Tis_Bearself
Patron
I was reading about Fr. Serra recently myself. Here’s a pretty good article on him, by a respectable left-leaning publication.
- Status
Tis_Bearself
Patron
This one is pretty good too (copy and paste, it won’t make a link)
“California Dreams or Colonial Nightmares?”
file:///C:/Users/i829124/Downloads/1391-Article%20Text-6572-2-10-20170929.pdf
“California Dreams or Colonial Nightmares?”
file:///C:/Users/i829124/Downloads/1391-Article%20Text-6572-2-10-20170929.pdf
Last edited:
M
mrsdizzyd
Guest
The atrocities that occurred during the establishment of the California mission system are well-documented. The Church did not establish these missions on its own. It worked with the conquistadors to subdue the natives, obtain the land, carry out punishments, etc. The conquistadors had no problem using violence to achieve their ends. By some accounts, the Franciscans did not either. For that particular time in history, it was not at all outside of the norm to use methods we might consider extreme today.
The saint presided over this system that frequently used violence toward the natives. He did eventually petition the government to give the natives more rights, but his ties to this violent system cannot be denied.
A couple articles, but there have been many many books written on this subject.
https://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/25753
The saint presided over this system that frequently used violence toward the natives. He did eventually petition the government to give the natives more rights, but his ties to this violent system cannot be denied.
A couple articles, but there have been many many books written on this subject.
https://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/25753
M
mrsdizzyd
Guest
I’m not arguing that people didn’t know what was going on.
M
mrsdizzyd
Guest
@Daisy
Tis_Bearself’s article is a good one. There are always two sides to every story. My point is that the teacher was not wrong. He told an uncomfortable aspect of history in an in-artful (perhaps not age appropriate) way, but he was not necessarily pushing some sort of agenda.
Tis_Bearself’s article is a good one. There are always two sides to every story. My point is that the teacher was not wrong. He told an uncomfortable aspect of history in an in-artful (perhaps not age appropriate) way, but he was not necessarily pushing some sort of agenda.
R
Russell_SA
Guest
What is your goal here? You seem surprised that this issue came up in academia. Are you trying to hide reality of the church from her and create an imagined, never existed, version of the church to yourself and her?
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Yes, we also have to be cognizant of the fact that kids tend to hear things in a different way than the teacher put them.
Teacher may have said the exact words he wrote to Daisy.
By the time the kid gets home, her mind has translated it into, “Teacher said the priests tied up all the Native Americans and beat them till they converted to Catholics.”
Teacher may have said the exact words he wrote to Daisy.
By the time the kid gets home, her mind has translated it into, “Teacher said the priests tied up all the Native Americans and beat them till they converted to Catholics.”
P
phil19034
Guest
Agatha - I’m not responding directly to you, but using your post to add to my thoughts.
@Daisy - we have to remember that there were Spanish Catholics who in conflict with each other too.
Many diocesan priests hated the Franciscans, and often tried to have them killed. The natives often got caught in the middle of this in-fighting depending on whom they sided with.
Personally, I believe this is part of the reason why Christoper Columbus was so vilified. Columbus was a Third Order Secular Franciscan (and not Spanish). So the Spanish who had it out for the Franciscans would also be against Columbus.
There is a TON history from that period that I forget. However, I once attended a series of lectures from the postulator for the cause of St. Juan Diego, Msgr. Eduardo Chávez Sánchez.
Msgr. Chávez had a TON of wonderful historical discussions for us. The history of Mexico during the 1500s is VERY complex, as is the history of Spanish rule.
But it think its very important for us to remember: the Spanish DID NOT focus on ridding the land of the native peoples like the English did. The Americans and Canadians have a horrible past due to the British policies. Which to their credit, the British later realized the error of their mistakes and didn’t repeat them in Africa and Asia.
But the Spanish integrated the people into Spanish society, and the miracle of Our Lady of Guadalupe (not beatings) lead to the conversion of millions of native people to Catholicism.
It’s also worth noting, that according to Msgr. Chavez, Our Lady of Guadalupe was NOT for the Mexican people. She appeared for ALL people of the Americas, but ESP for the United States. According to Msgr. Chavez, that’s why the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe has an Eagle feathers at the bottom instead of a dove and the colors of the feathers are Red, White and Blue (not Red White & Green)!
The more you can learn about Our Lady of Guadalupe, the more you can learn about the Truth behind the Spanish conversions - esp if you learn from Msgr Chavez and his Institute for Guadalupan Studies.
Below are two bios for Msgr. Chavez.
http://www.guadalupethefilm.com/en/producers.html
God bless
@Daisy - we have to remember that there were Spanish Catholics who in conflict with each other too.
Many diocesan priests hated the Franciscans, and often tried to have them killed. The natives often got caught in the middle of this in-fighting depending on whom they sided with.
Personally, I believe this is part of the reason why Christoper Columbus was so vilified. Columbus was a Third Order Secular Franciscan (and not Spanish). So the Spanish who had it out for the Franciscans would also be against Columbus.
