The Establishment Of Formal Imperial Rule

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

a central role in the establishment of formal imperial rule?

A Kikuyu proverb stated ‘One White man gets you down on your knees in prayer, while the other steals your land.’ [1] This Kenyan tribe clearly describes a close relationship between formal imperial rule and the role of the missionaries. Shillington argues that some were seen as representatives of colonialism but others regarded them as independent benevolent humanitarians.’ [2] The essay concentrates on British nineteenth century African missionaries and contends that it is not straightforward to suggest that they were connected or independent from imperial rule. It will ultimately conclude that the majority of Christian missionaries were motivated by Christian beliefs and proselytization. Unlike, Beck and Dachs and who like cynical atheists, viewed nineteenth Christian missionaries in southern Africa as political government ‘agents’ and as corrupt illegal ‘traders.’ [3] 4The essay will conclude that although they were colonists and supported imperial powers, they were largely working for the good the African people. Contemporary theologian William Placher supports this argument by contending nineteenth century Christianity aligned itself with Western civilisation but not necessarily the British colonial government. However, he argues that twentieth century Christian missionaries, unlike their nineteenth century counterparts, were keen to distance themselves from Western culture. [5] Discourse about the role of missionaries fluctuates between being outright supporters of imperial rule to being humanitarian imperialists. Most historians of African history like Beck, Dachs and Porter argue there is ‘inevitable connection between missions and cultural imperialism'. [6] 78

The distinction between the two roles is vital because it defines the integrity and religious virtuousness of the missionaries’. Missionaries either consciously established a relationship with imperial rulers to engage the indigenous people of Africa or they were ‘forced’ too because they lacked the financial support of their missionary societies in Britain. This will ultimately decide to what extent missionaries played in the role of imperial rule of British Colonies.

The zenith of African missionary expansion began after the abolition slave ownership and trading in 1807 and 1834 respectively fifty years before the Scramble for Africa when formal imperial rule reached its height in the 1880s. Nkomazana contends during the Scramble for Africa missionaries were viewed with suspicion by the African peoples. Albeit he argues, the sole intentions of missionaries from all Christian denominations were to evangelize and save as many ‘African heathens from eternal damnation’. He argues the many indigenous people did not trust missionaries, in fact they observed them with the same suspicion and as colonial ‘traders and administrators.’ [9] This anecdotal view supports the sceptic’s point that missionaries were ‘agents’ for formal imperial rulers.

The London Missionary Society sent Christian missionaries to southern African at the beginning of nineteenth century. However, they did not provide adequate financial support. Therefore, as Beck argues the missionaries’ only means of survival was to barter with indigenous African communities. [10] Beck questions the trading methods used by the missionaries he contends the missionaries were unlicensed and contravened colonial law, by doing so they were taking away business from legitimate secular colonial traders by trading with the indigenous community. [11] However, one could argue that by disobeying the colonial legal system, they were rebelling against formal imperial rule. It should be borne in mind that nineteenth century missionaries were a by-product of the era. Laissez faire attitudes were enshrined into Britishness. Therefore, as Porter argues nineteenth century contemporaries inevitably argued over the link with ‘Christianity, commerce, and trade and evangelism’. [12] Clearly, this debate relates to the fundamental question of imperil rule and the work of missionaries.

Arguably, nineteenth century laissez faire attitudes drove missionaries either towards local imperial governments or European traders based in the regions for financial support. Although, obvious it is important to state that further missionary recruitment and existing missionary work was dependant on financial support. The financial providers clearly wanted a return on support. As Porter agues the imperial powers some were content with Christian conversion however, the majority of government politicians and officials wanted more than evangelisation or conversion of the indigenous Africans. The imperial government wanted the missionaries to work in the framework of their political guidelines. [13] This inevitably led to a more secular and structured relationship with the indigenous people. This in turn lead to the mistrust and suspicion of the missionaries by the indigenous population found it difficult to differentiate between secular imperial administrators and Christian missionaries. As mentioned in the introduction of the essay it led to mistrust and suspicion of the missionaries. [14] This is a further example of how missionaries and imperial powers were inextricably associated.

Because of financial constraints, the role the missionaries changed. Porter argues that it transformed from a strictly evangelical and Christian conversion position to predominantly a civilising role. [15] Indeed the most famous mission and explorer, David Livingstone coined the phrase that ‘civilisation-Christianity and commerce - should never be inseparable.’ [16] Paxman argues that missionaries were generally disliked in the colonies and Livingstone only a converted in one indigenous African during his ten years in the continent. Livingstone became a mythical figure back in Britain and his exploits were widely published. The British public were so impressed with Livingstone they sent money to support him. As Paxman contends Livingstone was the quintessential missionary that British imperial government wanted to show off. His expedition into Central Africa along the Zambezi River allowed trading station developments for the imperial powers. Paxman quotes part of Livingstone’s obituary, following his death 1873, in the British Quarterly Review, it declared, ‘His death has bequeathed the work of African exploration and civilisation as sacred legacy to his country’. Paxman’s interpretation of this quote is, ‘the Empire was really God’s work’. However, the obituary makes no mention of Livingstone’s attempt to evangelise or convert to Christianity. [17] Paxman argues that not all imperial rulers saw missionaries as an advantage to their exploits. He declares that many saw them as flag bearing, interfering humanitarians who did not promote the empire. He argues than they were criticised by some influential imperial colonists. Sir Harry Johnston the first consul in central Africa thought of missionaries as:

Pathetic…..to see highly educated men from Oxford and Cambridge hollow-eyed and fever stricken, crouching in little huts, which no native chief would deign to occupy.

