Last One Standing

Can you cite some specific examples in sub-Saharan African? I don't know much about African history, but I don't think even the obnoxious Belgians, Rhodesians, or ?Zanzibarites tried this.

No, I was thinking earlier. First you have the arab slave trade across the Sahara and over the eastern coast (the Swahili), where every "infidel" was game. In terms of number of africans enslaved they probably captured and moved more (roughly between the 8th and the late 19th centuries) than the European slave trade did. The obvious way out of becoming a target was for the communities within their reach (a thin strip along the coast) converting to islam. If you look at short accounts of the period you'll see some innocuous comments about how "trade" with Arabia led to conversion, but you'll have to dig deeper to know what that "trade" was - slaver raids. There's plenty of accounts about the evil european slavers, but the history of arab slaving is still something you'll hardly see - possibly because the arabs had this nasty habit of castrating their house slaves, thus few descendants exist today (an exception being one place they were used as agricultural laborers in large numbers, southern Iraq).
Thus conversion to Islam was very much a by-product of conquest and of that raiding, just as in their mediterranean conquests conversions were a by-product of taxing policies and other discrimination. It did not penetrate deep into tropical Africa because the arabs, as the europeans in the other coast, died like flies when venturing into the interior. And the local swahili who converted and became the local slave gatherers for the trade showed little interest in proselytizing and losing their source markets.

Then you have european christian slavers, who basically did the same in the west coast starting almost immediately after their arrival, in the 16th century. And, here as in the east cost, the reach of the newcomers was very small, only the coastal areas. Between diseases killing both missionariers and soldiers, and the rough terrain and extreme political fragmentation of the interior, Christianity, just as Islam, had no chance of penetrating Africa's interior South of the Sahara until the era of quinine and railroads.

But here it is worth mentioning the curious case of the kingdom of Kongo, which peacefully converted to catholicism right after first contact, in the early 1500s. Whether genuine religious interest or smart political calculation to get an alliance motivated them (or both) we don't really know. They went on to set up their own roman catholic ecclesiastical hierarchy, sending students to Europe. Unfortunately for them the european missionaries, traders and craftsmen sent there kept dying, so they ended up acquiring little technology in the deal. Their version of christianity "went native", out of control of the papacy, which there meant the portuguese, installed in the nearby colony of Luanda. That allowed some unscrupulous governors to occasionally declare them heretics and intervene in religious and political conflicts. The kingdom lasted a few centuries, which was extraordinary at the time in the region, but between this interference and the civil wars it had collapsed into warring little lordships in the 18th century.

So, there were attempts at conquest by both christians and muslims, justified with the fact that the africans were heathens or heretics or infidels. They just failed (with very limited success, only some coastal areas and islands) because of Africa's formidable natural defenses. Until the 20th century when the interior was opened. Fortunately for the africans then, colonial european powers in the 20th century (Europe having gone secular by then) couldn't care less about forcing them to convert, allowing some missionaries only where they were useful aides for the ever short-staffed colonial administration. But after independence, and up until now, you got to see religious conflict fueling wears there. It even started in the final days of the colonial era, when certain missionaries/preachers were already playing politics and turning their armies into militias. And you'll see more of it in the future. Nigerian is a powder keg waiting to be blown. And the great lakes area is a mess. Not to mention several countries in the Guinea coast, where coups and counter-coups keep happing as different tribes who distinguish themselves mainly because of their religions (animists/muslims/christians) fight over power.
 
One of the greatest religious transformations in human history has been sub-Saharan Africa in the twentieth century, where Christianity went from being the religion of less than 10% of the population at the start of the century to the majority religion by the end. Pretty much all of that happened non-violently. Moreover, it had precious little to do with western missionaries, and was mostly an indigenous African movement, the details of which are hugely complex and still little understood.

On the main question, I have some sympathy with innonimatu's claim that monotheism is inherently less tolerant than polytheism. However, while this may be theoretically the case, I'm not sure it's really borne out in history. Of course Christians and Muslims have, historically, shown less tolerance than most pagan religions, but that's because Christianity and Islam have been far more successful and have therefore had much more opportunity to exercise their intolerance. Whether either the intolerance or the success derives from monotheism is another question.

Plus it's easy to find counter-examples both ways, as in the cases of Chinese, Japanese, and Korean persecution of Christians. Now you may say that these are examples of "political" intolerance using religion as an excuse, but I think that this relies on rather artificial boundaries. What makes one act of intolerance "political" and another "religious"? For some people, politics and religion aren't separate categories. One of the reasons the Roman state persecuted Christians was because it was felt that pietas, being a good citizen, meant worshipping the Roman gods and acknowleding the emperor's divine genius. People were outraged that Christians refused to do these things. Was that a "religious" motive for suppressing Christianity or a "political" one? Does it make sense to try to make them distinct categories at all?
 
What would have Jesus said or his father god himself upon seeing human beings doin?
 
WTH are you on about now? Please stick to the topic. Obviously Jesus would be horrified at how his teachings were misused. So would most religious icons.

