![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Debating atheists, addendum 2: Proselytization and missionary work
Following up a post on the religious instruction of children, I'd like to address a second point about missionaries. I will reproduce the relevant paragraph I'm responding to; for the full comment, see the earlier post.
The comment I'm responding to said in part (emphasis mine):
It's worth noting that this comment about proselytizing to indigenous communities, and missionaries supposedly ruining Uganda, comes immediately after the part about the evils of religious instruction of children. To the commenter Lea proselytization to indigenous groups seems to be part of the same evil as parents indoctrinating helpless children, as seen by the use of the word "also." Need I remind Lea, or anyone, that "indigenous people" are not all children but are led by grown-ass adults, and we are not helpless putty in the hands of white missionaries as Lea suggests? This portrayal of indigenous groups as passive victims of, and parables to illustrate, the evils of religion feels less like sympathy and more like objectification.
The last sentence of the paragraph is a continuation of that theme of objectification. Lea wasn't entirely clear about what it was missionaries did to Uganda, so I tried a search and only found information relating to the anti-homosexuality law that was influenced by missionaries. This is awful, but I think Lea and I disagree on who is responsible for this awfulness. In what sense is it something that missionaries "did" to Uganda? What about what the Ugandans are doing to themselves, to their own LGBT citizens? Though the American right wing supported and funded this hate campaign, don't the people of Uganda bear a responsibility for their homophobia? It seems a stretch to argue that homophobia is something missionaries inflicted on unsuspecting Ugandans when the Ugandan government resisted years of Western pressure to drop the bill, and when homophobia cuts across faith groups and predated missionaries. How about we accept that Africans can be close-minded and evil without being manipulated by missionaries, and their moral responsibility is not vitiated by the fact that there were vile Americans cheering them on?
And while there were no doubt abuses by missionaries in Uganda and elsewhere, the worst abuses were--as far as I know--committed when missionaries had force at their back, actively destroying or condoning the destruction of existing social structures. I'd like to make two different statements about this: a) Such forcible destruction of prior social structures is indefensible, and b) it's also not a uniquely religious phenomenon, but an epiphenomenon of imperialism. If missionaries backed up by guns act very differently from missionaries not backed up by guns, I would venture to guess that it's the guns and not the religion that make the difference.
I would particularly like to talk about this issue because my society has experience with missionaries who were in fact missionaries for religious and humanitarian reasons, not cheerleaders for a people's destruction. The picture from my end is somewhat different from Lea's image of the desperate, fearful masses who were shanghaied into conversion with medicine, education, and other aid.
For background I live in South Korea, a country where Christianity was virtually unheard of until the 17th century and is now a leading religion, with about a fourth of the population now being Catholic or Protestant. I suppose this makes us a prime candidate for one of those disrupted cultures and coerced peoples Lea thought of, but the reality is more complex than that.
For one thing, Koreans actually brought in Catholicism on their own in the eighteenth century. In fact it was my ancestor Lee Ik's disciples who brought in the first Catholic texts from China, a fact I take great pride in. These early Christians formed thriving communities that were scandalous by the standards of the day: Eschewing ancestor worship, men and women worshipping together, class distinctions disregarded.
The Korean authorities were initially tolerant of the Christians, though, and in fact thought the adherents and clergy of this Western belief might be a corridor of communication with Western powers. It turned out, however, that the Western priests sent to tend this flock were in fact sincere religious men who weren't interested in brokering power for their host government.
It was imperialism and international politics that ultimately brought major waves of persecution on these Korean Catholics in the mid-19th century. China started cracking down on its own Catholics after Britain and France occupied Beijing, and the Korean leadership had already learned that there was little political advantage to be gained from this sincerely religious folk. Korea therefore found it to be more in its interest to follow China's lead, and executed nine priests and 8,000 followers in 1866.
Protestantism was in fact brought to Korea by missionaries, and they were energetic about building hospitals and schools, so it might be expected that this was where the coercive conversions took place. But that seems to make certain assumptions, such as that we as indigenous people must be so static and passive that we would never convert to a new faith unless dastardly Westerners forced us to. Or that our religious convictions are so insincere that we'd gladly throw away our ancestral beliefs for medicine and education. Or that the missionaries were not above coercing us natives to convert using our poverty and need against us.
None of these assumptions seem to hold, however. First, the history of Catholicism here shows that some of us are perfectly willing to "disrupt" our own culture, thank you very much, for the simple reason that our culture is not a static thing. Second, it's just plain insulting to be told that our faith is for sale. Is it really outside the realm of possibility that people saw something in the missionaries' faith that they wanted for themselves, much like the earlier Catholics had?
