Tempels was torn between loyalty to colonists and to the Baluba
Evidence
Once we understand that Tempels played the role of preacher and informant, his fate is sealed. He has to be faithful to his people. However, who are his people? Are they the fellow Belgians and other colonists strewn all over the continent and beyond to whom his book was addressed? Or are his people the Baluba that the church had charged him to convert and care for spiritually? I think that Tempels’s intellectual endeavors forced him to recognize himself as called to both roles. He could not fully deny his Belgian identity and implication in the colonial mission, hence he could not dissociate himself from it either. — Frans Dokman, Beyond Bantu Philosophy_…, 460
Categorization
- XREF: Connects to the broader debate in African philosophy about the ‘decolonial’ reading of missionary ethnographers, relevant to Mudimbe’s critique in The Invention of Africa. — connects to: Ideological critiques trace Tempels’ work to colonial paternalism; Tempels broke with colonial paternalism to defend African rational capacity; Judging Tempels fairly requires situating him in his historical context (+3 more)
- QUESTION: Worth chasing later: what exactly did Tempels say to the Baluba directly, as opposed to reporting on them to Belgians? His sermons vs. his ethnography.
- corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Frans Dokman, Beyond Bantu Philosophy_…, 460
Broader Connections
- Ideological critiques trace Tempels’ work to colonial paternalism
#complicates(0.55) - Tempels broke with colonial paternalism to defend African rational capacity
#complicates(0.40) - Judging Tempels fairly requires situating him in his historical context
#expands(0.35) - Tempels’ openness to Baluba teaching explains his insight into dynamic being
#expands(0.35) - Tempels sought sympathetic identification with Bantu rather than detached observation
#expands(0.30) - Tempels framed his early missionary role as a colonial master ‘Boula Matari’.
#complicates(0.30)