africa was the next great continent to colonize. North America was all claimed the next great money maker was Africa and Europe was not going to let it just sit there untouched only a few miles away. Belgium took over the Congo and made it an unbearable place for its natives treating them like a beast of burden at best. Fast forward fifty two years and suddenly you have a colony that has very little education and becomes a liability to its mother country as the scent of rebellion is picked up. How do you quell rebellion? Simple you give them exactly what they want freedom and that is just what Belgium did in 1960. The Price family witnesses the decline of the Belgian state of the Congo in their first year there. 

One of the big points that Kingsolver makes is that deep inside the Congo it appears nothing changed from the day Belgium marched into when they left. It was essentially impossible to tell the difference in the Price's opinion. I think this little piece of information stands out as the turning point of when Kingsolver begins to pin the blame, for what is now the Congo, on the United States. From here she does hit all the right events to convince someone that the United States is at fault for the Congo collapsing as a nation. I would say that the United States did not help save the Congo by any means, but they did not set them up to fail as a nation.  If you recall after Lumumba is elected the province of Katanga attempted to secede. A civil war was already breaking out a mere eleven days into the new Belgian free Congo. As his country struggled to survive Lumumba got himself involved in the Cold War by asking the USSR for economic help. This sparked the United States attention causing them and Belgium to plot and kill Lumumba and place Mobutu in power a man who was much more loyal to the United States and its allies. 

Many would say that by placing Mobutu in power it set the Congo up for failure, yet with him as president the country restabilized. He may have been the wrong choice in the long run as the country did not flourish under him, but he did make sure the country was safe and remaining politically relevant for world superpowers. 

To sum all this up I think that the Congo was doomed from the beginning and that it was simply a brief period of the destruction that Kingsolver chose to highlight. By taking this small portion of the greater history of the country she was able to make it appear that the Belgians were doing the right thing by freeing the nation and the United States ruined it all by killing Lumumba.