Africa Needs God...

Fanny Cradock

A while back PDN opened a thread that centred on an article by Matthew Parris entitled: As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God.

Last night News Night ran a short documentary on Liberia that briefly outlined some of the pressing challenges facing the country since the end of the civil war. In doing so documentary focused on a certain Joshua Milton Blahyi who was also known as General Butt-Naked for his propensity to charge into battle naked as the day he was born. He has admitted to being directly or indirectly responsible for approximately 20,000 deaths as well as having indulged in cannibalism and human sacrifice. However, since then he claims to have had a 'Road to Damascus' epiphany - Jesus spoke to him and he changed his ways.

Whether you look at his dramatic change of heart as nothing more than cynical attempt to save his own skin through the manipulation of other beliefs, or as an actual divine intervention (this might go some way to explaining his openness in admitting his horrendous crimes and apparent willingness to face punishment for them) it makes the story no less fascinating.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/7858092.stm

(Click above to watch the video - approx. 12 minutes long)

Overblood

A very touchy subject, but a good one.

ChocolateSauce

I'm of the opinion that anyone who says Africa needs god is either saying that the ignorant and badly educated (if at all) need religion whereas the educated and enlightened do not, or is saying that black people aren't as advanced mentally as non-blacks and couldn't possibly live life without the crutch of religion.

Overblood

What it needs is a non-corrupt leadership, and a decent education.

More schools to learn how to read, write, do maths, science, business etc. Churches won't do much.

PDN

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I'm of the opinion that anyone who says Africa needs god is either saying that the ignorant and badly educated (if at all) need religion whereas the educated and enlightened do not, or is saying that black people aren't as advanced mentally as non-blacks and couldn't possibly live life without the crutch of religion.

Or maybe they have first hand experience of Africa and the misery that continent has endured. In that case they are looking at what will positively impact people's lives rather than arguing an ideological position or scoring points in arguments.

PDN

Overblood wrote: »

What it needs is a non-corrupt leadership, and a decent education.

More schools to learn how to read, write, do maths, science, business etc. Churches won't do much.

The last sentence of your post somewhat contradicts the rest of it. Many, possibly most, schools in many African countries are established and run by churches.

Mena

PDN wrote: »

Or maybe they have first hand experience of Africa and the misery that continent has endured. In that case they are looking at what will positively impact people's lives rather than arguing an ideological position or scoring points in arguments.

I'm with PDN here. Having lived in Africa for most of my life and seen that misery first hand, positive impacts, howsoever they are achieved, will be a good thing.

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Whether you look at his dramatic change of heart as nothing more than cynical attempt to save his own skin through the manipulation of other beliefs, or as an actual divine intervention (this might go some way to explaining his openness in admitting his horrendous crimes and apparent willingness to face punishment for them) it makes the story no less fascinating.

Can't watch it from where I am now, but from your description, it seems odd in the extreme to me that anybody would think it likely that an invisible deity would reach into the world to reverse the character of a politically-inclined mass-murderer, when at the same time, it seems rather obvious that the same man would benefit from suddenly telling everybody that he's completely reformed (thereby -- rather conveniently, it seems -- implying that he no longer needs the long arm of the law to chase him).

How many christians really do find the "divine intervention" the more plausible of the two explanations?

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Can't watch it from where I am now, but from your description, it seems odd in the extreme to me that anybody would think it likely that an invisible deity would reach into the world to reverse the character of a politically-inclined mass-murderer, when at the same time, it seems rather obvious that the same man would benefit from suddenly telling everybody that he's completely reformed (thereby -- rather conveniently, it seems -- implying that he no longer needs the long arm of the law to chase him).

How many christians really do find the "divine intervention" the more plausible of the two explanations?

I remember this truly horrific case. Actually the guy was in exile (in Ghana if I remember correctly) but after his conversion returned to Liberia to testify to the Truth & Reconciliation Commission. He did this in order to contribute to the healing of a nation where so many suffered unspeakable atrocities. Liberia's Truth & Reconciliation Commission, unlike the one in South Africa, grants no immunity from prosecution - so this guy knew he was facing the death penalty by returning to Liberia. I doubt, therefore, that his conversion is any attempt to evade the 'long arm of the law' (which, in West Africa, tends not to be very long at all).

turgon

One of the reasons Africa is such a ****hole is because past Europeans were of the opinion that Africa needed God.

I think history has pretty much debunked the theory.

PDN

turgon wrote: »

One of the reasons Africa is such a ****hole is because past Europeans were of the opinion that Africa needed God.

I think history has pretty much debunked the theory.

No, the problem was that Europeans were of the opinion that European nations and business concerns needed Africa's resources (including African people as slaves).

