hhahaha. not accussing u of propaganda. Im saying people's preference to not see certain biblical tales in the same light as some african tales even tho they involve similar themes of talking animals and miracle is partly due to the more powerful propaganda apparatus of the Christian Church of the last couple centuries.
Sure, powerful mosque or church influence can create a narrow view, but then again,
many African religions also have their own narrow, localistic views, where the local gods
and practices are deemed superior to those of other tribes or groups.
It is not weird that some Africans would follow non-african religions. In fact its rather
routine for people the world over to hook up up with a religious view that promises a greater
world view, a bigger picture, a larger way of looking at things besides the local practices
which are often confined to local languages, or local geography like streams or mountains etc etc.
People learning about larger universalist beliefs or outlooks can find them more attractive,
once they learn more about them and analyze what greater benefit or value they may provide.
Thus in Asia, local cults often gave way to bigger belief system like Buddhism or Daoism.
Africans are n different when they encounter the larger universalist systems. Not all
will find them more attractive, but it is clear many do. A compromise position in this
framework is a syncretism or blending, where the locals seek to appropriate elements of
what they see as the greater benefits of the outside religion and incorporate them into
local systems. This has been done the world over. Examples in the Atlantic world include
Brazilian santeria, etc etc.. incorporating Catholic, African and even Native American strands..
Another thing the dude in the video does not mention is that SOME Africans may be attracted
to the other religion because it seems better suited to meet the challenges of the modern'
world, or to acquire the power and the resources associated with modernity. So for example
staying forever in the local village to be near the local shrine or holy grove works fine for
some people, but others see a whole modern world outside that they are interested in or want
to master. Thus several African leaders, while criticizing missionary failures to understand
local tradition better, did nevertheless become converted to Christianity, and praised missionary
efforts, particularly in the education and medical fields. Hooking up with the missionaries opened
up an entirely new world, including international travel and advanced education or training. In fact
it was this modern knowledge and education that later on eventually enabled them to fight against
colonialism and secure independence.
A third point is that SOME Africans embraced/embrace the new religion to escape or get out from
under what they see as oppressive native or local practices. Some seem to assume that local
practice was kind and gentle, all sweetness and light.. It wasn't. Among some tribes for
example was the practice of accusing others of witchcraft which meant seizure of your goods
and bodily harm, even death. An accusation of witchcraft could be tantamount to a death
sentence among the precolonial Zulu for example. Then there are SOME women, who see value in
the new teachings and want to get out from under oppressive local practices such as genital
mutilation, or male-dominated regimes which primarily see them as domestics for sex and agricultural
labor. For some people this confined role is fine, but for others, it is intolerable, once they
understand that a broader world out there opened up by the missionaries, offers many more options,
and opportunities.
There is nothing "weird" about this. In India, some so-called "untouchables" whose "caste", sanctioned
and insisted on by the dominant local Hindu religion relegated them forever to shoveling shiit and picking
up garbage, welcomed the alternatives brought by the missionaries. This allowed an end-run around their miserable
existences, to a more positive world opened up by the missionary efforts, and its access to modern
resources and knowledge. Why should they and their descendants piously stay forever cleaning toilets for
the next 9 centuries due to "karma" (its all your fault in some formulations), when an entirely new and better
option was withing reach promising and visibly demonstrating both blessing and escape?
Finally aside from material benefit, SOME people find the new teachings attractive in their own right,
over and above what is offered by the local teachings. This of course is SOME people not all, and
all was certainly not sweetness and light. It didn't work out for everybody. The picture is a mixed
one, but there is nothing particularly weird about Africans accepting other religions, or
elements thereof, in the modern era.
The above being said, Mutabaruka has a point about respecting African traditions and ways
of seeing etc. This does not mean people have to give up or compromise their belief in the
new religions, nor does it mean you have to drop modern education etc. But respect can be rendered
at various levels. For example, the "trickster" figure of Breda Anansi can be respected as
having important cultural functions, such as overcoming adversity with brains over brawn,
or outsmarting an oppressor, or avoiding violent fanaticism etc. Trickster Anansi was never a
"fanatical" type figure, pronouncing jihad on all who tangled with him, but in a way tried
to keep a big-picture balance on things. So if Snake tried to kill Anansi in one story and
Anansi outsmarted him, Anansi did not plot for Snake's total extermination in return. That would
be too extreme. Anansi of course was a cunning trickster. In today's terms he might be the
guy that's always ripping you off. That too is part of life lessons- people are not all they seem.
But on the other hand, under times of oppression it may take the Anansi trickery to survive.
So there are various levels on which things can be understood and appreciated.
