The Sacrifice of Africa – Chapter 1b, The Lies of Noble Ideals

Last time we left off with Katongole’s first sub-point in chapter one, the importance of social memory for the future of Africa. We’ll continue now with his second sub-point, The Lies of Noble Ideals. The basic premise of Katongole’s thought here is that human beings have an infinite capacity for self deception – and that trait has been responsible for a great deal of evil in Africa (and amongst Native Americans in the western hemisphere). In this post, I’ll be primarily considering western involvement in Africa, but I’m also going to bring in a few stories from the American genocide of the Native Americans in the 19th century because both are forms of colonialism driven by the same fundamental principles.

Consider the following quotations, taken from various 19th century Euro-Americans explaining their interest in the colonizing project.

From Merrill E. Gates, an “Indian reformer” who served as President of Rutgers College and Amherst College before he was appointed to the Board of Indian Commissioners by President Chester Arthur in 1884:

Two peculiarities which mark the Indian life, if retained, will render his progress slow, uncertain and difficult. These are 1) the tribal organization, 2) the Indian reservation. I am satisfied that no man can carefully study the Indian question without the deepening conviction that these institutions must go if we would save the Indian from himself. (For context’s sake – Gates was appointed to the Board of Indian Commissioners in 1884. Leopold II of Belgium and Bismarck of Germany convened the Berlin Conference to divide Africa in 1885.)

From the aforementioned President Arthur, commenting on the claims made by Leopold II of Belgium to the Congo: The rich and populous valley of the Kongo is being opened by a society called the International African Association, of which the King of the Belgians is the president…. Large tracts of territory have been ceded to the Association by native chiefs, roads have been opened, steamboats have been placed on the river and the nuclei of states established … under one flag which offers freedom to commerce and prohibits the slave trade. The objects of the society are philanthropic. It does not aim at permanent political control, but seeks the neutrality of the valley.

From a news article in the Washington Post, dated July 3, 1904. If Mr. Fisher’s (a church-sponsored speaker treated as an “expert” on Africa) diagnosis is correct, it means that we have not merely to direct into the channels of civilization the untrained vitality of a primitive people, but have to arrest the downward course of races undergoing a process of deterioration.

Additionally, the heads of state in Europe held similarly bleak views of the so-called “Dark Continent” and felt compelled to civilize it. It’s the oft-cited “white man’s burden” made famous by Kipling.

In short, the Euro-Americans in Africa during the 19th century saw themselves as saviors of the region. It’s a tendency that continues to this day: Just look at the way the western media covered the controversy about female circumcision this summer. One women’s study major in my African Cultures class last spring went so far as to say “Africa needs to evolve more on this issue.” The savior-complex of the west makes it very difficult for us to genuinely confront the griefs of Africa – their pains are, more often than not, attributable to our imperialistic behavior in the region. But, as I said before, our capacity for self-deception is great. And when the truth – that our well-intentioned involvement in Africa led to decades of poverty, displacement, murder, rape, and genocide – is so painful, we’d rather ignore it.

As Katongole writes, “Given the power of these noble ideals and how deeply they have shaped European culture, the true story of [Euro-Americans in Africa] was not one that Europe was prepared to hear…. The truth was too dark to tell. That I think is exactly what prevented Europe from hearing the true story of the colonial project of civilization. Ideals, especially noble ideals, while inspiring, can also stand in the way of our seeing what is really happening. With this realization, I began to see that ideals like “democracy,” “development,” “civilization,” and “progress” have become such tantalizing but misleading notions, forming the basic imaginative canvas yet obscuring reality. They have become the lies that both African leaders and social ethicists desperately want to believe.”

Katongole aptly sums up the big idea at the close of the section: “I realized that the challenge of Christian social ethics in Africa is to question even the cherished notions of progress, development, and democracy – notions that form the imaginative framework of thinking about the future in Africa. I was beginning to see that only by avoiding assumptions about these concepts is it possible to get the real story that drives modern Africa, and the kind of imagination that would make a new future in Africa possible.”

To sum up, a responsible engagement with Africa from western Christians means that everything we want to do is up for discussion. And the first and most authoritative voices in that discussion have to be African. If they are not, we run the risk of following in the footsteps of the colonialists we claim to abhor, much like my feminist classmate last spring. The lies of noble ideals represents one of the greatest pitfalls into which westerners – both social-justice minded Christian and irreligious progressives – can fall. So before we even begin to assess the situation in Africa, we must check our hearts. Are we approaching these issues as students or teachers? Are we open to correction? Are we willing to accept the truth that five centuries of African blood rests largely on the heads of our western, Christian ancestors? If we cling to our certainties, our idolatry of the USA, or our naive confidence in western ideals then we will join the ranks of Stanley, Leopold II, Gates, and Arthur – well-intentioned men who contributed to the tragedy of millions.