I think it was Bishop Tutu who said, "When the white man came to Africa we had the land and he had the Bible. Then he asked to pray with us. After we prayed, we opened our eyes and discovered we had the Bible and the white man had the land."

The main reason why Africa is a hole is because of human greed and tribalism. Tribalism was encouraged by the colonial powers because it made adminstration easy.

I think history has pretty much debunked the theory that religion is to blame for Africa's problems.

Orizio

Stating what 'history' does or does not think about a certain theory is a rather dubious way to argue, as, for that matter, is putting European colonisation in Africa purely down to economic matters.

At the very least colonists used religious rhetoric to great effect to legitimise thier actions in the continent, an indictment in itself, and one cannot ignore the fact that exceptionally religious human beings went to Africa in their thousands upon thousands with the expressed wish to force an alien way of life and way of thinking upon a people that asked for a change in neither. Missionaries were an essential part of the process of colonisation, attacking practices and traditions that binded these socities together and in their arrogance, attempting to replace them with a culture and religion they deemed superior. The destructive influence of Christianity in Africa during the era of colonialism is something that should not be forgotten about, or minimised.

PDN

Orizio wrote: »

Stating what 'history' does or does not think about a certain theory is a rather dubious way to argue, as, for that matter, is putting European colonisation in Africa purely down to economic matters.

At the very least colonists used religious rhetoric to great effect to legitimise thier actions in the continent, an indictment in itself, and one cannot ignore the fact that exceptionally religious human beings went to Africa in their thousands upon thousands with the expressed wish to force an alien way of life and way of thinking upon a people that asked for a change in neither. Missionaries were an essential part of the process of colonisation, attacking practices and traditions that binded these socities together and in their arrogance, attempting to replace them with a culture and religion they deemed superior. The destructive influence of Christianity in Africa during the era of colonialism is something that should not be forgotten about, or minimised.

Yes, because Africa was an idyllic place to live before the arrival of Christianity.

Orizio

With respect, thats a nothing response, and not very respectful. Its nothing more then a strawman as clearly I never suggested that Africa was an 'idyllic place', but that Christianity was an important part of a shameful process that made millions destitute.

Debate that if you wish, or concede the point.

2Scoops

PDN wrote: »

Liberia's Truth & Reconciliation Commission, unlike the one in South Africa, grants no immunity from prosecution - so this guy knew he was facing the death penalty by returning to Liberia. I doubt, therefore, that his conversion is any attempt to evade the 'long arm of the law' (which, in West Africa, tends not to be very long at all).

It's worth pointing out that he appears to be very much alive and well in Liberia at the mo. :pac:

PDN

Orizio wrote: »

With respect, thats a nothing response, and not very respectful. Its nothing more then a strawman as clearly I never suggested that Africa was an 'idyllic place', but that Christianity was an important part of a shameful process that made millions destitute.

Debate that if you wish, or concede the point.

I'd certainly agree (rather than 'concede' - since that would imply I was arguing the point in the first place) that Christendom played a shameful part in the colonisation of Africa. Some missionaries tried hard to protect the rights of the Africans, but far too many were complicit in the colonisation.

I think colonisation served to keep (rather than make) Africans destitute. What I've learned about the history of the continent (I visit several times a year) indicates that it was pretty crap before colonisation began. Christianity did bring improvements for many, but often they were too little and sadly infrequent.

Christianity was also a potent force in most of the movements for independence that brought about the end of the colonial era. Sadly, due to basic human nature and colonialism's legacy of tribalism, the continent's subsequent history has often been heartbreaking.

For anyone wanting to understand the reasons for Africa's current series of crises I would recommend Martin Meredith's excellent The State of Africa.

sorella

That is not Christianity.

Orizio wrote: »

With respect, thats a nothing response, and not very respectful. Its nothing more then a strawman as clearly I never suggested that Africa was an 'idyllic place', but that Christianity was an important part of a shameful process that made millions destitute.

Debate that if you wish, or concede the point.

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

Can't watch it from where I am now, but from your description, it seems odd in the extreme to me that anybody would think it likely that an invisible deity would reach into the world to reverse the character of a politically-inclined mass-murderer, when at the same time, it seems rather obvious that the same man would benefit from suddenly telling everybody that he's completely reformed (thereby -- rather conveniently, it seems -- implying that he no longer needs the long arm of the law to chase him).

How many christians really do find the "divine intervention" the more plausible of the two explanations?

It's a fair point, and given your position of non-belief, it is the most plausible explanation.

