reading The Idea of Africa by V.Y. Mudimbe and he brings up a rlly interesting story about the belgian colonization of the congo:
Victor Roelens believed in a Masonic conspiracy. In 1913, he carefully studied the list of appointees in Belgian Congo courts and concluded that most of them, apart from three Catholics, were anti-Catholics. Three scandals convinced him he was right. The local colonial administration had introduced three legal actions: one against the Apostolic Prefect of Kasai, a bishop, for infanticide; two others against two priests, a Redemptionist and a Jesuit, for sexual misconduct. Roelens commented upon what he believed to be a persecution and an "insulting war". The Church was persuaded that the scandals and attacks came from Masonic nuclei already existing in Léopoldville, Elisabethville, Stanleyville, and Boma. In Brussels, the minister of colonies avoided antagonizing its administration with the Church. Roelens went public on February 5, 1913, attacking the government in Le Patriote on the theme that official governmental goodwill does not protect missions against everyday colonial vexations and humiliations. The following day, the Belgian minister responded in the same paper and challenged the accuracy of Roelens's statements. On February 7, Roelens counterattacked, maintaining the essence of his accusations. The debate became a public scandal. On February 12 and 14, the minister had to defend his position in parliament. Four days later, in Le Matin, an Antwerp paper, Roelens made his frustration more explicit, focusing on what he considered to be the hostile atmosphere existing in the Congo against Catholic missions. In La Presse of February 23, and Le Patriote of February 27, he continued his campaign, demanding "la liberté de l'apostolat au Congo," the freedom for converting. The confrontation between Roelens and the then minister, Renkin, had turned personal.
a few pages later, on the same topic:
Underlying the whole debate is the question of what the right to colonize means. Specifically, is there objectivity or an impartial, truthful background permitting a clear distinction between real, founded, justified "knowledges" and simple opinions? Concretely, should the demands of efficiency in colonizing recognize the possibility of alternative policies, ones competitive ideologically, justified in the "conversion" of the colony? The State did not seem to fear the possibility of judgmental relativisms and, consequently, would accept the contribution of Masons, for example, as long as the right to colonize and its basic postulates remain pure preferences. The Church, on the other hand, saw in such a position an explicit challenge that might undermine its totalitarian principles. For the most part, its agenda can be summed up in a phrase: conversion to the West is isomorphic with a conversion to Christianity, and therefore to accept non-established Christian ideologies in the colonizing practice would mean to question the very basis of the right to colonize.