Did the Missions destroy culture?

[PiousTemplar]

Did the missionaries destroy cultures, or take part in it? Not intentionally destroy culture of course, just having that happen as a result of conversions and ‘civilizing’?

I also wonder, why did the Clergy not speak against the ‘reserves’ where natives were practically indoctrinated in religious doctrine. Those reserves trampled underfoot fundamental human rights.

Try and give non-biased answers please. All are welcome to discuss.

 

[Dale_M]

I also wonder, why did the Clergy not speak against the ‘reserves’ where natives were practically indoctrinated in religious doctrine. Those reserves trampled underfoot fundamental human rights.

Try and give non-biased answers please. All are welcome to discuss.

This could be an interesting discussion, however I see the danger of speaking in sweeping generalizations which may or may not have much basis in fact.

Could you provide some concrete examples of “reserves” where natives were indoctrinated in religious doctrine? In what ways were fundamental human rights trampled upon at those facilities?

I am not casting doubt on you claimed. I just think this discussion would be more productive if we focus on particulars which have a verifiable historical basis.

 

[Tsuwano]

This could be an interesting discussion, however I see the danger of speaking in sweeping generalizations which may or may not have much basis in fact.

Could you provide some concrete examples of “reserves” where natives were indoctrinated in religious doctrine? In what ways were fundamental human rights trampled upon at those facilities?

I am not casting doubt on you claimed. I just think this discussion would be more productive if we focus on particulars which have a verifiable historical basis.

I agree with this post. It would be good to talk about specific examples of religious “reserves” where indigenous people were kept while being “indoctrinated” by missionaries. At the same time, I think a discussion of the development of the concept of “human rights” would be in order if we are to be fair to the practices of missionaries in previous eras.

 

[PiousTemplar]

This could be an interesting discussion, however I see the danger of speaking in sweeping generalizations which may or may not have much basis in fact.

Could you provide some concrete examples of “reserves” where natives were indoctrinated in religious doctrine? In what ways were fundamental human rights trampled upon at those facilities?

I am not casting doubt on you claimed. I just think this discussion would be more productive if we focus on particulars which have a verifiable historical basis.

I’m not good at finding examples, but heres some in Australia

abc.net.au/missionvoices/general/missions_and_reserves_background/default.htm

Natives were forced to convert to Christianity and live like westerners

This conflicts with Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights:

Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

 

[PiousTemplar]

I’m not trying to attack the Church or anything, I just want to find out what really happened. According to Atheists missionaries destroyed cultures, that’s why alot of natives today are looked down upon, and are poor. Apparently.

 

[PiousTemplar]

bump

 

[puzzleannie]

Did the missionaries destroy cultures, or take part in it? Not intentionally destroy culture of course, just having that happen as a result of conversions and ‘civilizing’?

I also wonder, why did the Clergy not speak against the ‘reserves’ where natives were practically indoctrinated in religious doctrine. Those reserves trampled underfoot fundamental human rights.

Try and give non-biased answers please. All are welcome to discuss.

the burden of proof is on the pseudo-historians who make the claims. If you mean what the Franciscans did in South Texas by provided save havens for peaceful Indians against warrior tribes, yeah I suppose that might change their culture by giving them a chance for survival. Is that what you mean?

If you mean what missionaries did in Mexico through the intervention of Our Lady and a series of natural events, ending human sacrifice, yeah that would be a big cultural shift.

If your source is making a global claim about all missionaries, Catholic or not, in all times and places, he is going to have a huge job collecting evidence. When there is some, call me.

Why not begin by exploring the history of colonization in your own country, the treatment of aboriginal peoples by all forces of Westernization, the majority of which are civil and military, not religious, and then look at your specific question in that context. And if your question is grounded in philosophy, please restate it in that form so a reasonable philosophical discussion can ensue. If it is more one of apologetics or social justice, those might be forums that get you more results.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Did the missionaries destroy cultures, or take part in it? Not intentionally destroy culture of course, just having that happen as a result of conversions and ‘civilizing’?

I also wonder, why did the Clergy not speak against the ‘reserves’ where natives were practically indoctrinated in religious doctrine. Those reserves trampled underfoot fundamental human rights.

Try and give non-biased answers please. All are welcome to discuss.

