Mission 21. An Organisation Dealing with Its Colonial Past

Visitors to the Basel Mission (BM) website today can see photos of the mission house, read about what the foundation still does today and, especially, learn about the history of the BM – from the mission’s perspective. The word “colonialism” does not appear once and the missionary work is not placed in its wider colonial context. Instead, the BM considers itself the “inventor” of today’s so-called “development cooperation”.[1] This brings us to Mission 21, the second institution that is also based in the Mission House and continues this development cooperation for the BM today. On the Mission 21 website, on the other hand, the examination of its own history takes place from a completely different perspective. Under the project “Mission – colonialism revisited”, for example, a wide range of content can be assessed regarding the historical link between the mission and colonialism, today’s contemporary racism, and the looting of cultural artefacts.[2] This discrepancy has led us to explore what the history of Mission 21 is and how it relates to the BM.

Screenshot of the website of Mission 21 and its project “Colonialism Revisited”. (https://www.mission-21.org/was-wir-tun/veranstaltungen/mission-colonialism-revisited/ accessed on: 3rd of November 2024)
Screenshot of the website of Mission 21 and its project “Colonialism Revisited”. (https://www.mission-21.org/was-wir-tun/veranstaltungen/mission-colonialism-revisited/ accessed on: 3rd of November 2024)

In 2001, the BM handed over “operational management” of its activities, which primarily include development cooperation, to Mission 21. Today, the BM is a foundation that mainly manages the Mission House and the Hotel Odelya on its premises as well as other real estate and partly funds the archives of the BM. Together with two other mission organizations, the BM forms the supporting association for Mission 21.[3]

The founding of Mission 21 can be seen as the result of a transformation process of the BM that was initiated in the 1950s and must be placed in a larger context:
During the decolonization movements and the emergence of development cooperation, the work of the BM also began to change. According to Claudia Buess, head of Mission 21’s education program, the BM stopped doing evangelizing missionary work in 1955 and focused more on financial support for its partner churches and on education and health programs.[4] Against the backdrop of the Cold War and the incipient decolonization movements in the global South, development cooperation was institutionalized in Western countries and the leading international development organizations were established. In the development theory and policy of the time, the concept of development was strongly oriented towards the Western model; economic growth, technological progress and the level of industrialization were defined as central to a country’s stage of development.[5]

In the context of so-called post-development approaches, post-colonial critiques of development cooperation have been voiced. Critics have highlighted the Eurocentrism inherent in developmentalism and argued that development cooperation depoliticises socio-economic problems, leaving asymmetries of power out of the equation. In this way, development cooperation has been legitimising and reproducing existing power relations between the global north and the global south. Elements of this postcolonial critique are increasingly being integrated into ongoing development discourses and practices. However, critics still fear that unless the hegemonic, inherently eurocentric framework of development cooperation is fundamentally deconstructed, the partial incorporation of critique could lead to immunisation against it.[6]

Through this lens, Mission 21’s self-portrayal can be viewed critically: Mission 21’s website states that its current fields of activity are “sustainable development cooperation”, “humanitarian aid” and “peacebuilding”. They see themselves as a faith-based organisation and an international learning community.[7]


According to Claudia Buess the name “Mission 21” repeatedly leads to discussions within the organization: On the one hand, the term “mission” has fallen into disrepute among the Swiss public in recent years and no longer necessarily fits the work of the organization; on the other hand, the Protestant church and the international partner-churches insist on this term, as within the churches it is an established term for work abroad and international relations. The Protestant national church is an important donor of the organization and officially refers to it as one of its important missionary organizations. In addition to church donations, the organization is funded by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation as well as by private and institutional donors.[8]

On the guided tour about the colonial entanglements of the Basel Mission: The tour guides showing our group a picture of a class of missionaries (photographer: Julia Tischler).
On the guided tour about the colonial entanglements of the Basel Mission: The tour guides showing our group a picture of a class of missionaries (photographer: Julia Tischler).