This comment from a senior imperial official is evidence that not all missionaries were seen as asset to formal imperial rule. Other historians like Mitchell disagree with Johnston’s assumption that African missionaries were naïve highly educated humanitarians. He suggests that the London Missionary Society recruited missionaries from practical occupations such as ‘butchers, carpenters, weavers, tailors, harness-makers, bricklayers and shopkeepers.’ [18] These missionaries represented British working class communities and had the necessary skills to support the missionaries and the indigenous communities. Paxman gives further example of a how Christian missionaries were not just political poodles of imperial rulers. Bishop Hine refused to consecrate a whites only church until in central Africa until the authorities allowed it be used by the indigenous community. The Bishop declared, ‘I am better among native races than pushing bigoted colonists’. [19] 

Beck contends that the British imperial government and the Griqua exploited the Christian missionaries’ as political intermediaries. He argues as well as forming a spiritual relationship with the Griqua, by spreading the word of God and they were coerced by British colonial powers to become their political representatives with the Griqua. He infers that naively, the missionaries’ were unaware that both sides were manipulating them because they thought were independent from imperial and indigenous politics. [20] 

Missionaries are accused of exploiting the nineteenth century indigenous population of Africa by introducing them to westernised imperial trading, that made them become dependent on it, and that eventually led them to losing their traditional culture identity. Beck contends that early nineteenth century missionaries came to Africa with a ‘bibles in their right hands and beads and buttons in their left hands.’ He argues that by bartering beads for provisions they either in some cases intentionally or in others inadvertently allowed formal imperial secular trade to take hold in Africa. Beck argues that some missionaries abused their geographical position, which was well in beyond formal imperial colonists. He contends that because they reached the remote and undiscovered areas first they built good relationships with these indigenous people. Therefore, they took the best produce from the remote African community. This argument to some extent opposes the proposal that missionaries supported the establishment of formal imperial rule. [21] 

By the end the nineteenth century British missionaries had become surplus to requirement for imperial rulers. Cynically one colonial official reported to the Foreign Office that they were nothing more than ‘genteel afternoon tea-drinkers in their mission stations.’ Colonial and metropolitan politicians and administrators began to ridicule them. Albeit, the imperial rulers were still content for missionaries to provide education and medical provision particularly in uncharted areas where the Empire had yet to gain control. [22] Furthermore, and more disheartening the indigenous peoples were now exploiting the missionaries. African chiefs used the missionaries to educate them to a higher standard that the ordinary people. The African indigenous chiefs viewed education as way of gaining an advantage over of other tribal leaders. Missionaries now believed the indigenous were more than heathens they had now adopted the same sinful nature of westerners, craving for immoral possessions. [23] It is clear that by the end of nineteenth century that the relationship between missionaries and imperial rulers was strained.

Missionaries as Mitchell argues had to review their strategy on how to evangelise to and convert African heathens. Clearly, proselytism was not straightforward as missionaries first thought.

Missionaries played a role in the establishment of imperial rule, however this was inevitable as Christianity, and government were inextricable. As Armitage argues British Empire Christian, providentialism was ‘the ideological taproot of British imperialism’. [24] Nevertheless, the missionary’s role was not as submissive as many historians contend. They like Shillington, Nkomazana and many others were predominantly Christian humanitarians whose primary role was to evangelise too and convert the indigenous African to Christianity. However, for the most part they failed to achieve their goal. As mentioned previously the most famous missionary and explorer David Livingstone only converted one African. Missionaries have become the scapegoats for the negative aspects of imperial rule and Empire. One could argue that historians and other academics see them as soft target for sowing the seeds for imperial rule across the British Empire. However, there little doubt that Livingstone’s famous phrase ‘Civilisation, Christianity and commerce’ is a realistic definition of how missionaries operated in Africa. However, one could contend that Christian civilisation was not a prerequisite for taming the natives before the empire arrive and Christian commerce not was forerunner to British imperial trade. Missionaries civilisation and commerce were used by missionaries to enable them evangelise, attempt to convert and allow the missionaries to survive the dangerous and arduous African continent. The twentieth missionaries distanced themselves from their nineteenth century counter parts not because they were ashamed of them but because they believed that the empire, imperial rule, and missionaries were inextricable and this would have had a negative impact of their work. However, like many aspects of history the relationship between the missionaries and the imperial rulers should be viewed in context of the period.