I’m Catholic. I also used to be a Marxist several years ago. I disagree with Karl Marx on several issues now (I’m a Classical Liberal now), but I think he was still correct in a few areas. One of the quotes that comes to mind in relation to this topic is:

“The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilization …] t compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.” (The Communist Manifesto)

Karl Marx essentially asserted that the advent of Capitalism spread Western culture throughout the world. Globalization, which he foresaw, was the inevitable consequence of Capitalism, and Globalization not only takes capital throughout the world, but also the culture of its progenitors. If memory serves me correct, another important sociologist, called Emile Durkheim, argued along the same lines. He had a theory called “modernization theory”, which suggested that cultures tend to follow a set path of progress. It seems in todays world (evident from architecture in particular) that developing nations are conforming to having landscapes with a Western image (so archetypal Japanese shrines have by and large been replaced with the American skyscraper).

So it’s possible that religion followed what Marx and several other philosophers/economists/sociologists argued several years ago. I can’t say conclusively, but that’s what first comes to mind. If this is indeed true…one can only ask, was God behind it all?

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

 

[valentino]

The missions don’t and have never destroyed a culture of people’s .That’s not an aim/Right.They do influrnce a culture. It can’t be helped.

 

[PiousTemplar]

the burden of proof is on the pseudo-historians who make the claims. If you mean what the Franciscans did in South Texas by provided save havens for peaceful Indians against warrior tribes, yeah I suppose that might change their culture by giving them a chance for survival. Is that what you mean?

If you mean what missionaries did in Mexico through the intervention of Our Lady and a series of natural events, ending human sacrifice, yeah that would be a big cultural shift.

If your source is making a global claim about all missionaries, Catholic or not, in all times and places, he is going to have a huge job collecting evidence. When there is some, call me.

Why not begin by exploring the history of colonization in your own country, the treatment of aboriginal peoples by all forces of Westernization, the majority of which are civil and military, not religious, and then look at your specific question in that context. And if your question is grounded in philosophy, please restate it in that form so a reasonable philosophical discussion can ensue. If it is more one of apologetics or social justice, those might be forums that get you more results.

Yes I acknowlege the fact that the majority is civil and military, I’m wondering why the missionaries allowed themselves to be ‘used’ to ‘civilize’ native people. It is the civilizing that people argue destroyed cultures.

 

[JRKH]

Did the missionaries destroy cultures, or take part in it? Not intentionally destroy culture of course, just having that happen as a result of conversions and ‘civilizing’?

I also wonder, why did the Clergy not speak against the ‘reserves’ where natives were practically indoctrinated in religious doctrine. Those reserves trampled underfoot fundamental human rights.

Try and give non-biased answers please. All are welcome to discuss.

I’m afraid that this is too broad and complex a question to give a simple answer to. For one thing it is dangerous, and not good study to try and impose modern outlooks on the past. For another thing how does one define the difference between “destroy” and “change”.

History has been a constant progression of cultural change brought about by many factors such as climate, war, assimilation, trade, religion, etc. Some of the Changes occurred naturally, others were “forced”; Some things retained and some things lost.

But the thing to remember is that, those who were acting at the time (in faith terms) were doing what they believed to be the best thing for the people given their understandings.

Peace
James

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Did the missionaries destroy cultures, or take part in it? Not intentionally destroy culture of course, just having that happen as a result of conversions and ‘civilizing’?

I also wonder, why did the Clergy not speak against the ‘reserves’ where natives were practically indoctrinated in religious doctrine. Those reserves trampled underfoot fundamental human rights.

Try and give non-biased answers please. All are welcome to discuss.

It is the most fundamental of rights for one to know about G-d.

 

[edowitz1]

Roman Catholic Doctrine Vs. The Doctrinal Teaching of the Word of God

Eternal life is a merited reward [1821, 2010]. - Roman Catholicism
Eternal life is the free gift of God (Romans 6:23)

No one can know if he will attain eternal life [1036, 2005] - Roman Catholicism
The believer can know that he has eternal life by the Word of God (1 John 5:13)

The Roman Catholic Church is necessary for salvation [846]. - Roman Catholicism
There is salvation in no one but the Lord Jesus Christ, “for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12)

Purgatory is necessary to atone for sin and clean the soul [1030-1031]. - Roman Catholicism
Purgatory does not exist. Jesus made purification for sins on the cross (Hebrews 1:3)

Mary was preserved from all stain of original sin from the first instant of her conception (the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception) [490-492].
Mary, a descendant of Adam, was born in sin (Psalm 51:5; Romans 5:12)

Mary is the Mother of the Church [963, 975]. - Roman Catholicism
Mary was the earthly mother of Jesus ( John 2:1)

The Magisterium is the authoritative teacher of the Church. [85-87]. - Roman Catholicism
The Holy Spirit is the authoritative teacher of the church (John 14:26; John 16:13, I John 2:27)

The pope, as the Bishop of Rome, is the successor of Peter [882, 936] - Roman Catholicism
Peter had no successor, nor was he a pope.

