Neo-Colonialism and the Emancipation of Indigenous Religions of Africa: Reconnoitring Reformist Possibilities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article's problem statement is stated succinctly, and a cogent argument is developed to arrive at an imaginative solution: rogueism.

The only reservation I have about the article is that the author presents an idealist view of indigenous culture and religion without acknowledging that it also, like Christianity or most other historical religions, contained some elements that did not benefit the African people. For instance, war and conflicts characterise historical relations between different tribes and nations. Women were subjected to men and a differentiation existed between girls and boys, etc. It also accepts that missionaries served the interests of colonisers and stood in their service. It may be the case, but it does not rule out that some missionaries were critical of colonising practices, especially since they were exposed to the negative sides of colonising practices, such as punishment of indigenous people, killing them or slavery as such. Lastly, missionaries built schools and hospitals with the money of donors and European as well as national governments, and many instances can be shown where missionary doctors and nursing staff, as well as teachers, served the interests of Africans. It is suggested that some remarks be added that can annul such an idealist view.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is of a good standard and was probably edited by a language practitioner. It should be remembered that the article utilises British English.

Author Response

The reviewer is correct in stating that there were inter-tribal wars between Africans themselves, which were spearheaded by kings; and that there was differentiations between boys and girls. These were a common practice due to territorial wars and land dispositions. However, they are not addressed in the study because they did not have any colonising impact, where new or foreign ideals were introduced which repressed their cultural undertakings. It is also true that some missionaries were critical of the colonising practices, but because they depended on colonial agencies for support, their role was often in the favour of the benefactor. Indeed, the missionaries build schools and hospitals with the money of donors and other entities, and this benefitted the Africans. The author, accordingly, also acknowledged that from lines 164-168 of the paper. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

“Neo-colonialism and the Emancipation of Indigenous Religions of Africa: Reconnoitering Reformist Possibilities”

Africa is the second largest continent in the world.

Author correctly points out that much of what is known of Africa has been anchored in the perceptions and attitudes of non-Africans (missionaries, merchants, colonial administrators, historians).

Scholars like Ferguson (2003), McQueen 156 (2007), and Pobee (1979) among others claim that early missionaries often advanced the interests of the colonizers and served as instruments of imperialism. It is said that these missionaries therefore adopted a policy of ‘religious vandalism’ or a ‘smashing crusade’ against the African local customs and belief systems (Chingota, 1998, p. 147).  See: David Stoll, Fishers of Men or Founders of Empire (1982.

Some missionaries were extremely perceptive.  Arthur G. Leonard observed that “[t]he religion of these natives [Africans] is their existence and their existence is their religion” (Leonard, 1906, p. 429). He went on to affirm that “[t]he entire organization of their common life is so interwoven with it that they cannot get away from it.” He, therefore, concluded that Africans “eat religiously, drink religiously, and sing religiously” (Leonard,1906, p. 429).  Many ethnographers came to the same conclusion. What is Leonard's background?

Author wisely limits his focus: “As a student of religion, I will not attempt to dabble into how international diplomacy, protocols of state relations through constitutional government, and political leadership continues to experience and/or propagate colonial ideologies.”  Instead, the author focuses on “how neo-colonialism has thwarted the development of indigenous religions of Africa” and “how this has resulted in the ‘erosion’ of some African religious beliefs.”  Keenly recognizes that only some African religious beliefs have been eroded.  African traditional religions are resilient, and there is considerable persistence of traditional beliefs and practices -- especially in healing and religious rituals. Many African churches are independent and controlled by Africans.

 Author also suggests that “scholars of religion may reflectively contribute by reconnoitering reformist approaches.”  Is “reconnoitering” the best way to implement what religious studies scholars ought to do?  In some respects, reformist approaches have been highly productive.

Author correctly emphasizes that in past centuries “European imperialists advanced their practice by setting up the administration of native areas for the benefit of colonial powers” (Mokhoathi, 2017, p. 6). Lenin (1999, p. 7).  Need to put Mokhoathi and Lenin’s comments in context.

The author does an excellent job of explaining differences between colonialism and neo-colonialism.  Correctly points out that neocolonialism is subtle because: 1) [I]t exists in forms of the cultural, educational, and technological subjugation of a former colonial territory by the former colonizer, and 2) because it is embedded in a number of systems – such as cultural, educational, industrial, technological, and economic.  The author downplays military presence, but there is always the veiled possibility of military presence.

 Neocolonialism distorted native identities, suppressed forms of knowledge, and eroded indigenous religious belief systems through domination of educational and cultural institutions.

To show how neo-colonialism eroded the indigenous religious belief systems of African, the author turns attention to case studies of three indigenous religions of Africa – San, Ibibio, and Basotho religions. These are very different religions with very different histories.

Contemporary ethnographers stress persistence of traditional religions; especially among the San (cite Richard B. Lee; Robert Hitchcock).

Author correctly emphasizes that Africans were taught of other histories than their own. Incorrect in assertion that when Africans converted to Christianity, they became mere extenders of alien traditions.  In many cases, they incorporated elements of Christianity into their traditional belief systems.

Author suggests that those who were influenced by, had come into contact with missionaries, and had received their teachings now felt ashamed of their traditions, and began to practice it secretly. But secrecy often preserves religious traditions (e. g. Haitian vodun). 

Author poses a solution: ROGUEISM. “Seeing that Africans have often been on the receiving end of history. I propose that Africans consider employing some reformist approaches to preserve what they have, and to revive the emancipation of indigenous religions of Africa.  Isn’t this always what they have done?  

To this end, author proposes “rogueism” as a theoretical construct that may be used in the emancipation of indigenous religions of Africa. The term “rogue” is negative and controversial. The Cambridge Dictionary (2021) defines the term “rogue” as behaving in ways that are not expected or not normal, often in a way that causes damage. Damage to who?

Author cogently concludes: “Africans have been victimized by colonial agencies for too long, whether this came through slavery, Christianization, western educational training, or other forms, they have already assimilated western forms of thought (but not completely).

Africans depend on western forms of education, economic agencies, political structures, health interventions, and so forth.  How then can Africans delink themselves from such indoctrinations? How can westerners?

The more reasonable solution is that “Africans should use such indoctrinated aptitudes to our advantage.”  Excellent and compelling conclusion!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

I appreciate the reviewer's comments, which seem to validate the importance of the paper and its contribution. I will look at the additional references that the reviewer has suggested in addition to those used in the paper and use them in forthcoming papers. With regards to  G Leonard's background, he was a Christian missionary that worked among the Africans in Central Africa. His background is not included because that would require the author to do the same with all the other sources cited in the paper. The reviewer asks whether African scholars have not always used roguesm, but the article has shown that most scholars extended alien lagacies to a point where decolonialist advocated form epistemic dissociation. The danger associated with rogueism is against the extended legacy. This is implied in the definition of the concept. Westerners do not need to delink themselves from the agencies that they created. It would be a self-sabotaging project. Otherwise, there is nothing that the reviewer has said which requires the amendment of the paper, and for that, I am appreciative.