However, I do think it odd that he and his compatriots would be quite so open about their crimes. As for the former general implying that the law need not chase him - I suggest you watch the video first before making such assumptions. He didn't protest his innocence when punishment was mentioned. He even suggested that imprisonment or the death penalty would be justified.

Orizio

sorella wrote: »

That is not Christianity.

Excuse me? Am I right in guessing your thinking goes along the lines of...

Anything Good = Christianity.

Anything Bad = 'Not' Christianity.

?

sorella

er... no....

Orizio wrote: »

Excuse me? Am I right in guessing your thinking goes along the lines of...

Anything Good = Christianity.

Anything Bad = 'Not' Christianity.

?

Orizio

PDN wrote: »

I'd certainly agree (rather than 'concede' - since that would imply I was arguing the point in the first place) that Christendom played a shameful part in the colonisation of Africa. Some missionaries tried hard to protect the rights of the Africans, but far too many were complicit in the colonisation.

I think colonisation served to keep (rather than make) Africans destitute. What I've learned about the history of the continent (I visit several times a year) indicates that it was pretty crap before colonisation began. Christianity did bring improvements for many, but often they were too little and sadly infrequent.

Christianity was also a potent force in most of the movements for independence that brought about the end of the colonial era. Sadly, due to basic human nature and colonialism's legacy of tribalism, the continent's subsequent history has often been heartbreaking.

For anyone wanting to understand the reasons for Africa's current series of crises I would recommend Martin Meredith's excellent The State of Africa.

Are you not contradicting yourself here? Your first paragraph seems to suggest that you agree with me as to Christianity being a part of the wider process of Colonialism, however in the second paragraph you seem to argue that because their lives were 'pretty crap', the coming of Christianity brought 'improvements'. You then proceed to argue, or imply, since you leave your points hanging, that because Christianity played a part in the 'independence' movement (which usually replaced white tyrants with black ones) its history on the continent is less chequered then some would assume, or that by the end Christainity played a positive part in the continent's history.

Now I have more then a few problems with such arguments. First, you argue that colonialism made little difference to the plight of the African people, they were destitute before the colonists came and were just as destitute after. The case of the Belgiums in the Congo alone suggests this to be absolute nonsense - estimates of those dead range from the a few million to tens of millions, nevermind the decades of torture and servitude that this people had to endure. Throughout Africa, millions died from wars and diseases that would never have happened or arrived in Africa if it wasn't for colonisation. These realities in themselves make your attempts to soften the onslught of colonialism because Africa was 'pretty crap' before it came rather worthless.

Secondly, you make the point that Christianity played a part in the independence movements. Indeed it did, along with some of the most destructive ideologies known to man, like communism and nationalism. Your logic seems to be that the independence movements were good (doubtful enough), and Christainity was part of these movements so Chsitainity must have done something good! Unforunately, these movements often left open yet more chaos open upon the continent and usually finished with a brutal dictator in change, apt at using religious and political rhetoric to his own advantage.

Finally, you put the last fifty years of 'heartbreaking' African history down purely to human nature (wihch is inself an practically empty term, such is the level of disgreement that surrounds it) and tribalism, ignoring the far bigger problem of colonialism and the part christianity played in it. The problems in Africa - and the continent is mercifully getting better - stem largely from colonial expliotation, mass murder and the passing of ill fitting government models from colonialist to native. Christainity played an important part in this process of colonialism, one that shouldn't be defended or excused.

Orizio

sorella wrote: »

er... no....

Then maybe you would like to explain your original point in some sort of detail?

PDN

Orizio wrote: »

Are you not contradicting yourself here?

No, I'm not contradicting myself. I'm looking at a complex situation where many factors have been at work, sometimes positively and sometimes negatively. I'm also trying to honestly assess the role of Christianity rather than argue a simplistic ideological argument such as:
a) Christianity was wonderful because it set the poor Africans free from a miserable life of idolatry and misery. or ...
b) Christianity was horrible because it, and it alone, forced the Africans into colonial slavery.

(BTW, the thread was about whether Africa needs God today, but the historical thing has come up because turgon advanced a version of simplistic argument b.)

Your first paragraph seems to suggest that you agree with me as to Christianity being a part of the wider process of Colonialism, however in the second paragraph you seem to argue that because their lives were 'pretty crap', the coming of Christianity brought 'improvements'.

Christianity did indeed play a part in the process of colonisation, sometimes opposing it, more often complicit in it, but most often just riding into the continent on colonialism's coat tails.

You then proceed to argue, or imply, since you leave your points hanging, that because Christianity played a part in the 'independence' movement (which usually replaced white tyrants with black ones) its history on the continent is less chequered then some would assume, or that by the end Christainity played a positive part in the continent's history.

