To begin with, I would like to make two fundamental comments:
1 During my own history studies, we were very often reminded of the scientific approach. One of our professors, an excellent historian and scientist, formulated the following pithy sentence: "Read the sources and read them thoroughly. If you don't do that, you can throw yourself on the canapé and think about how it might have been."
In the title of the lecture, "ideology" could therefore also be supplemented with "fantasy". This sentence means that one should read the sources at all, that one should read all the sources one can get hold of, and that one should use them all, not just selectively, in order to serve one's own ideology (or fantasy) that one has made up. You should also practise source comparison and source criticism (the same applies to secondary literature).
2. historians are myth hunters, as the important sociologist Norbert Elias, who worked on an interdisciplinary basis, also said. This means that historians should uncover myths and they should not produce myths themselves - neither in a positive nor in a negative sense. Both principles are still sometimes violated in historiography today - including in the historiography of St Ottilien and the Benedictine mission.
I will try to clarify what is meant by this preliminary remark using a few selected examples. However, I will not mention the names of the "producers" of the ideology or fantasy in my critical remarks, but will only try to expose the myth. If you are interested, you can read about most of this in detail in Volumes 1 and 2 of my account of the history of St Ottilien. There you will also find an extensive and detailed history of the Ottilian East Africa Mission up to and including the First World War.
Example 1: Proximity of the Catholic Mission to the German colonial government
It is clear that the missionaries had and still have to co-operate in some way with the government of the country in which they want to carry out their mission. It does not matter whether it is a so-called colonial government (either of their own nation or of another) or the government of an independent state. I don't think we need to discuss the approach and behaviour of the German colonial government and many colonists in East Africa. It is well known that - to put it mildly - there was a lot wrong.
Nevertheless, there are somewhat surprising statements everywhere about this so-called "closeness" between the Catholic mission and the colonial government.
a) For example, when referring to all three Catholic missionary societies that worked in East Africa (the White Fathers (PA), the Spiritans (CSSp), the Benedictine Congregation of St. Ottilien (OSB)), it is said that the Catholic missionaries were "part of the secular concept of rule"; or that "the Fathers often used similarly brutal methods" as the colonial missionaries. Ottilien (OSB)), that the Catholic missionaries were "part of the secular concept of rule"; or that "the Fathers not infrequently made use of similarly brutal methods" as the colonial government and provided "active assistance not only to the colonial power as such, but also to its militant summary, the Schutztruppe"; or that the Catholic missionaries were "consistent nationalist apologists for the Kaiser and the Reich, for Prussian obedience and the Catholic understanding of authority"; etc. - I think that further commentary on such one-sided and undifferentiated statements, which are not really scientific, is superfluous. Especially since such statements do not take into account the Protestant mission, which was generally closer to the state and thus also to the colonial government (Catholics were long suspected of being ultramontane by the German government and were not reliable Germans - whatever that may mean). Such sentences therefore fall under the heading of "ideology".
b) These statements are not an isolated case. The proximity between the colonial government and the Catholic mission is emphasised time and again, with some authors particularly emphasising the use of violence, especially by the missionaries. For example, when it is stated that the Christian mission "was an integral part of the often violent organisation of rule in everyday colonial life"; or: European missions were "part of the colonial power elite and saw themselves as such". The general and undifferentiated assertion of the use of violence and oppression of Africans in the East African colony by the missionaries is basically ideology (just like the ideology of the superiority of the white race at the time). It sounds as if oppression and the use of violence was a missionary system. That this happened in some cases is undisputed.
Such statements can be multiplied at will. The cited treatises are not about missions in general, but about Catholic missions and specifically about the missionary Benedictines. With such sweeping judgements, the suspicion of ideology is obvious, especially because the numerous Protestant missions (of any denomination) that are also represented in East Africa are not mentioned at all. Of course, it is just as wrong to generally say "Protestants have ...". However, it is currently "fashionable" and "politically correct" again to denounce the Catholic Church, the mission and everything connected with it. Whether the individual statements are based on facts or not is irrelevant. However, if misbehaviour is based on facts, it must of course be clearly stated.
In order to relativise or refute these assessments, I would like to give some examples of Benedictine missionaries or those responsible for the mission who behaved "contrary", either in their actions or in their statements.
a) There is Father Johannes Häfliger OSB, for example, who looked after the starving Africans after the Maji Maji war and also tried to protect them from the Ruga Ruga gangs and therefore got into trouble with the government.
b) Father Clemens Künster OSB, who had reported a colonial official for beating Africans. The consequences for Father Clemens were not pleasant from the government's point of view: he had the choice between prison or leaving the country. His bishop then sent him back to Germany because he didn't want to see any of his missionaries in prison.
c) Bishop Thoams Spreiter, who - like Abbot Norbert Weber - was very much in favour of education and training for Africans, wrote that African Christians should learn to read and write. Because if elections are held in the country in the future, African Christians should not be left without a voice (Spreiter apparently assumed that the country would become independent at some point).
Such examples can be multiplied from the sources.
Also interesting are some statements by Bishop Thomas Spreiter OSB and Abbot Norbert Weber OSB, the Superior General of the Ottilian Congregation, which make the supposed "closeness" between the Benedictine mission and the colonial government look somewhat different:
a) For example, a letter from Thomas Spreiter to the colonial government should be mentioned here: The government had thanked him for what the missionaries were doing in the cultural field. In this context, it was mainly about the mission's schools. Thomas Spreiter's response was: this gratitude was all well and good, but it would be better if the government really supported the Benedictine mission. That was a pretty clear message.
b) Abbot Norbert Weber made it clear in a number of his writings and speeches that there was a fundamental difference between the colonial government/colonists on the one hand and missionaries on the other, as colonial politicians only wanted to capitalise on the treasures of the land and the power of the people, whereas the missionaries were concerned with the immortal souls of the Africans. The colonial poiliticians wanted to turn the Africans into slaves, which the missionaries could not accept.
c) Norbert Weber continued to make frequent critical remarks about the colonial government, its behaviour and its actions towards the Africans, including in his travel diaries, which he wrote on his visitation trips. For example, while he was still in East Africa and while the Maji Maji War was still raging, he referred to this war as the Africans' struggle for freedom, drawing comparisons with German history. The term "freedom struggle" was then also used in the official statement of the Benedictines, which they wrote to counter accusations by the colonial government that they were partly responsible for some developments during this war.
