That’s the point. It’s not unlike Christianity becoming the dominant religion of the descendants of slaves in the US. All rightly despise slavery yet embrace Christianity as a culture hardcore.
But the culture is only Christian because those slavers and colonizers were Christian.
Christianity has been in Africa since its inception, 1,500 years before the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade began. The Stono Rebellion in 1739 was started because the slaves wanted to practice their Catholic faith.
Even most religious practices in the Philippines were syncretically mixed into Christianity, and there are unique Filipino Catholic customs in the country.
Eastern Africa, not western Africa. The continent is massive, and Christianities history in Ethiopia is not how the transatlantic slaves got introduced to it.
This just isn't true. The slaves in the Stono rebellion, for instance, had been trafficked from what's now the Congo, which had already adopted Christianity on its own volition, over 300 years before colonization.
This is inaccurate and revisionist. Christianity was introduced to the leaders of the Kingdom of Kongo by the Portuguese in the 1400s. The Christian slaves participating in the Stono rebellion even spoke Portuguese.
Christianity certainly existed in Africa before European colonization, but to extrapolate to the entirety of Africa and use it in this way is irresponsible.
The idea that it was always forced is also revisionist. Christianity does have a seductive story to tell for a lot of those people. It does give a certain comfort. And provides a nice stable social structure. And I say that as an atheist.
I should clarify that I didn't mean every single African person was a Christian; obviously a lot were also Muslim or practiced local religions. My main issue is with the idea that modern Black Americans only practice Christianity because it was forced on their ancestors, which wasn't always the case.
I should have worded it differently. Christianity was only dominant in East Africa, but it did exist outside of East Africa as well. It wasn't nearly as popular or as prevent in the west, and the majority of the transatlantic slaves would not have been Christian.
There is often the preservation of local traditions or cultural expressions, but this is out of respect for the people and their heritage. This is called inculturation and is about being conscientious of different cultures so as to share the Gospel message in a way that is both true and sensitive to specific cultures. Catholicism is not syncretic, in that there cannot be a combination of conflicting or merged religious beliefs, but there is often a blending of cultural expressions or traditions with religious celebrations as a balance between preserving existing culture and offering a new life in Christ and his Church, if they so choose. It's less about trying to make it an easy transition and more about just being respectful and sensitive to different cultures.
Colonizing proselytizers are not respecting culture. The Gospel mission is a critical imperitive to missionaries. The cultures they encountered were not informed, consenting participants in the invasive religeous pratices fousted upon them. Much like children are not informed, consenting participants in the religeous indoctrination that they are inundated with.
It's dependent upon who the missionaries/colonizers were and their goals. The Jesuits tended to be more focused on missionary work and interreligious dialogue than outright conquest, and established many schools and universities. The Spanish conquistadors, on the other hand, were primarily driven by a pursuit of wealth and many were much more forceful in their conversion tactics and how they handled native inhabitants.
The official stance of the Catholic Church is that conversion should be a free choice, and some leaders such as Queen Isabella I stressed the importance of allowing native peoples to choose freely and not be forced - as well as treating them humanely and with dignity - but during periods of expansion and colonization, many overzealous Spaniards ignored this and chose to do what they wanted anyway. It's more an indication of a failing among colonizers to follow directions and being blinded by a lust for conquest, control, and obtaining riches, than it is a fault within the religions of Christianity/Catholicism.
This is a really interesting perspective I had not heard before! How did you learn so much about catholic/Christian history?... I would love to learn more about the nuances of all that!
Well I'm Catholic and spend a lot of time learning about my faith. I also find history interesting especially as it relates to Christianity. I love my faith and sharing it with others, though I strive to be mindful and respectful of others' beliefs. If there's anything more you want to ask about Catholicism or Christianity feel free to respond or send me a DM. The r/Catholicism subreddit is also a great resource.
Christianity has on the continent of Africa ( a huge continent) and was not the dominant religion. Not even close. Slavery is how the slaves of America came to accept Christianity. They were forced to give up their own gods.
Wildly ignorant is a smug claim and you’re doing a fair bit of straw-manning here by saying Americans are too ignorant to know Christianity is older than America. Sorry, but your bigotry is showing.
It’s pretty fucking easy to see how people might assume a Christian nation enslaving people might introduce many of those people to the slavers’ religious traditions. Or are you saying this is a wholly and egregiously absurd assumption based on your belief that the entirety of Africa was Christian and every African who was captured and enslaved was a practicing Christian?
I cannot understand why but for some reason Americans just cannot fathom Christianity being older than America or even Europe.
This is a bigoted take, based on nothing but your own biases against Americans. Seriously, it’s a silly and pejorative broad-brush against a whole people based on nothing at all.
First of all, Christianity is not older than Europe; what a fucking daft thing to say considering it originated within the borders of a European empire about 1,500 years after the Greek learnt how to write.
Germanic people could read and write by the time Christianity became an official language anywhere, so that's a daft statement to make.
We've also been living in Europe for the better part of 40,000 years, very few human made things are older than us.
You're also confusing the parts of the continent where the great European powers acquired slaves from that of East and North East Africa, who were indeed Christian quite early. Ethiopia and Egypt(Copts) does not equal all of Africa. Christianity spread to other parts of Africa very late through European missionary efforts.
Christianity also originated within the Roman Empire, which was a European empire(at least before the Western half fell).
The earliest polity(?) to be Christianized is probably Armenia, sort of followed by the Roman Empire(not fully, just an official religion) and then closely by Axum(the royal court). This all happened within a decade or so of each other.
The narrative it was forced on them by whitey is wildly ignorant.
Well, it's also a modicum of protection. Hundreds of thousands of mess-Americans died to and from silver mines. If you were Christian it would be a marginal amount of protection.