No, I'm actually arguing that the history of Christianity on the continent is more chequered than some would assume - it is neither all white or all black (no pun intended). That's why my views will upset extremists on both sides of the fence.

For many Africans the coming of Christianity brought release from slavery and misery. For others the accompanying colonialism brought more slavery and misery. The Belgian Congo is a particularly horrible case (actually it was not a colony of Belgium at all but was the personal property of the Belgian king).

In some areas Christianity played a positive part and in some places it played a negative part. There is an interesting sociological theory, championed by Lammin Sanneh, that the positive role tended to be concentrated more in areas which were influenced by Protestant rather than Catholic forms of Christianity. This is because Protestants translated the Scriptures into local languages, which in turn empowered the indigenous population and often revived previously declining national identities. This had the quite unintended effect of producing independence movements and also indigenous versions of Christianity.

Throughout Africa, millions died from wars and diseases that would never have happened or arrived in Africa if it wasn't for colonisation. These realities in themselves make your attempts to soften the onslught of colonialism because Africa was 'pretty crap' before it came rather worthless.

No, I don't think that such misery was caused by colonialism alone. The only way these things would never have happened would have been if Africa hadf remained sealed off from the rest of the world with no access to modern technology. Murderous wars, with rape and slavery routine, were already rife in Africa before any colonialist set foot on the continent. They were, however, limited by lack of access to modern weapons and modern tactics of warfare. New technology would, IMHO, have ratcheted up the death toll without any colonialism at all.

Please note that I am not attempting to justify colonialism. My main beef with colonialism is not that it was cruel (which it was) but rather twofold.
1. Colonialism raped Africa's natural wealth so that even today most of its profits flow to multinational corporations rather than to Africans themselves.
2. Colonialism encouraged tribalism for administrative purposes. For example, in Rwanda the authorities forbade Hutus to marry Tutsis, those sharpening lines of division that previously were blurred. These was the primary cause of the tribalism that caused the Rwandan genocide.

AtomicHorror

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

However, I do think it odd that he and his compatriots would be quite so open about their crimes.

As odd as charging into battle naked following the sacrifice of a child for good luck?

heliguy

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I'm of the opinion that anyone who says Africa needs god is either saying that the ignorant and badly educated (if at all) need religion whereas the educated and enlightened do not.

Yep thats pretty much it in a nutshell, just surprised you needed it confirmed

Fanny Cradock

AtomicHorror wrote: »

As odd as charging into battle naked following the sacrifice of a child for good luck?

That's how I generally start my Mondays.

The whole point is the change in the man - from someone who saw no problem in sacrificing people and eating Lord knows what parts of their body, to somebody who now freely admits his crimes, shows contrition, tries to make amends (as if that where ever really possible) and accepts that punishment is due. I wonder why someone who was simply trying to save his skin would embark on such an elaborate scheme to avoid justice? On the face of it his story would seem to add some weight to the claim that Africa does need Christianity.

sorella

Jesus says it all better than anyone else ever could.

Blessings this day

Orizio wrote: »

Then maybe you would like to explain your original point in some sort of detail?

AtomicHorror

sorella wrote: »

Jesus says it all better than anyone else ever could.

Sure, but what did He say in reference to your point? Look, you made a claim here and we're having a discussion. So let's discuss it.

JimiTime

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Sure, but what did He say in reference to your point? Look, you made a claim here and we're having a discussion. So let's discuss it.

In fairness, Sorella has explained her point precisely. Christ lived the life. His way 'is' Christianity. That not many people follow him in his ways is more about people, than about Christ. Christianity is purely 'the way of christ'. Beyond this, is debate, and attributing blame or credit. If you truly want to believe what Christianity is though, look at the source, i.e. Christ. The bodies 'representing' this is a whole other ball game, but essentially, Christianity comes from Christs ways. Annoying I know, when you want to throw stones at it, but it is what it is. Throw your stones at the man made groups claiming his name by all means, but its the man and his ways that are essentially 'Christianity'.

AtomicHorror

JimiTime wrote: »

In fairness, Sorella has explained her point precisely.

I must have missed that post because all I see are flat, single-sentence responses.

JimiTime wrote: »

Christ lived the life. His way 'is' Christianity. That not many people follow him in his ways is more about people, than about Christ. Christianity is purely 'the way of christ'. Beyond this, is debate, and attributing blame or credit. If you truly want to believe what Christianity is though, look at the source, i.e. Christ. The bodies 'representing' this is a whole other ball game, but essentially, Christianity comes from Christs ways. Annoying I know, when you want to throw stones at it, but it is what it is. Throw your stones at the man made groups claiming his name by all means, but its the man and his ways that are essentially 'Christianity'.

