ABSTRACT
African religion has been much misunderstood, and misunderstood in ways which have made it very difficult to treat historically. Those who have been hostile to African religion have called it primitive; those who have been favourable to it have called it primal. Both words imply an unchanging continuity with the earliest times. African religion has been contrasted, both unfavourably and favourably, with the dynamic ‘religions of the book’, with their belief in a divinely ordained historical process and their assertion of the primacy of man over nature. Critics of African religion have said that its collective character has constituted a tyranny over individuals and that its conservative character has acted as a brake on progress. Admirers of African religion have praised its contributions to solidarity, stability and community. Critics have depicted African religion as the product of human fear in the face of an all-powerful and arbitrary nature. Admirers have praised its humility and ecological sensitivity. Yet these opposing evaluations arise from essentially the same analysis of African religion which both critics and admirers have seen as having escaped the blessing, or the curse, of historical development.