By all accounts the missionaries were in truth sincerely interested in the Koreans' well-being and gained the widespread admiration of Korean society. When Mary Scranton, the missionary founder of my alma mater, passed away, the king sent a retainer to offer five obeisances--a sign of high respect indeed in recognition of the work she did for women's health and education. There is no indication that she was so cynical as to coerce conversions in return for services. Religion is a social phenomenon, and admiring someone's dedication to their cause would be conducive to be wanting to be like them, wouldn't it? I mean, give us some credit as people of intellectual and spiritual capacity. Even though we were desperately poor back then, it wasn't as simple as aid in, conversion out like some sort of religious vending machine.
In sum, far from being victims of coercive brainwashing who had their native culture disrupted and were forced to accept a foreign belief, the early Korean Christians were eager converts who imported those beliefs on their own terms to follow a new mode of thought and form communities that made sense to them.
Besides, even if we accept this change as a disruption of native culture, what is that culture? Thousands of years ago animism and shamanism were our ancestors' main faiths. Then came Buddhism a little less than 2,000 years ago, then Confucianism, all of them religions that originated from foreign lands and all of which were accepted by my ancestors to fulfill their own political and social needs. Christianity is just the latest wave, so I'm not sure which traditional belief or culture we're supposed to mourn. I would mourn none of them, in fact, because none of these faiths is dead here and all of them coexist in a rich cultural mix. Christianity is as much a part of my heritage as Buddhism or shamanism, and I look really askance at the implication that it alone is a foreign entity that is somehow a unique and malignant disruption.
Yes, my society has been disrupted multiple times, including by religion, more often by politics and war. We change, and we go on. We are not so fragile that we're destroyed by every new thing that comes along, including Christianity. We are a society with our own history, viewpoints, and choices, not just helpless huddled victims of Western cultural imperialism.
Obviously I cannot speak for all indigenous peoples' experiences and many were probably more traumatic than ours. However, blanket statements about what missionaries do and what religion does are unhelpful and tend to flatten and objectify the diversity of our stories. One thing we are not is a cautionary tale for someone else's anti-theism.
The comment I'm responding to said in part (emphasis mine):
I also don't think it is fair for missionaries to go disrupt established cultures and push their beliefs on indigenous people. It's usually done with fear-mongering and things like food, education, medicine and other badly needed aid being used to "persuade" people. The effects can be devastating. Look what missionaries did to Uganda.
It's worth noting that this comment about proselytizing to indigenous communities, and missionaries supposedly ruining Uganda, comes immediately after the part about the evils of religious instruction of children. To the commenter Lea proselytization to indigenous groups seems to be part of the same evil as parents indoctrinating helpless children, as seen by the use of the word "also." Need I remind Lea, or anyone, that "indigenous people" are not all children but are led by grown-ass adults, and we are not helpless putty in the hands of white missionaries as Lea suggests? This portrayal of indigenous groups as passive victims of, and parables to illustrate, the evils of religion feels less like sympathy and more like objectification.
The last sentence of the paragraph is a continuation of that theme of objectification. Lea wasn't entirely clear about what it was missionaries did to Uganda, so I tried a search and only found information relating to the anti-homosexuality law that was influenced by missionaries. This is awful, but I think Lea and I disagree on who is responsible for this awfulness. In what sense is it something that missionaries "did" to Uganda? What about what the Ugandans are doing to themselves, to their own LGBT citizens? Though the American right wing supported and funded this hate campaign, don't the people of Uganda bear a responsibility for their homophobia? It seems a stretch to argue that homophobia is something missionaries inflicted on unsuspecting Ugandans when the Ugandan government resisted years of Western pressure to drop the bill, and when homophobia cuts across faith groups and predated missionaries. How about we accept that Africans can be close-minded and evil without being manipulated by missionaries, and their moral responsibility is not vitiated by the fact that there were vile Americans cheering them on?
And while there were no doubt abuses by missionaries in Uganda and elsewhere, the worst abuses were--as far as I know--committed when missionaries had force at their back, actively destroying or condoning the destruction of existing social structures. I'd like to make two different statements about this: a) Such forcible destruction of prior social structures is indefensible, and b) it's also not a uniquely religious phenomenon, but an epiphenomenon of imperialism. If missionaries backed up by guns act very differently from missionaries not backed up by guns, I would venture to guess that it's the guns and not the religion that make the difference.
I would particularly like to talk about this issue because my society has experience with missionaries who were in fact missionaries for religious and humanitarian reasons, not cheerleaders for a people's destruction. The picture from my end is somewhat different from Lea's image of the desperate, fearful masses who were shanghaied into conversion with medicine, education, and other aid.
For background I live in South Korea, a country where Christianity was virtually unheard of until the 17th century and is now a leading religion, with about a fourth of the population now being Catholic or Protestant. I suppose this makes us a prime candidate for one of those disrupted cultures and coerced peoples Lea thought of, but the reality is more complex than that.
For one thing, Koreans actually brought in Catholicism on their own in the eighteenth century. In fact it was my ancestor Lee Ik's disciples who brought in the first Catholic texts from China, a fact I take great pride in. These early Christians formed thriving communities that were scandalous by the standards of the day: Eschewing ancestor worship, men and women worshipping together, class distinctions disregarded.
The Korean authorities were initially tolerant of the Christians, though, and in fact thought the adherents and clergy of this Western belief might be a corridor of communication with Western powers. It turned out, however, that the Western priests sent to tend this flock were in fact sincere religious men who weren't interested in brokering power for their host government.
It was imperialism and international politics that ultimately brought major waves of persecution on these Korean Catholics in the mid-19th century. China started cracking down on its own Catholics after Britain and France occupied Beijing, and the Korean leadership had already learned that there was little political advantage to be gained from this sincerely religious folk. Korea therefore found it to be more in its interest to follow China's lead, and executed nine priests and 8,000 followers in 1866.
Protestantism was in fact brought to Korea by missionaries, and they were energetic about building hospitals and schools, so it might be expected that this was where the coercive conversions took place. But that seems to make certain assumptions, such as that we as indigenous people must be so static and passive that we would never convert to a new faith unless dastardly Westerners forced us to. Or that our religious convictions are so insincere that we'd gladly throw away our ancestral beliefs for medicine and education. Or that the missionaries were not above coercing us natives to convert using our poverty and need against us.
None of these assumptions seem to hold, however. First, the history of Catholicism here shows that some of us are perfectly willing to "disrupt" our own culture, thank you very much, for the simple reason that our culture is not a static thing. Second, it's just plain insulting to be told that our faith is for sale. Is it really outside the realm of possibility that people saw something in the missionaries' faith that they wanted for themselves, much like the earlier Catholics had?
By all accounts the missionaries were in truth sincerely interested in the Koreans' well-being and gained the widespread admiration of Korean society. When Mary Scranton, the missionary founder of my alma mater, passed away, the king sent a retainer to offer five obeisances--a sign of high respect indeed in recognition of the work she did for women's health and education. There is no indication that she was so cynical as to coerce conversions in return for services. Religion is a social phenomenon, and admiring someone's dedication to their cause would be conducive to be wanting to be like them, wouldn't it? I mean, give us some credit as people of intellectual and spiritual capacity. Even though we were desperately poor back then, it wasn't as simple as aid in, conversion out like some sort of religious vending machine.
In sum, far from being victims of coercive brainwashing who had their native culture disrupted and were forced to accept a foreign belief, the early Korean Christians were eager converts who imported those beliefs on their own terms to follow a new mode of thought and form communities that made sense to them.
Besides, even if we accept this change as a disruption of native culture, what is that culture? Thousands of years ago animism and shamanism were our ancestors' main faiths. Then came Buddhism a little less than 2,000 years ago, then Confucianism, all of them religions that originated from foreign lands and all of which were accepted by my ancestors to fulfill their own political and social needs. Christianity is just the latest wave, so I'm not sure which traditional belief or culture we're supposed to mourn. I would mourn none of them, in fact, because none of these faiths is dead here and all of them coexist in a rich cultural mix. Christianity is as much a part of my heritage as Buddhism or shamanism, and I look really askance at the implication that it alone is a foreign entity that is somehow a unique and malignant disruption.
Yes, my society has been disrupted multiple times, including by religion, more often by politics and war. We change, and we go on. We are not so fragile that we're destroyed by every new thing that comes along, including Christianity. We are a society with our own history, viewpoints, and choices, not just helpless huddled victims of Western cultural imperialism.
Obviously I cannot speak for all indigenous peoples' experiences and many were probably more traumatic than ours. However, blanket statements about what missionaries do and what religion does are unhelpful and tend to flatten and objectify the diversity of our stories. One thing we are not is a cautionary tale for someone else's anti-theism.
no subject
It seems to me that some of these people, hm, view white cultures as monolithic, but also view other cultures as monolithic, too. That, to some people, it's almost like, well, Buddhism is from somewhere in Asia and Korea is also somewhere in Asia, therefore the rest is minor details. Or else maybe that things that happen between different Asian cultures are all "natural" cultural exchange but cultural exchange between Asian cultures and Western ones is "unnatural" in the same way as burning fossil fuels or whatever. Both of which views are for obvious reasons very wrong.