In the course of the excursion in July 2024 the authors of this text were increasingly confused about how Mission 21 dealt with its own history and how it presented itself to the outside world. On the one hand, we had attended a guided tour through Basel offered by Mission 21, which focused on the BM’s involvement with colonialism and imperialism. This, as well as the educational programme on the Mission 21 website, indicates a critical approach to the history of the organization.[9] On the other hand, we found a Mission 21 publication from 2015 entitled “Pioniere, Weltenbummler, Brückenbauer – Jubiläumsmagazin zu 200 Jahren Basler Mission”[10] (Engl. “Pioneers, globetrotters, bridge builders – anniversary magazine celebrating 200 years of the Basel Mission”) in which very laudatory, positive tones prevail with regard to the history of the BM and its missionaries. It also advertises a musical entitled “Das Grab des weissen Mannes” (engl. “The White Man’s Grave”), picking up a common colonial trope on “dangerous” West Africa. 

We wanted to understand some things better: What prompted the organization to reflect on – and apparently change – its approach towards its history between 2015 and today? How and with what goals has this reappraisal of their history been taking place? Does it not perceive a contradiction in the fact that the very work that Mission 21 does today – development cooperation – is criticized in its own educational program?

We therefore arranged an interview with Claudia Buess, who was one of the guides on the aforementioned tour. On the 17th of July 2024, she invited us to her office in the Mission House in Basel’s city center. She kindly took a whole hour of her time to answer our questions. We have shortened the interview for this text and translated it from German to English.

We took part in your guided tour, which aims to show the links between the Basel Mission and colonialism. Now we wanted to ask you once again what exactly you criticise about the work of the Basel Mission during the colonial era.

To be honest, criticism would be too strong a word. For us at Mission 21, it was important in the course of the Black Lives Matter discussions in 2020 to deal with the issue of racism in connection with the organisation, also because we are involved in a lot of international exchange. In the course of the public discussions, it was important to explore the question of how racism was formed, how it is present in Swiss society, whether the mission could also have played a role in the historical development of racism and also what can be changed today with the help of this historical knowledge. […] Therefore, we asked the question: What was the role of the Basel Mission in colonialism, was it rather positive or rather negative? This is part of a broader public debate that has become important in recent years: What part did Switzerland play in the entire history of colonial entanglement?

What has emerged from the debate so far is that the impact of the Basel Mission in Africa and Asia did play a role. Particularly in the conveyance of certain images of people from Africa and Asia here in Switzerland. Since the mission publications were really very widespread, they were clearly involved in conveying images that portrayed these people as inferior to the average European person. For me, that is the first quintessence of this four-year engagement with this topic. This is where the role of the mission is really negative. For many other areas, the mission’s work is very ambivalent. In my opinion, it is important not to criticise the past from today’s perspective, we are not entitled to do that, but to name how things were in the past and to ask ourselves what that means for today.

What did this examination of the mission’s past look like?

We have done this as part of our educational work. We do a lot of awareness-raising education work on the topics of globalisation, a fair economy and intercultural exchange. We had the idea of dealing with these topics [racism, colonialism, etc.] in an international setting and therefore online in webinars and summer schools. We are now also working on an institutional process in which we look at the power relations in our own development cooperation. This has all emerged from this educational work.

So the discussion goes beyond educational work, and reflection is also taking place within the entire institution?

That has now begun. A concept is being developed. Anti-racism training sessions have already been organised for some of our staff. A comprehensive process should now take place in which we look at how possible power imbalances in the development work of Mission 21 could be reduced. The localisation and decolonisation of development cooperation is a nationwide and global discussion. This year, the board of Mission 21 also discussed ‘decolonised partnerships’ for the first time at the Mission Synod, the annual international meeting of all partners and governing bodies. This debate is now also beginning at board level. The goal is to be able to make a public statement about what exactly this means for the organisation. But we’re not there yet.

To come back to the discussion about the mission’s past. Why is criticism too strong a word?

Criticism. Yes, I think it’s too strong a word. For me, it’s more about understanding, coming to terms with or shedding light on certain historical contexts. I understand this reappraisal work in such a way that we can’t say from today’s perspective that they did everything wrong 200 years ago. Of course, they also acted from their own understanding and their positions and were representatives of their time. I therefore think it is more important not to over-criticise, but to clearly show what was rather problematic and what was rather positive. There really is both. There are positive and negative aspects. Depending on who looks at the history, it is also seen differently.