WTH is what? you saying otherwise what I was meaning. "Jesus teachings misused" like that
 
WTH is what? you saying otherwise what I was meaning. "Jesus teachings misused" like that
I know English isn't your first language, but please try to make sense. I still don't know what you're saying. Are you saying that I was correct in assuming that you are saying that Jesus would be appalled at the misuse of his teachings, or that I was incorrect?
 
No, I was thinking earlier.

While I'm grateful for the overview of the growth of monotheism in Africa, I still don't see any examples of swordpoint conversions there. Conversion for economic gain and security might not be what we'd want in an ideal world, but it's a whole lot more pleasant than the direct threat of violence used by, amongst others, the conquistadors in Latin America and Afghan Muslims today today.

Also what Plotinus said.
 
You know, I'd be very interested in a thread on the Kingdom of Kongo. I was reading about it after innonimatu mentioned it, and it seems pretty damn interesting.
 
You know, I'd be very interested in a thread on the Kingdom of Kongo. I was reading about it after innonimatu mentioned it, and it seems pretty damn interesting.

I'd love to help, unfortunately what I have read about it was in an introductory chapter to a work focusing on 19th century Angola. Unfortunately most portuguese historians working on this at universities have an infuriating stance of holding on tight to information hoping that someone will pay them to publish it! Thus it's hard to get it. I'll see what I can find and if I get something interesting I'll post it. Some modern compilations of the correspondence by portuguese soldiers and missionaries in Ethiopia are easy to find, unfortunately not so for the west coast of Africa.

I'm sure there is recent research on the documents from that era, on correspondence and accounts from missionaries and governors in Luanda, even some correspondence from the congolese nobility. They were already quite technologically advanced at the time of sea contact by europeans (copper and iron smiting, weaving, barter trade with long distance commerce of salt, cloth, metal objects), and the upper classes quickly took on writing as a tool. Even though they apparently employed a class of specialized scribes those letters still count count as first-hand documented sources on their ideas. The correspondence included solicitations for loans and the contracts made, correspondence about military cooperation, religious matters, etc.

In terms of economic and political organization, and willingness to adopt technology from abroad, I don't see any difference between those people and the inhabitants of the more marginal areas of Europe by the 8th century, who were about to be pulled into "european civilization". My impression is that they were at about the same "civilizational stage of evolution", if you'll pardon the term. And my conclusion is that the apparent stagnation of Africa between the 15th-19th centuries despite its new contacts by sea (or from the 9th century for the East coast) was essentially due to the formidable barriers that disease and geography (not many navigable rivers, compared to the other continents) posed to foreign travelers and thus to the spread of new ideas and technology. Even so it was conceivable that some kingdoms with access to the coast would adopt more modern technology and social organizations quickly and then proceed, through conquest, to spread it into the interior. But it never happened. These kingdoms never managed to evolve into large empires, kept falling to pieces under attacks from all quarters and internal conflict. They simply were not strong enough to do such a push. I guess that this too was not uncommon in Europe and Asia, and that technology and ideas ultimately spread faster by force because there were occasionally powerful polities (the roman empire, the byzantines, Charlemagne's franco-roman empire, and so on) making large efforts to conquer border regions and change them (success meant "civilizing" them , failure mean them having to adapt to resist attacks by using new military techniques and probably new technology and social structures).
 
Good news! Digging around in my library I found that I actually had a portuguese 1989 new translation of Pigafetta's "Relatione del Reino di Congo e delle circuncione contrade", published in Rome, 1591, based on the accounts of Duarte Lopes, a portuguese trader who went there in 1578 and returned in 1584 bearing letters with requests from king Alvaro of Kongo to king Philip II (I of Portugal) and pope Sixtus V. He had little luck with Philip, then moved on to Rome and there gave Pigafetta the material for that book.

I'm still reading it, but it is obvious that there were a lot of misunderstandings stemming from attempts to apply european notions to a foreign reality. The fact that an italian who never went to Kongo was the one who wrote the book probably made it worse, and unfortunately it is one of the most widely translated source documents, and was extensively used by some english and french historians who did not care for comparing it with other source material. As luck would have it, the edition I found also has a large comment by the modern translator and a comparison with references to several other 16th century documents (a manuscript "História do reino do congo" by an unknown missionary, the correspondence between the portuguese kings and the kings of Congo, missionary's accounts and correspondence from the Monumenta Missionaria Africana, etc.)

