>The missionaries established schools in Africa to spread their beliefs,
>colonial authorities saw them as an opportunity to pacify the local
>population, the local population saw them as an opportunity to learn a
>few new tricks and kick the white man's butt. Who is to say what was
>"overtly formulated" about these institutions?
True as far as it goes. But the missionaries did not just coincidentally arrive with the colonial authorities. The colonial authorities needed to eliminate the independent culture of the local population, whose cultures of course were conveyed in their religion. The tried and true way of destroying a local culture was to impose a different religion, conveying different cultural values, on the local population.
One of the peculiarities of humans is that new cultural values cannot be imposed on adults. But children are a blank page. So the strategy is simple, destroy the local economy by taking their land, livestock or killing their working age population (whatever) thus forcing the local population to rely on aid. Along with the aid, provide schools for the young, at which you impose a new religion.
>The proof of the pudding is in the eating, not in exhortations about its
>virtues or vices.
Yes. Evangelicalism can be seen to be a belief system for a colonial culture. the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas