Historic U.S. Policies and CIA Influence Behind Foundational Black Americans’ Boycott of African Businesses

A growing number of Black Americans are calling for a boycott of African-owned businesses, specifically braiding shops, on the need for ideal customer service and “respect” within the Black diaspora in the United States.

While this boycott movement, growing in influence and reach with the power of social media, has a cultural superiority undertone to it, it was sparked by a series of short-video clips on TikTok from Shea’s Shelf (@shea_thecreator).

In early August, the boycott campaign evolved into a movement among Black Americans, urging support for Black American-owned businesses over those owned by African immigrants. These Black Americans identify as “Foundational Black Americans” and the “American Descendants of Slavery.”

Apparent as it would seem to a historian or a student of history, the hands that shook the jar and sow division within the black communities dated back to 1978, one that suggests a more profound, orchestrated influence by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

This movement, gaining traction on platforms like TikTok, is portrayed not merely as community friction but as a manifestation of long-standing U.S. strategies to divide Black populations globally.

As the movement circulates in reach, West Africa Weekly’s Founder, and also a geopolitical commentator at the Hot Spot, David Hundeyin, drew an analysis using the 1978 National Security Council Memorandum (NSC-46), as authored by Zbigniew Brzezinski under President Jimmy Carter.

This confidential document, now publicly available, outlined a series of measures to inhibit unity between Black Americans and Africans, fearing that such collaboration could lead to collective action against U.S. policies, particularly regarding apartheid South Africa and later, Israeli policies in Palestine.

The memo proposed CIA-led operations to “cause division among Black African radical national group leaders” and to “impede durable ties between U.S. Black organisations and radical groups in African states,” aiming to perpetuate social stratification within the Black community.

Hundeyin, using implications of this salient historical context, further argued that the current boycott, while seemingly a response to perceived disrespect and economic competition, may be unwittingly or intentionally amplifying divisions that serve broader geopolitical interests.

He also highlights how such divisions could distract from larger struggles against systemic racism and economic disparity, both in the U.S. and Africa, where issues like artificial de-industrialisation and non-representative leadership persist.

As Africa continues to assert its sovereignty, exemplified by actions like South Africa’s case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and as Black American activists engage in global solidarity movements, the narrative of division versus unity only continues to fuel a vulnerable and dangerous battleground that could be exploited, as seen in the U.S. intelligence operations documented in NSC-46.

Hundeyin’s analysis brings in a different perspective to this intersection of past U.S. policies and present actions. One that calls for a nuanced understanding of Black diaspora relations, urging both communities to navigate these tensions with a critical eye towards unity and collective action, rather than succumbing to division that most likely would serve interests far removed from their own.

Read More:

• Gates, Pfizer, and the West’s Silent Stake in Controlling Africa’s Fertility
• Tinubu’s Nigeria: A Nation Held Hostage by Failure

About The Author

Mayowa Durosinmi

author

M. Durosinmi is a West Africa Weekly investigative reporter covering Politics, Human Rights, Health, and Security in West Africa and the Sahel Region

See author's posts