I'll probably create a thread on the subject, with the info I'm finding, if someone else is interested. Here I'd like to add that the very notion of kingdom of Kongo was an european misinterpretation of the situation: the "king" was originally the chief of the largest community in the area, Mbanza Congo, and held an elected position of primacy (his title was "ntotila") among chiefs of outlying regions which had to be confirmed upon his death and replacement by the chiefs of the surrounding communities. Those would then own a loose allegiance to this king. Succession tended to be matrilinear. The eager acceptance of christianity seems related to an attempt by the kings to Congo to centralize power, perhaps even with a view to getting rid of the elections and creating an inheritable monarchy. Many of the civil wars were fights between chiefs who held a veto on the elections and stood to lose that power if they allied this centralization, and the kings and their immediate lineage who desired that change. The chiefs of Mbata, Mpangu and Soyo were particularly important "electors" with vero rights who were not willing to give up their power. King Afonso I explained in a letter to king Manuel of Portugal, in 1514, the succession rules of the country and the difficulty in overriding the privileges of those chiefs. The letters sent by king John III of Portugal to king Afonso I of Kongo encouraged, among other things, to appoint an heir of his choosing, and the general portuguese policy seems to have been to built up the kingdom of Kongo as a powerful monarchy in the region allied with Portugal and able to spearhead the spread of christianity into the interior. Afonso had already probably fought the first of several civil wars over the issue of centralization when he, allied with the chief of Soyo who was from the same matrilinear lineage, defeated Mpangu a Nzinga who opposed the new christian religion and the changes it brought. At issue might have been already problems of patrilineality (favoured by christianity) vs. the traditional matrilinear succession. Another important issue intertwined with the adoption of christianity and change of succession rules was that of private property. Property of land had been, as leadership, a partly elective process with successors requiring confirmation from other members of their lineage. Christianity favored direct patrilinear succession without any such need for confirmation.

The chiefs of Mbanza Congo, which they renamed São Salvador as part of their effort at westernization, were indeed in a good position, as good as it could get, to attempt such a centralization. It was not an european style city buy a tightly clustered collection of villages, all of which obeyed this king. Together they may have had a population of about 100000. This city was a centre for ironsmithing, a highly considered and privileged profession, and also had a large market where trade was carried out with all outlying provinces that owed allegiance to the kings. Salt, cloth from palm fibers, pottery, slaves and iron tolls were goods for long-distance trade and functioned to some degree as currency. Transportation was done by slaves. Some sea shells (zimbos) were also used as a currency. The kings set up a treasury, a taxation system (here also receiving advice from their portuguese counterparts, but they probably had it before receiving that advice anyway) and eventually instituted a literate (?) bureaucracy to manage it (the nfutila who oversaw trade, the mani mpanza who collected money tributes, and the mani samba who handled taxes on slaves.

Another interesting feature, and one which occurred so many times in other places, was that the royal guard was mainly made up of slaves recruited from foreign peoples. Slavery was, indeed, one of the pillars of congolese economy prior to european contact. Such slaves were obtaining from raiding neighboring peoples, with the Jagas who lived to the east being the main victims, apparently. They finally decided to do something about it and at one point almost managed to conquer Kongo for themselves...
The complaints of several later kings of Kongo about the Atlantic trade of slaves were because this trade caused a lack of slaves in Congo which endangered its economic system. Duarte Lopes, by the way, after failing his mission as ambassador decided to go back to king Philip II in 1589 and try to persuade him to import large numbers of african slaves to the spanish colonies in the Americas. At which he (or someone else) was eventually successful.

I know that most of this is OT from the thread's theme, but there is one bit that might deserve some consideration: was christianity successful in spreading to some regions because it favored a patriarchal family with clear succession rules? Is there indeed an alliance between the family prescribed by christianity and the modern notion of private property, and has that been a motive for the elites of other societies to adopt it over their own traditional but more restrictive religions?
 
Islamic Persia
evt091210114900194.jpg


Germanic Europe
Teutonic.jpg


Sub-Saharan African

Ghanan king Tinbarutan ibn Usfayshar was responsible for the forcible conversion of many of the pagan "Sudanese" tribes in Western Africa, for example.

Surely those are arguably some of monotheism's greatest successes, and none of them at sword point.

The above examples demonstrate the opposite.
 
I know that most of this is OT from the thread's theme, but there is one bit that might deserve some consideration: was christianity successful in spreading to some regions because it favored a patriarchal family with clear succession rules? Is there indeed an alliance between the family prescribed by christianity and the modern notion of private property, and has that been a motive for the elites of other societies to adopt it over their own traditional but more restrictive religions?

Good questions, I'll try to answer them. I'm talking with no references whatsoever here, but I'm pretty certain that inheritance and succession were handled in very similar ways before Christianity (f. ex. Rome, Egypt and basically anywhere else). So I think it's rather a case of Christianity adapting to the regions it spread to, with of course the largest and first one being the Roman empire. Rome's influence on today's law and politics, and everything, is something I don't think I need to really mention. But I do because it's huge. Just as the Romans before them adapted foreign gods, the Christians assimilatied all sorts of pagan rituals in order to take root in different societies. So, basically, you get a good set of rules for your wife, your neighbour and your land, and you also get to keep your funky solstice parties. And, if you happen to be a king, you have a God-given right to be one. The answer to all of your questions is 'yes'.
 
I'll probably create a thread on the subject, with the info I'm finding, if someone else is interested. Here I'd like to add that the very notion of kingdom of Kongo was an european misinterpretation of the situation: the "king" was originally the chief of the largest community in the area, Mbanza Congo, and held an elected position of primacy (his title was "ntotila") among chiefs of outlying regions which had to be confirmed upon his death and replacement by the chiefs of the surrounding communities. Those would then own a loose allegiance to this king. Succession tended to be matrilinear.
Sounds oddly similar to the Zulu system of government.
 
Back
Top Bottom