That's a perfectly acceptable explanation, thank you. I have made similar arguments with regard to science.

JimiTime

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I must have missed that post because all I see are flat, single-sentence responses.

But precise none-the-less. I just elaborated. She basically said go to the source. Which is what I said, in a more fattened out fashion:)

sorella wrote:

Jesus says it all better than anyone else ever could.

That's a perfectly acceptable explanation, thank you. I have made similar arguments with regard to science.

You're welcome:)

sorella

Amen; but Jesus is God. Not man.

JimiTime wrote: »

In fairness, Sorella has explained her point precisely. Christ lived the life. His way 'is' Christianity. That not many people follow him in his ways is more about people, than about Christ. Christianity is purely 'the way of christ'. Beyond this, is debate, and attributing blame or credit. If you truly want to believe what Christianity is though, look at the source, i.e. Christ. The bodies 'representing' this is a whole other ball game, but essentially, Christianity comes from Christs ways. Annoying I know, when you want to throw stones at it, but it is what it is. Throw your stones at the man made groups claiming his name by all means, but its the man and his ways that are essentially 'Christianity'.

Soul Winner

sorella wrote: »

Amen; but Jesus is God. Not man.

I think it was the neo-orthodox theologian Paul Tilich who said that: "It's as blasphemous to deny the humanity of Christ as it is to deny His divinity." In short, Jesus was man also.

I have to say I agree with AH on this one with respect to when you just state something without weaving into the thread what is you actually mean or are referring to. This is not an attack on you as such just a critical observation. I too would like to know what you mean when you throw in your one sentence monologues with no point seemingly being made or a reference to any text being put forth. Tis a bit annoying in fairness but don't get offended, it is just that we actually want to know what you think and why you think it.

Creature

I don't know about Africa but I could certainly do with some cod right now.

Fanny Cradock

Less of the smart-arsery, please.

Húrin

Orizio wrote: »

one cannot ignore the fact that exceptionally religious human beings went to Africa in their thousands upon thousands with the expressed wish to force an alien way of life and way of thinking upon a people that asked for a change in neither.

Missionaries were an essential part of the process of colonisation, attacking practices and traditions that binded these socities together and in their arrogance, attempting to replace them with a culture and religion they deemed superior.

The destructive influence of Christianity in Africa during the era of colonialism is something that should not be forgotten about, or minimised.

I would charge many of the missionaries of being politically naive. Many of them did not see themselves as being presented as the lackey of western imperialism. That's because they don't have our apparently enlightened view of seeing "the Europeans" as an undivided mass in this historical narrative.

The missionaries went to preach (not force) what they believed to be the truth that would improve the lives of Africans. They also went out of a desire to allay the ravages of the secular economic exploitation that was at the core of the scamble for Africa.

This process of land enclosure and industrialisation, which had begun in Europe in the 16th century, was also done in Africa later. You are right that we should not be wilfully blind to the possibility that Christian missionaries may have contributed to this social break-up. However, I think it is your bias speaking if you think it was entirely due to Christianity, or that the same process happened everywhere in Africa.

And it doesn't show that Africa would be better off rid of Christianity today.

robindch

Húrin wrote: »

The missionaries went to preach (not force) what they believed to be the truth that would improve the lives of Africans. They also went out of a desire to allay the ravages of the secular economic exploitation that was at the core of the scamble for Africa. [...] You are right that we should not be wilfully blind to the possibility that Christian missionaries may have contributed to this social break-up.

King Leopold's Ghost may help to fill in some of the gaps in your knowledge of the history of Africa.

Húrin

robindch wrote: »

King Leopold's Ghost may help to fill in some of the gaps in your knowledge of the history of Africa.

Good recommendation. I'll try to get hold of it.

George Washington Williams, an African American politician and historian, the first ever to report the atrocities in the Congo.

William Henry Sheppard, another African American, a Presbyterian missionary who furnished direct testimony of the atrocities.

E. D. Morel, a British journalist and shipping agent who understood, checking the commercial documents of the Congo Free State, that while millions of dollars worth of rubber and ivory were coming out of the Congo, all that was going back was rifles and chains. From this evidence, he inferred that the Congo was a slave state, and devoted the rest of his life to destroying it.

Sir Roger Casement, British diplomat and Irish patriot, who put the force of the British government behind the international protest against the Belgians. Casement's involvement had the ironic effect of drawing attention away from British colonialism, Hochschild reports. The Congo Reform Association was formed by Morel following Casement's instigation.

I had no idea that Roger Casement was involved in that sort of thing. Fascinating the things they got up to before 1916.