The fact that there was often very little closeness between the missionary Benedictines and the colonial government is also quite clear here.
Example 2: Catholic missionaries are consistent nationalist apologists
The accusation that Catholic missionaries were "consistent nationalist apologists" brings me to a similar point.
Bishop Thomas Spreiter, the Vicar Apostolic of the Vicariate of Dar es Salaam, was also reproached in this way. It is known that the German missionaries (both Catholic and Protestant) had to leave East Africa, which had come under British rule after the First World War, together with all Germans. At some point, the rumour arose that Spreiter could have stayed with his missionaries in response to an offer from the British if he had not refused to accept the lenient conditions of the British out of exaggerated nationalism.
It is not possible to determine when the rumour originated. But we learn about it from an enquiry in 1931 to Archabbot Chrysostomus Schmid, who also passed the matter on to Spreiter. This rumour stated that the bishop had been asked three times about the friendly offer from the English and had fiercely rejected the proposal each time. In this way, the bishop had caused great damage to a flourishing missionary area out of exaggerated nationalism. Spreiter himself, of course, rejected this accusation (both in his diary and in his reply to the questioner). That he was right to do so is clear from the sources, which show what Spreiter did and tried to do in order to actually stay and continue the mission. It is also clear from the general aims of the British after the First World War that there was and could have been nothing to the accusation.
However, there are later so-called "historians" who not only readily believed this rumour, but also spoke of a "well-established oral tradition" in this context, even if they had no source evidence for it. It becomes particularly fatal when the conclusion is drawn that Spreiter's behaviour was "disastrous for the mission" and "an event of great significance". However, the arguments and evidence for this assertion are also lacking. Is this ideology or fantasy? Nevertheless, the question remains as to who started such rumours and for what reasons.
Example 3: Visitation process of Abbot Norbert Weber
Another example that refers to Thomas Spreiter (but also to Abbot Norbert Weber) and to an earlier point in time:
This is the visitation process that Abbot Norbert Weber wrote after his trip to Africa in 1905. Such a process had to be submitted to Propaganda promptly. Now there is a statement in a treatise that Norbert Weber wrote his report with great delay, i.e. one year after his return (i.e. at the end of 1906), and that this happened because Thomas Spreiter had prevented the timely writing of the recess (for which, however, there is no evidence). Apart from the fact that the recess is dated "Christmas 1905", Weber's correspondence with the Abbot Primate (1 February 1906) and an acknowledgement of receipt or thanks from Propaganda for the recess (3 March 1906) show that the report was submitted at the beginning of 1906. This means that this statement/assertion is not only not supported by the sources, but also contradicts them.
As far as the interpretation that Thomas Spreiter prevented the timely drafting of the recession is concerned, several questions must be asked: 1. if one knows Thomas Spreiter's behaviour and conduct, it is actually clear that he was a legalist, i.e. he would rather have insisted on the timely drafting (as legally required); 2. why should Thomas Spreiter have prevented the recession? At the time the report was about (1903-1905), Spreiter was not yet responsible for the mission territory (he was only Vicar Apostolic and Bishop from 1906). Moreover, in his own notes Norbert Weber praised the Lukuledi station led by Spreiter at the time. 3. how could he have prevented the timely report in the first place? - By the way: What kind of picture does this give of Thomas Spreiter?
So the whole thing belongs more in the realm of fantasy. It is regrettable that such things are then included in other papers as the "result of the latest research".
Example 4: Dealing with initiation rites
One of many other aspects is the question of initiation rites (Unyago). These initiation rites were initially subject to strict secrecy within the tribes and apparently also had a fairly strong sexual aspect. This is not surprising, as it was a matter of introducing young people to adult life.
In 1908, an African Christian in Ndanda reported details of the boys' unyago to the missionaries. The missionaries had long been aware of the matter as such, but this new and more detailed knowledge irritated the missionaries there so much that they took action. This is also not surprising, as the missionaries were not particularly enthusiastic about the strong sexualisation of the rites. One treatise in the secondary literature describes the effect of these openings as "moral panic", which immediately led the missionaries to take rigorous action. If you look at the contemporary sources, things look somewhat different. In this context, Bishop Thomas Spreiter's circular letter of November 1908, which he dedicated specifically to the Unyago and in which he dealt with the topic in detail, is important. Here, as in later treatises and statements, he made it clear that not everything in these initiation teachings was reprehensible and that some socially useful things were passed on. In his opinion, it was therefore absolutely necessary to research the customs and traditions of the natives in detail, to document them in writing and to communicate one's own findings to the other missionaries in order to be able to make distinctions. This is the only way to recognise what can be classified as harmful superstition. There is no sign of hasty action or panic here (nor in other source statements). However, it is undeniable that there were some missionaries who reacted more violently to such things than others. But that was not the general line.
I could go on with such examples - coupled with obvious and sometimes serious errors in the historical facts. In my opinion, however, even these few examples show how much ideology and fantasy is produced in connection with the history of St Ottilia, which is in no way supported by the sources and even contradicts them.
