No, the documented abuses of Christian colonialism is not based on "woke" ideology.

Centuries ago, even other Christians spoke out against the abuses and you had non violent groups protesting these things too, such as the Quakers. The horrible things Christian colonists did are backed up by historians, primary source documents, and centuries of institutional records provide extensive evidence that violence, coercion, and subjugation were frequently carried out or justified using Christian doctrine during the colonial era.

To say centuries of info is "woke" when they had no such terminology is ridiculous.

Historical Evidence of Colonial Violence:

Historians have documented numerous ways in which Christian structures and ideologies were intertwined with colonial violence:

Doctrine and Justification:

Colonial powers frequently used religious frameworks to justify the dispossession and subjugation of indigenous peoples. For instance, the "Doctrine of Discovery," supported by 15th-century papal bulls, provided a legal and moral framework for European powers to seize lands inhabited by non-Christians.

Use of Force in Evangelization: In many regions, missionization was not purely peaceful. In East Africa and the Americas, mission stations were often established or maintained through physical coercion, including flogging, corporal punishment for those who resisted, and the use of military force to suppress indigenous opposition.

Sacred Violence: The conflation of religious and racial identity often led to "sacred violence," where the destruction of indigenous peoples or their sacred sites was framed as an act of service to God or a fight against "the devil".

Systemic Control: Institutions like the Inquisition and later missionary-run workhouses often utilized systemic violence to enforce religious and cultural conformity, treating "otherness" as a threat to be disciplined or eradicated.

Complexity and Counter-Narratives

While the link between Christianity and colonial violence is historically well-documented, historians also acknowledge that Christianity was not a monolithic force. It often played dual roles:

Internal Critique: Throughout the colonial period, there were Christian individuals and movements that vehemently opposed colonial abuses on theological grounds. Figures like the Dominican friar Bartolomé de las Casas in the 16th century were early, vocal critics of the atrocities committed by Spanish colonizers.

Missionary Advocacy: In the 19th century, missionaries often occupied a "bridging position." While they were part of the colonial apparatus, many used their influence to document and publicize colonial abuses, such as the slave trade or settler violence, to pressure European governments for reforms or abolition.

Diverse Perspectives: Scholars distinguish between the institutional role of the church as an agent of state expansion and the actions of individual missionaries or dissenting religious groups (like the Quakers) who actively campaigned against imperialist policies.

Why This is Not a "Modern" Invention

The critique of colonial violence is not a product of recent "woke" ideology; it has been a part of historical and theological discourse for centuries. Indigenous leaders, enslaved people, and dissenting missionaries documented these abuses in real-time.

The academic shift toward critically examining the "ideological" role of missionaries, viewing them as potential "shock troops" for empire, began in the mid-to-late 20th century as part of the broader decolonization movement and the study of postcolonial literature.

This was an attempt by historians to provide a more comprehensive, evidence-based account of history that includes the experiences of colonized populations, rather than relying solely on the narratives of the colonizers.