This is not only cynical but probably also irresponsible as a first round of speculation, especially done in public like this. But I guess I'd feel awkward taking this to PM.
(My feeling awkward is apparently more important than not randomly accusing people of racism in the complete absence of evidence! Good to know what my priorities are!)
Anyway, I wanted to say I've been following this series that you've been posting. It's very interesting, even if I haven't had anything to say on the earlier installments.
no subject
Let me one-up you on the speculative cynicism and say it's a negative version of American/European exceptionalism--"Yeah, cultural exchange and domination have always existed, but when WE do it it's so special...ly bad. We have done things to other cultures no one else has ever done, why oh why are we so exceptional...ly evil?!" I wonder if people who think this way would be a little bit hurt to be told they weren't actually that bad, considering the whole of history.
Glad to hear it's been interesting! I enjoyed writing the series, and it's been an opportunity to think about my own spirituality and how I relate to my and my people's history. I've also started thinking more seriously about how much I still think in Christian terms despite not really believing in God. Which is confusing, to say the least.
no subject
Trololol, I found myself wondering something similar. It's like, dude, white people aren't that special. We just happen to be the group of people in power at the time. Eventually we'll get overthrown and then OTHER people will get their time in the asshole sun. (This isn't to say what we're doing is okay. Just because it's usual doesn't mean it's RIGHT. But I find it kinda eye-rolling how people will use their own white guilt to recenter discussions to be about themselves.)
Especially since I've learned just enough of history to know that Buddhist monks were rightfully feared in some parts of Japan at various times. And I'm sure it would please you to know (not really) that one of the most successful cult leaders in the US was a Korean dude, Sun Myung Moon!
Admittedly, in the US, missionaries DID have a lot to answer for in the havoc they wreaked on Native American and Pacific Islander communities, where it really was a matter of "convert or die." (Or lose your children, or...) And it's not necessarily a part of imperialism, I think, since Jews were often forcibly converted from within their own countries/lands. (The marranos come to mind; even now, there are some Puerto Rican Jews who have practiced their faith in secret for centuries, not even telling their own children why.)
Then again, atheism has also been used in imperialism--communist China comes to mind. I guess it's a sign that people will use whatever tools they have to hand to hurt others. Which is depressing, but a little less... *cough* black and white than, "white people are ESPECIALLY good... at evilness!"
The problem isn't necessarily our religion, but the power we wield over others so callously.
--Rogan
no subject
YES. Even when they're villains it's about white people. The narrative isn't about the sufferings of their victims, but the evilness of the people making them suffer. Hence objectification.
Ugh yeah. The Moonies are a problem back here, too. I've heard a lot about labor violations in a Moonie-run school here, and am involved as a representative in one such case. From the descriptions of the teachers I've talked to, the school sounds like a thoroughly abusive organization. This doesn't represent even a hundredth of the Moonies' corruption, of course.
Oh absolutely, missionary work has been destructive in a lot of places, particularly in conjunction with the work of subjugation. Given my own country's largely positive experience with missionaries my impulse is to think that it was the programme of subjugation that was the problem, not the religion, but of course religion was also an animating and amplifying force in the destruction of indigenous peoples, and of minority groups like Jews.
Careful, some New Atheist is liable to jump down your throat if they see that. "Atheism is not a religion, or ideology, or any kind of unifying force! I have nothing in common with Mao or Stalin!" I think it's more accurate to say anti-theism, or anti-religious thought and policy. After all, the Communists' main thing wasn't merely that God doesn't exist--it was that religion was an evil that should be stamped out.
Exactly. And that's part of my beef with this New Atheism, that in their rage-on for religion they tend to downplay other and, in my mind, far more destructive evils like imperialism, expansive capitalism, and lack of civil protections.
no subject
*eyeroll* They're the ones who MADE a fucking identity and movement out of it. If religious people don't get to disavow their assholes, they don't either. They can't have their cake and eat it too. Either atheists aren't a movement/ide0logy and therefore can't use it to hurt others, or they can.
--Rogan
no subject
I know right? The problem is, technically speaking they're right--the original meaning of the word is lack of belief in any god, nothing more. New Atheists themselves created the confusion by conflating it with being anti-religion, and when faced with anti-religious shenanigans they escape back to the original meaning which they themselves deviated from. And Christians contributed to the confusion with the negative connotations they attached to "atheism."
It's why I prefer to use the term "anti-theist," to head off confusion and close that loophole. Plus, as an atheist who is not anti-theist, I don't particularly enjoy being roped in with asshole anti-theists*.
*Meaning anti-theists who are assholes, not to say that all anti-theists are assholes.