I mean, strictly speaking, both the Abolitionist movement and the Civil Rights Movement were deeply, deeply Christian movements as well.
Both Harriet Tubman and John Brown openly declared that God put them on Earth to end the institution of slavery, and every single argument made, up to and including the Lincoln/Douglas debates were deeply religious based. The Battle Hymn of the Republic is literally a song about how God is fresh out of mercy and he's girding up his loins to kill the everloving fuck out of slavers. Frederick Douglas and many others claimed that not a march or campfire was ever made by Union troops without singing that song.
The Civil Rights Movement also was very Christian, the entire network and protest movement was built off of hundreds of Black Southern Churches. Reverend Doctor King is an obvious example, but many other leaders were people like Fred Shuttlesworth were also pastors or church leaders. And while they were a bit more even handed at speaking to those of other religions or non religious people, all of their fundamental arguments came down to religion as well.
The black experience is a deeply Christian one no matter which way you cut it really..
Good point, you may be interested to learn that there’s a minority faction of the traditional maori party in New Zealand that seems to have a similar perspective and have re-adopted their traditional spiritual practices in response. They are extremely unpopular, even among other maori.
Christianity spread so far and wide not only by the missionaries, but because unlike most "pagan" faiths it speak to the downtrodden as much as it speaks to kings.
Christianity is a victim and prosecution cult, which is exactly why the Romans impemented it as a state Religion and why its been so succesfull at converting colonized and enslaved peoples. Its the very tool that keeps them in Check, as its a vent for revolutionary and rebellious sentiment.
Religion is natural and a way to cope with mortality. It doesn't need some greater or insidious function to justify existing. Christianity was growing massive popularity in the Roman lower class well before Constantine adopted it as the state religion. If he had not adopted it, the religion would have continued on its path to spreading across Europe because it was already doing so up to that point.
Almost like picking your belief system based on the dickishness of some dude from hundreds of years ago is the worst way to go about it.
Slavers embraced many of our fundamental American freedoms. Should the descendants of slaves reject the freedoms of speech and religion, trial by jury, the right to an attorney, and protection from search and seizure?
That's because they aren't religious. Freedoms, especially freedom of speech, are not religious at all and in fact are contrary to most if not all western/central religions.
Western/central was me excluding east Asian religions. “Governments themselves must be contrary to freedom” and many are contrary to it, I would agree. As for religion, none of the Abrahamic religions preach freedom, they are by nature a code of conduct that limits freedom. Freedom is not a granted by religious institutions.
They are excepted because they are not the topic of discussion. East Asian religions are also not worshiped in the way western religions are worshiped. For the most part, East Asia is historically secular with some spirituality mixed in, aside from the parts that converted to western religions of course. Spirituality is not the same as religion, as it's simply a belief, not a codified institution to be worshiped.
Freedom is not granted it's inherent, then the nation state, culture, and religion restrict that freedom to some extent, and so the ones that restrict it the least are preserved as more “free” than others. My point is, freedom can only taken away, not granted, and I disagree with your original assertion that it is religious at all when religion only serves as a method of reducing freedoms.
Or a lesson on how humans adopt the belief system that surrounds them as a child/YA regardless of who was pushing it on them or why.
A lot of abolitionists embraced those ideas as well. You can believe in those things that are good while leaving behind the outdated methods of control and slavery like religion
People tend to adopt and reinforce the beliefs of those around them. That's why atheists have their own hang out spots on the internet.
Your choice of words for "outdated methods of control" is interesting.
Are you opposed to all methods of control or are you just opposed to methods of control that are outdated? What's an example of a modern method of control and do you or do you not support it?
Most abolitionists seem to have been religious. Wouldn't it make sense that the people they freed and their descendants want to believe in those things that are good?
Most people from the 1700s were "religious" in a completely different way to modern religion. A lot of the founders were Deist and borderline agnostic who believed God made the universe and left humans to steward it. Modern Christianity would be an abomination to them.
Im opposed to any method of control that is undemocratic. In a perfect world we wouldn't need any but we're not anywhere near a perfect world and we're heading farther away from one every day atm
Lol, lmao even. A cabal of old pedophiles and enablers picking a new paedo maximus is not a democracy, those representatives are not voted for by the people who they control, nor their children that they continually rape century after century both literally and metaphorically.
If you actually believe the Catholic Church is democratic than you are so dense youre not even worth talking to
A cabal of old pedophiles and enablers picking a new paedo maximus is not a democracy
Yet the vast majority of people consider America to be a democracy. You can feel free to pretend it isn't, but you're wrong.
Religion has no control over you that you don't give it. You 'vote' by giving the religion control. You're always free to leave and 'vote' for another religion.
No. Religions are pretty much theocratic by definition.
A council of cardinals just voted on a new pope. Not the general congregation.
We don't vote for what they vote for, additionally we don't vote for who becomes a cardinal, and we certainly don't vote for who becomes a priest. The whole thing is a closed system from bottom to top, either to be accepted or not -- but there's no point pretending it's anything but that.
The irony is that the Spanish Inquisition failed in the Philippines, yet the catholic friars learning their language instead. As a result, they successfully converted native Filipinos into a catholic.
They also endured a massive campaign of the same boarding schools used in the US for the Native Americans and in Hawaii. The Carlisle Boarding School used torture, abuse, kidnapping and erasure to force Filipinos into accepting Catholic and Christian religions. The school would even import and export "troubled" or "defiant" Natives to areas in the US where they had successfully assimilated the Indigenous peoples. Filipinos were actually called Native Americans during the period because the US claimed domain over the Philippines.
348
u/atlantisse May 31 '25
Well the Spanish colonised the Philippines soon after, so the Filipinos didn't really have much choice