The pope is infallible in his authoritative teaching [891]. - Roman Catholicism
God alone is infallible (Numbers 23:19)

Scripture and Tradition together are the Word of God [81, 85, 97, 182]. - Roman Catholicism
Scripture is the Word of God (John 10:35, 2 Timothy 3:15-17, 2 Peter 1:20-21). Tradition is the words of men (Mark 7:1-13).

The sacrificial work of redemption is continually carried out through the Sacrifice of the Mass. [1364,1405, 1846]. - Roman Catholicism
The sacrificial work of redemption was finished when Christ gave His life for us on the cross (Ephesians 1:7, Hebrews 1:3).

God desires that consecrated bread and wine be worshiped as divine. [1378-1381] - Roman Catholicism
God forbids the worship of any object, even t hose intended to represent Him (Exodus 20:4-5, Isaiah 42:8)

Justification is lost through mortal sin [1033, 1855, 1874] - Roman Catholicism
Justification cannot be lost. Those whom God justifies will be saved from the wrath of God (Romans 5:8-9).

Justification is furthered by sacraments and good works [1212, 1392, 2010] - Roman Catholicism
Justification is the imputation of the perfect righteousness of God (2 Corinthians 5:21). In Christ the believer has been made complete (Colossians 2:10).

Salvation is attained by cooperating with grace through faith, good works, and participation in the sacraments [183, 1129, 1815, 2002]. - Roman Catholicism
Salvation is attained by grace through faith apart from works (Ephesians 2:8-9). Good works are the result, not the cause, of salvation (Ephesians 2:10).

Mary, “the All-Holy,” lived a perfectly sinless life [411, 493]. - Roman Catholicism
Mary was a sinner; God alone is sinless (Luke 18:19, Romans 3:23, Revelation 15:4).

Mary was a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Christ [496-511]. - Roman Catholicism
Mary remained a virgin until after the birth of Jesus (Matthew 1:25). Later she had other children (Matthew 13:55-56, Psalm 69:8).

Each Sacrifice of the Mass appeases God’s wrath against sin [1371, 1414]. - Roman Catholicism
The once-for-all sacrifice of the cross fully appeased God’s wrath against sin. (Hebrews 10:12-18).

The Bishops, with the Pope, as their head, rule the universal church. [883, 894-896]. - Roman Catholicism
Christ, the head of the body is the Head of the Church. (Colossians 1:18).

The faithful receive the benefits of the cross in fullest measure through the Sacrifice of the Mass [1366, 1407]. - Roman Catholicism
Believers receive the benefits of the cross in fullest measure in Christ through faith (Ephesians 1:3-14).

God has exalted Mary in heavenly glory as Queen of Heaven and Earth [966]. She is to be praised with special devotion [971, 2675]. - Roman Catholicism
The name of the Lord is to be praised, for He alone is exalted above heaven and earth (Psalm 148:13). God commands, “You shall have no other gods before Me.” (Exodus 20:3).

Mary is the co-mediator to whom we can entrust all our cares and petitions 9 968-970, 2677] - Roman Catholicism
Christ Jesus is the one mediator to whom we can entrust all our cares and petitions (1 Timothy 2:5, John 14:13-14, 1 Peter 5:7).

Mary is the co-redeemer, for she participate with Christ in the painful act of redemption [618, 964, 968, 970]. - Roman Catholicism
Christ alone is the Redeemer, for He alone suffered and died for sin (1 Peter 1:18-19).

The sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated in the Sacrifice of the Mass [1323, 1382] - Roman Catholicism
The Sacrifice of the cross is finished (John 19:30).

Indulgences dispensed by the Church for acts of piety release sinners from temporal punishment [1471-1473]. - Roman Catholicism
Jesus releases believers from their sins by His blood. (Revelation 1:5).

The Magisterium has the right to define truth found only obscurely or implicitly in revelation. [66, 88, 2035, 2051]. - Roman Catholicism
No one has the right to go beyond what is written in Scripture (1 Corinthians 4:6, Proverbs 30:5-6).

Scripture and Tradition together are the Church’s supreme role of faith [80, 82]. - Roman Catholicism
Scripture is the church’s rule of faith (Mark 7:7-13, 2 Timothy 3:16-17).

 

[Abba]

Edowitz1,

You are welcome to discuss all of your objections and I suggest you start a separate thread with your post. Otherwise, you are spamming. You can’t just go to different threads and post your post as if it was a declaration that can stand on it’s own. You need to be open to discussion.

Thank you,

Abba

 

[Joel_PF]

In South America, the jesuits tried in many ways to convert the natives to Christianity while maintaining their cultures (languages, customs, etc). They were also the main opponents of indian slavery against the wishes of the Portuguese and Spanish crowns. Abuses were made here and there, of course, but overall I think they protected indigenous culture more than anyone else.

Father José de Anchieta, a Portuguese jesuit (I think, might have been dominican or franciscan) was responsible for codifying many indigenous languages and creating their first written forms and their grammars. He wrote a catechism in tupi-guarani and wrote poetry in it too.

Were there forced conversions? Probably in some cases, but as far as I know they were not the rule. I know that Father Vieira, one of the most important sermon writers of colonial Brazil, wrote of how easily the indians accepted Christian faith, but also were very quick to lose it and embrace pagan and superstitious beliefs again. Catechizing them was very difficult because they accepted everything but nothing lasted.

Practically all that we know from the cultures of the natives in South and Mezo-American comes from the efforts of friars in documenting it all (and the ones responsible for destroying their cultures, as the zealot Diego de Landa who burnt almost all Mayan manuscripts, were also denounced by fellow priests and bishops).

Was it bad for their culture to be converted? Well, it brought changes to them. Are all changes bad? I think that stopping canibalism and ritual sacrifices are positive changes for a culture, as are learning to read and write, build with better tools, exchanging superstition for science, etc. Many elements of indigenous culture were retained, though, the best example being Mexico and Peru (as these had actual civilizations, instead of the much more primitive tribes to found, for instance, in Brazil, which were mostly nomads with little knowledge even of agriculture).

What the conquerors did to the Indians was, on the whole, very tragic. But the Church had (especially bishops and the jesuits), in this sad history, a largely benign role. Similar things can be said about China, in which, thanks to the efforts of jesuits, the emperor got the brink of being baptized (sadly, due to negative campaign and zealotry by franciscans, the pope forbade the baptism until the emperor completely forsake the cult of his ancestors, which of course he never did and thus rejected Christianity altogether). The friars in China (for instance, Matteo Ricci), wore chinese clothing and learned much of Chinese knowledge.

The letters of S. Francis Xavier, who travelled to Asia, are availabe on the internet. They provide a good evidence of how Catholic religious viewed Asian cultures (and S. Francis was hardly the most tolerant or ready to embrace aspects of Asian cultures).

 

[Warrenton]

I’m not trying to attack the Church or anything, I just want to find out what really happened. According to Atheists missionaries destroyed cultures, that’s why alot of natives today are looked down upon, and are poor. Apparently.

That’s not why certain indigenous people are poor and looked down upon. The poorest were poor when they were discovered, by the standards of civilized societies. They were technilogically unable to resist being despoiled, so they were looked down upon.

But all that ignores the larger question of the interrelations of different cultures. Some sociologists speak as though they would have some societies remain in isolation. A more nuanced view appeared some years ago in Smithsonian Magazine (or it could have been Nat Geo). The field worker was describing his work with a very remote tribe in Borneo, or an island near it. He had been there for some time observing and living with the tribe, when one day a man asked him if he knew of a better tool than a stone and a fire for hollowing out a massive tree for a canoe, because primitive or not, the work was blasted hard.

What reply would you make to the man?

 

[Tsuwano]