The way you talk about the history of the mission today is in strong contrast to the ‘anniversary year’ 2015 when the musical ‘Das Grab des weissen Mannes’ was performed and an anniversary publication was released. Is this recent history also part of the critical reflection on the mission’s history?

I wasn’t working at Mission 21 in 2015, which was the 200th anniversary. Of course, that was a special occasion and people wanted to celebrate something. I think things have really changed radically. 2020 really was a turning point and made a lot of people rethink and Mission 21’s view of the past has changed. I would like to emphasise that the Basel Mission does not comment much on what Mission 21 is doing. To be honest, I don’t see that the Basel Mission as a whole has changed its attitude to the past. In my opinion, they have a far too positive approach to their own past. But that doesn’t apply to everyone who works for the Basel Mission. Many have also taken part in Mission 21’s educational programmes and are very open to looking at things critically. The board of the Basel Mission rather less so. But they are not publicly opposed to it [the work of Mission 21] either.

How does Mission 21 deal with the fact that there is a general post-colonial criticism of so-called development cooperation? For example, that if development cooperation is to be effective, it must also address and criticise larger economic contexts.

I completely agree with the analysis. On the other hand, for us it is a question of solidarity. It is not mutually exclusive. It is essential to address the issue of unjust economic policy, but Mission 21 does not do this officially. In one of the webinars, we addressed this using the example of international commodity trading and the role of the trading company [of the Basel Mission]. At the same time, Mission 21 expresses itself politically only on very specific topics, like climate or gender justice. This is another question of whether this [political expression] should be done more in the future. We are not there yet. But without exaggeration, we have 200 years of relationships with partner churches and organisations and we don’t want to leave them in the lurch if things go badly for them. It is one thing to do and another thing not to leave. We try to address the balance of power in development cooperation and ask ourselves what we can do to ensure that it is no longer so extreme.  But it is far from perfect. The function of Mission 21 is to sensitise Switzerland for new forms of partnership.[…] I am pleased that at least the educational work [at Mission 21] also shows that there are other aspects [the general criticism of “development work”], even if this also appears to be a contradiction.

Why do you think the work of Mission 21 is needed?

In terms of my educational work, I think that Switzerland today has the wrong attitude towards its own past, and I’m really saying that as a criticism. Switzerland is still struggling to see itself as a multicultural country and to accept people from other parts of the world as full members of our society. No voting rights, no access to the labor market and so on, many injustices. In my opinion, this has a lot to do with the fact that Switzerland is not honest about how it became rich: because of an unjust economic policy that is closely linked to colonialism. There is a lack of awareness among the general public that this wealth has a lot to do with the economic exploitation of people in Africa, Asia and Latin America. We need to raise public awareness of these connections.

Concerning the development cooperation, I think it is a question of solidarity, which I find increasingly important today. Especially when you see that the Federal Council is cutting funding for development work, which is a step backwards. I think that every organization that gets involved in development work is still important.

We agree with the value you attribute to the historical examination of the Swiss history of colonialism. But isn’t it also dangerous not to position oneself regarding the colonial entanglements of the Basel Mission because it might undermine the critical historical analysis?

I absolutely agree with that. For example, the Basel Mission was strictly against slavery, but there were missionaries who owned slaves. You certainly have to name them clearly. It reminds me of what Fidon Mwombeki, the General Secretary of the African Alliance of Churches, said at the end of June at the Mission Synod on the subject of decolonized partnerships within the churches. He said that in Africa they know which were the good and which were the bad missionaries. They think the bad missionaries must be criticized but they like to remember what the good missionaries did. He thinks this legacy must be honored. I think it’s okay to see this in a differentiated way. But as I said at the beginning, the way in which Mission publications were written, the way in which cultural heritage was dealt with must be understood as a problematic past that the mission must acknowledge and take responsibility for. I don’t see it quite so negatively with educational institutions and infirmaries, even if they were a means of mission. And even in the troubled past, there were people who had equitable relationships. In general, however, the mission publications participated in portraying Eurocentric and racist images of people from Africa and Asia.


