Since the African continent was divided at the Berlin Conference of 1884-1885, the struggle for its wealth has played out on two fronts. The first was political, as European powers, starting with King Leopold II of Belgium, sought to exploit Africa’s resources.
The second was ideological, designed by Belgium, the Vatican, and Germany to weaken strong African tribes by fostering internal divisions.
One of the most destructive ideological tools was the Hamitic versus Bantu theory, a construct that fueled perpetual ethnic conflicts across the continent. This theory ultimately contributed to the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda, where the so-called Bantu were manipulated into exterminating the so-called Hamitic.
On the political front, King Leopold II exploited the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) from 1885 as his private property, and after his death, he bequeathed it to the Kingdom of Belgium.
The Ideological Front: A colonial legacy
Although ideological manipulation continued after African nations gained independence, it took on new dimensions after the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi. The architects of the genocide ideology, acting in the name of the Bantu, extended their campaign of extermination into former Belgian colonies, particularly the DRC and Burundi.
When European colonialists arrived in Africa, their first move was to weaken tribes they perceived as powerful threats to their rule. To reinforce their agenda, so-called scientists from Belgium, France, Britain, and Germany refined the Hamitic versus Bantu theory, which they used to justify the existence of distinct African “tribes” or “races.”
In a pastoral letter, Bishop André Perraudin, the Vicar Apostolic of Kabgayi, stated: “Among the Africans, there are the Batutsi, the Bahutu, and the Batwa.” Some may assume this was Perraudin’s personal interpretation, but it was a widespread colonial perspective.
The White Fathers, a Catholic missionary group, reinforced the idea that the Batutsi/Hamitic peoples across Africa had to be eliminated or weakened by the Bahutu/Bantu.
One White Father, Alphonse Brard, wrote: “Today, the Batutsi no longer have a future; the arrival of Europeans will ruin their power everywhere.” This ideology was a Belgian creation, supported by the Vatican through the White Fathers.
The Birth of the White Fathers
Following the Berlin Conference, European powers signed the General Act of Berlin, formalizing colonization and trade regulations in Africa. European explorers had already surveyed the continent and formulated views on its people.
In 1899, German explorer Richard Kandt remarked: “Rwanda is a country full of hope, when we could destroy the power of the Watusi.”
The question was not just about destroying the Batutsi’s power but also about weakening other strong African tribes. A discussion between King Leopold II and Pope Leo XIII, known as “The Diplomat Pope,” led to the creation of an organization to help subdue these tribes.
In 1868, three years after the Berlin Conference, Charles Lavigerie founded the White Fathers, also known as the Missionaries of Africa.
Officially, they aimed to educate and Christianize Arab orphans from the 1867 famine and convert Arabs and Africans to Christianity. However, their real purpose was to dismantle or weaken African tribes that resisted European exploitation.
By 1884, Pope Leo XIII had already permitted the King of Belgium to deploy White Fathers in his Congo project. Many of them came from the Scheut Fathers, a congregation based in a suburb of Brussels, to support Leopold II’s African ambitions.
Deployment of the White Fathers
With support from Leopold II, Otto von Bismarck, and Pope Leo XIII, Charles Lavigerie established his headquarters in Algeria and began deploying White Fathers across Africa.
Though no written documents explicitly outline their mission, the directives given to those sent by Leopold II to the Congo–detailed in “A Tentative Answer to Why the Vatican Wants the Beatification of Baudouin”–indicate their role in facilitating colonial exploitation and suppressing African resistance.
Lavigerie deployed White Fathers strategically across Africa. In Rwanda, Burundi, and eastern DRC alone, he assigned figures such as Bishop Léon-Paul Classe (Rwanda), Archbishop Louis Van Steene (Bukavu, DRC), Bishop Alphonse Joseph Matthysen (Bunia, DRC), and Bishop Joseph Germain Martin (Burundi), among others.
Their influence extended across West Africa (Senegal, Mali, Burkina Faso, Chad, Sudan, Eritrea, Algeria) and Southern Africa (Malawi, Mozambique, Zambia, Botswana, Angola, Namibia).
The White Fathers played a key role in consolidating European rule. In the DR Congo, they operated unchallenged from 1885 until the emergence of resistance leader Patrice Lumumba, who was assassinated for his defiance.
In Rwanda, they encountered resistance from King Mutara III Rudahigwa, who was later assassinated in Bujumbura, reportedly with Belgian complicity.
The Bantu versus Hamitic ideology continued in Rwanda until 1994, when the Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA) stopped the genocide against the Tutsi. However, the genocide ideology persists through groups like the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) and the political environments in Kinshasa and Bujumbura.
Can the fight against colonial ideology ignite Africa’s renaissance?
During Africa’s independence struggles, Frantz Fanon famously said: “Africa is shaped like a pistol, whose trigger is in the Congo. Whoever has their finger on the trigger has the power to build or destroy the continent.” He emphasized the DR Congo’s symbolic role in Pan-African resistance against colonialism, warning that Africa’s fate was tied to events in Congo.
When Fanon spoke these words, Belgium had its finger on the trigger, exploiting the DR Congo’s wealth from 1885 until independence. Afterward, Belgium sought to share control with other European powers.
Who has their finger on the trigger today? The leader who dismantles tribalism and limits European interference in the DR Congo will shape Africa’s future. With West Africa advancing toward liberation, East Africa making steady progress, and Central Africa awaiting the DR Congo’s emancipation, the stakes are high.
The M23/AFC’s recent advances in the DR Congo indicate a shift in power dynamics. If the genocide ideology in the region is neutralized, the pistol that Fanon described may finally be silenced. The DR Congo, long viewed as the focal point of Pan-African resistance, could instead become the trigger for Africa’s renaissance.
A liberated DR Congo could catalyze the continent’s rebirth, shifting political and economic decision-making from Brussels, Paris, and London to African capitals. The seeds of this transformation have already been planted in various African nations. The question now is: Who will pull the trigger for Africa’s true independence?