There is a TON history from that period that I forget. However, I once attended a series of lectures from the postulator for the cause of St. Juan Diego, Msgr. Eduardo Chávez Sánchez.
Msgr. Chávez had a TON of wonderful historical discussions for us. The history of Mexico during the 1500s is VERY complex, as is the history of Spanish rule.
But it think its very important for us to remember: the Spanish DID NOT focus on ridding the land of the native peoples like the English did. The Americans and Canadians have a horrible past due to the British policies. Which to their credit, the British later realized the error of their mistakes and didn’t repeat them in Africa and Asia.
But the Spanish integrated the people into Spanish society, and the miracle of Our Lady of Guadalupe (not beatings) lead to the conversion of millions of native people to Catholicism.
It’s also worth noting, that according to Msgr. Chavez, Our Lady of Guadalupe was NOT for the Mexican people. She appeared for ALL people of the Americas, but ESP for the United States. According to Msgr. Chavez, that’s why the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe has an Eagle feathers at the bottom instead of a dove and the colors of the feathers are Red, White and Blue (not Red White & Green)!
The more you can learn about Our Lady of Guadalupe, the more you can learn about the Truth behind the Spanish conversions - esp if you learn from Msgr Chavez and his Institute for Guadalupan Studies.
Below are two bios for Msgr. Chavez.
http://www.guadalupethefilm.com/en/producers.html
God bless
P
phil19034
Guest
there was also A LOT of conflict between the Franciscans and other Catholic groups, esp the Diocesans and conquistadors.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
To be fair, there were quite a few native peoples also trying to “rid the land” of the settlers from England. While I can somewhat understand why they did this, and culturally their methods made sense to them, the Native Americans often acted extremely barbaric by European standards.
M
mrsdizzyd
Guest
That has no bearing on the primary evidence of the atrocities of the mission system. This evidence comes from the Franciscans’ own meticulous records as well as those of the Spanish government.mrsdizzyd:
there was also A LOT of conflict between the Franciscans and other Catholic groups, esp the Diocesans and conquistadors.
A
Augustinian
Guest
Certainly America’s founding fathers thought so, one of the observations in our Declaration of Independence.
“He (George III) has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”
I
In_prayer
Guest
A lot of people believe this propaganda that is taught about Native Americans being innocent as snow and not having wars before “first contact” when the reality is their human atrocities, and European horror of them, are what doomed them as a whole. The reality is it would be impossible to run the million acre ranches the mission churches had by force. Rather, they were run on mutual benefit and education. Native Americans were quick to adopt superior technology and not beholden to their own technology as is taught as religion by liberal socialists like Elizabeth Warren. Good examples are the horse, Spanish tack and bridles, metal (which they were never able to forge themselves), the wheel (amazingly they didn’t invent the wheel despite it being used by other civilizations for thousands of years).
Certainly offenses and abuse occurred but they weren’t any more common than abuses that occurred between any disparate groups of people.
If you want an accurate depiction of Native Americans prior to “contact” I highly recommend “1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus” by Charles C. Mann.
Certainly offenses and abuse occurred but they weren’t any more common than abuses that occurred between any disparate groups of people.
If you want an accurate depiction of Native Americans prior to “contact” I highly recommend “1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus” by Charles C. Mann.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Having read accounts of things like the martyrdom of St. Jean de Brebeuf, the torture of St. Isaac Jogues, the torture of Daniel Boone’s son and his friend, and the kidnapping and enslavement of one woman with two small children who had to watch them both killed by methods typically associated nowadays with Nazi guards butchering Jewish babies, I can totally understand “merciless Indian Savages” etc.
I am equally sure that not all Native Americans were like that, and the ones that were sometimes did it for a cultural reason such as the practice of showing your manhood by withstanding a lot of torture.
Still, the eyewitness accounts are just plain grotesque.
I am equally sure that not all Native Americans were like that, and the ones that were sometimes did it for a cultural reason such as the practice of showing your manhood by withstanding a lot of torture.
Still, the eyewitness accounts are just plain grotesque.
0
0Scarlett_nidiyilii
Guest
M
mrsdizzyd
Guest
No one here has suggested that Native Americans did not fight the Spainish colonization efforts…
I
In_prayer
Guest
I didn’t say ANYTHING about Native Americans fighting the Spanish.
D
Daisy
Guest
Your response to miss dizzy is unclear in that it seems to be an indirect response to me and my request for historical documentation of Serra’s brutal part in converting Native Americans to Catholicism. An idea that there is no evidence of what went on 500 years ago? No one brought that idea up. There are many accounts. I’d like to find an account that details Serra’s terrible treatment of the tribes. He plays a very large part in what we are talking about, here.
Last edited:
D
Daisy
Guest
Please read the entire thread. Namely post 9. I’m trying to stop playing along with common misconceptions and anti-Catholic propaganda.
Last edited:
M
mrsdizzyd
Guest
I assumed that’s what you were getting at by pointing out how brutally they fought each other before first contact.
If I misunderstood you, I apologize.
If I misunderstood you, I apologize.
- Status