Is there anything you haven’t said but would like to say?

I don’t want to defend Mission 21, but it is not self-evident that an organization should deal so publicly with critical aspects of its own past and that this work should not be stifled. I think that’s actually positive, especially for a former missionary organization.

Conclusion

The conversation with Claudia Buess helps to understand better the various incongruities on the part of Mission 21 and BM in dealing with their institution’s past. On the one hand, the distinction between Mission 21 and BM seems to be important. As mentioned in the introduction, the BM is a supporting organization of Mission 21, but it is also an independent organization. The 2015 musical, promoted in an advertisement in the above-mentioned 2015 publication in exoticizing language and praising “the great work of the missionaries”, was a production of the BM. But from the outside, the two organisations are not easily distinguishable and this musical as well as the website of the BM today could thus easily be attributed to Mission 21’s policy of remembrance.

On the other hand, how the historical legacy is viewed within the institutions and how the consequences of this evaluation for today’s activities are assessed depends very much on the individual. The examination of the mission’s history and the colonial continuities in its work today was not initiated by the mission’s governing body, but is a bottom-up process that appears to be based on the initiative of individuals. Will there be far-reaching structural changes and power shifts in the whole institution, or are the anti-racism training and webinars on “decolonising aid” part of an attempt to legitimise the continued existence of Mission 21 as it operates today? This will probably only become clear once the process mentioned by Claudia Buess has progressed further.

Although Claudia Buess is very critical in some areas, she also mentions that there are aspects of mission work that she would consider positive. She is therefore rather cautious in her general criticism. Claudia Buess uses arguments that we often encountered during our excursion: The actions of the missionaries had to be evaluated in the context of their time; the positive aspects of the mission were the educational work and medical care; there were “good” missionaries, some of whom were also in a relationship of “equal co-operation” with the local population.

In such a notion of missionary activity, there is a distinction between “good” and “bad” missionaries and “positive” and “negative” aspects of the missionary enterprise. As we explored the complex history of missions in Ghana, we realised that some of these distinctions are indeed justified and that the intentions of some missionaries were sincere and well-intended. At the same time, we also realized time and again that it is precisely these individuals who are then used to relativize the criticism of the institution – ironically, it is often those missionaries who were themselves heavily criticised by the mission committee for their actions that are now being cast as positive mission representatives. We can hardly imagine that “equal cooperation” between these so-called “good” European missionaries and Ghanaians was possible, as racist hierarchies and inequalities were (re)produced by the mission and its European missionaries. So. when these arguments are made, it is always important to ask who is saying it and why. In the case of Claudia Buess, who holds a very differentiated view of mission history, this also has to do with the fact that she is part of Mission 21 and considers its work to be important today.

This brings us back to the incongruities and contradictions that led us to begin this research. It is a complex legacy that Mission 21 has to deal with and, in our view, a web of contradictions within the work that the organisation does today. The difference between one organisation, Mission 21, which still has a strong external impact, and the other, the BM, which is mainly managing its legacy, probably also entails a difference in the accountability that has to be given under public pressure.

In closing, we feel it is important to mention that there is a historical continuity in the work of Mission 21 in Ghana. The Presbyterian Church of Ghana (PCG), which emerged from the BM but has been independent for more than 100 years now, receives financial support from Mission 21 for various projects. It is one of the Mission’s international partner churches. The exact nature of this cooperation between the PCG and Mission 21 and the extent to which an attempt is being made to resolve historical inequalities between the two institutions would be an exciting starting point for further research.

Portrait Elena Müller
About the author:Elena Müller

I am a master’s student in history and digital humanities at the University of Basel, and I participated in the second field trip to the Stuttgart region. I was especially interested in how the historical remnants of the Basel Mission are perceived and dealt with today in different institutions in Basel, Gerlingen and Korntal

Portrait Sophie Pfander
About the author:Sophie Pfander

I am a bachelor’s student in history and sociology. I participated in the second field trip that took place in Basel and southwest Germany. On this excursion, I became interested in the ways the different institutions we visited were dealing with their missionary history.