The Gospel is an agent of social and cultural change, but then again, so is any foreign influence when it first makes contact with an indigenous culture. The question isn’t whether the Gospel (and those who preach the Gospel as missionaries) are agents of change, but rather of what kind of change the Gospel should bring about within culture. The implication behind a question such as “Did the missions destroy culture?” is that such destruction, or to be more precise, such change, is negative. This is not always the case, and in fact, where Christianity is concerned, the positive changes that were brought about within indigenous cultures far outweighed the negative changes. Some examples of positive changes included expanding the rights of women and children within culture, a greater focus on power structures within cultures which excluded various groups due to ethnicity, the expansion of health care systems within cultures and the development of a greater awareness that society and culture are responsible for those who are indigent, widowed or orphaned or foreign to the society, the challenge to certain religious mindsets, such as ritual human sacrifice, which ignored the basic human dignity of people in society, the expansion of educational systems to incorporate the bottom tier of society, and the list could continue much farther. Were there negative changes that also occurred. Yes, of course there were, not so much due to the message of the Gospel itself, but rather to certain methods in which the Gospel was presented to the indigenous culture. Examples of negative influences include the unraveling of cultural unity by creating an alternative identity to the local society or tribe, the disentegration of traditional power structures which left groups within society disoriented and weak and open for exploitation by outside forces, the challenge to local cultural practices which were not necessarily in opposition to the message of the Gospel and a failure on the part of missionaries to understand these cultural practices, and in some cases, the implementation of foreign cultural practices and ways of thinking over that of the indigenous culture and I’m sure there are other negative changes you can think of. The point is that culture does change when it comes in contact with the message of Christ, and it should change to some degree, but it is also encumbant on the part of the Church to discover Christ as he is already present in the culture that has yet to hear the Gospel. Culture is holy and the Holy Spirit is present in all culture, even if the culture is unaware of it. Not all cultural practices are holy, and this is what the Gospel should change. The missionary brings a particular understanding of God to the local culture, but his work is also one of discovering the Holy Spirit as it already manifests within culture. We discover Christ in the foreign culture even as we bring a certain understanding of Christ into the culture.

 

[JRKH]

That’s not why certain indigenous people are poor and looked down upon. The poorest were poor when they were discovered, by the standards of civilized societies. They were technilogically unable to resist being despoiled, so they were looked down upon.

But all that ignores the larger question of the interrelations of different cultures. Some sociologists speak as though they would have some societies remain in isolation. A more nuanced view appeared some years ago in Smithsonian Magazine (or it could have been Nat Geo). The field worker was describing his work with a very remote tribe in Borneo, or an island near it. He had been there for some time observing and living with the tribe, when one day a man asked him if he knew of a better tool than a stone and a fire for hollowing out a massive tree for a canoe, because primitive or not, the work was blasted hard.

What reply would you make to the man?

This is a great post…

 

[puzzleannie]

a historian seeking to answer this question would have to explore, compare and contrast situations where Christian missionaries were the first or only contacts from Western Europe to interact with a non-Western society, vs those where missionaries accompanied or followed Western explorers, conquistadores, slave traders and other contacts. You can hardly separate the history of missions and their influence on native cultures in the Americas from the impact of the wider influence beginning with Columbus. In many cases that story will be one of conflict between the missionaries and the civil and military authority with the former trying to protect the natives from the conquerors. One must also take into account the effect of evil but unintended consequences of explorations and colonization, the most widespread being the spread of illness among unprotected populations.

 

[John21652]

I’m not good at finding examples, but heres some in Australia

abc.net.au/missionvoices/general/missions_and_reserves_background/default.htm

Natives were forced to convert to Christianity and live like westerners

This conflicts with Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights:

Nonsense.

Aboriginal culture simply collapsed upon the arrival of the white settlers. Their beleif systems and world view were totally nullified when white Europeans came riding along on strange animals, seemingly having food supplies on tap and with the power to harness energy in ways the Aborigines found unfathomable. They also had absolutely no immunity to the diseases white settlers bought with them, like chicken pox, measles, small pox and whatever else. Certain tribes showed signs of having had small pox well before white explorers even got to them, suggesting the disease had travelled overland well before the arrival of white men.

The Christianisation of some of the Aborigines came after the intial culture shock had led many of them to abandon their traditional way of life. The large groups of Aborigines permanently camped around the settlements and towns caused great consternation amongst government oficials and led to the formation of Aboriginal Protectorate Boards. Still the decline continued.
As the article points out -
However, the British Government and colonial humanitarians were concerned about the fate of Aboriginal people as settlement progressed. After the failure of an early Protectorate system, the Victorian Colonial Government decided to allocate reserves of land variously known as stations, missions or reserves on which Aboriginal people could live. While the Government ran some Aboriginal stations, others were in the control of missionaries such as those of the Anglican or Moravian Churches. Regardless of their secular or religious management, life on Aboriginal stations revolved around efforts to control and ‘civilise’ Aboriginal people.

The Missions were set up to save the Aboriginals from extinction. The only way it could be seen to save them was to ‘modernise’ them and the Christian Missionaries Christianised their charges. However, Aboriginal culture was all but destroyed before the missions were even set up. For you to suggest otherwise is rediculously wrong and to link what happened in the 18th century with a U.N, charter is equally as rediculous. The U.N. didn’t even exist back then. Next thing you’ll be telling us the invasion of Britain by the Romans was against the U.N. Charter.