The controversy surrounding the eventual canonization of Father Junipero Serra is a polarizing issue. The California natives were impacted on a monumental level by Serra whether it led to the progress of Christianity in California or the destruction that occurred to the natives. Serra was a priest spawned out of the Catholic Church. Like other priests Serra viewed the natives as savages in need of salvation. The tactics and methods demonstrated by Serra probably did not differ much from any other priest during that time period. This meant Serra used any methods necessary to have the natives converted. If violence and harsh physical labor was needed then that would happen. The decline of the population of the natives in California was furthered …show more content…
Platt incorporates the facts that during the inquisition, “Serra was an agent looking for witches, heretics, and practitioners of Crypto-Judaism in Mexico City.” Serra had a key job of interrogating individuals who did not believe in Christianity. Serra saw the natives in San Diego the same way he saw the witches and heretics in Mexico city. The answer was to convert the natives by any means necessary. Platt follows up by comparing the brutal treatment of the Native Californians from the Americans and the Spanish. These following main points explain why Platt believes Serra should not be a saint. Platt sounds very professional and gives numerous facts to back up his argument. As the author of this article, he seems very legitimate. Being affiliated with the Study of Law & Society at UC Berkeley in addition to writing a book on the untold past of California gives him an in-depth background on this issue. The only issue that may be addressed is that Platt does not give in-depth details about the Spanish mission system or the Catholic Church. Still, Platt does a better job of arguing his point across that Serra should not be a saint. After reading this article it can be said that Platt’s audience is the public. Mainly because Platt is trying to create outrage, so a …show more content…
Orfalea points out that the issue of Serra and outrage is not new, he states that natives were not really slaves, and argues that the Americans were the true “criminals”. His most passionate argument is that Serra actually defended various natives instead of abusing them. Orfalea concludes his argument by stating that Father Serra was not perfect just like any other priest who has been canonized. Orfalea is a master in this field as he spent 12 years studying Serra. Still, Orfalea points contradict each other throughout his article. For example, Orfalea writes that, “The system did not enslave the natives though it was a version of indentured servitude.” Yet later he writes, “The San Diego mission was burned to the ground and it killed a priest.” If the natives were not enslaved then why would they burn a mission and kill a priest? This is one the reasons why Platt’s argument seemed stronger compared to Orfalea. Orfalea is writing to the same audience that Platt is writing to. They both are trying to sway public opinion. Their audience consists of Californian’s who share a connection with their state and the church. Even though Platt had a better overall argument both writers did a terrific job of illustrating their point of view. In conclusion, Father Serra should not have been canonized due to the numerous facts that show the brutal
`Black Robe" tells the story of the first contacts between the Huron Indians of Quebec and the Jesuit missionaries from France who came to convert them to Catholicism, and ended up delivering them into the hands of their enemies. Those first brave Jesuit priests did not realize, in the mid-17th century, that they were pawns of colonialism, of course; they were driven by a burning faith and an absolute conviction that they were doing the right thing. Only much later was it apparent that the European settlement of North America led to the destruction of the original inhabitants, not their salvation.
Kaplan spends a great deal of time discussing the local historical significance of Coronado, Cortez and Compostela. He speaks of the hero worship the Mexican citizens display for these men in each city he visits, and then calls these men “crude zealots [who] massacred Indians, built Christian altars where they had smashed idols, and went mad at the sight of gold,” while he calls the white protestant settlers on America’s east coast “children of European Enlightenment.” While somewhat interesting [and slightly strange], this information seems to have little bearing on the rest of the article. If he understood what the significance of this information was, he failed to make the connection apparent to his audience. He does not discuss any historical figures with connection to the American Southwest and therefore any relevance is lost. It almost appears as though he was sidetracked for three or four paragraphs.
Through the entire article, de las Casas discusses how great the Indians of the New World are. In paragraph 2 he states: "And all the infinite universe of humanity, these people are the most guileless, the most devoid of wickedness and duplicity, the most obedient and faithful to their native masters and to the Spanish Christians whom they serve. They are by nature the most humble, patient, and peaceable, holding no grudges, free from embroilments, neither excitable nor quarrelsome. These people are the most devoid of rancors, hatreds, or desire for vengeance of any people in the world. And because they are so weak and complaisant, they are less able to endure heavy labor and soon die of no matter what malady. The sons of nobles among us, brought up in the enjoyments of life 's refinements, are no more delicate than are these Indians, even those among them who are of the lowest rank of laborers.” They are also poor people, for they not only possess little but have no desire to possess worldly goods. For this reason they are not arrogant, embittered, or
...s others whether it is one of their own or someone completely different. This variance shows that instead of being vastly different as de Vaca often describes, the two groups were in reality equals. The best insight is de Vaca’s own words on the matter. At various times he describes the Indians as “savages”. However, at the end of his journey, he states that “Clearly, to bring all these people to Christianity and subjection to Your Imperial Majesty, they must be won by kindness, the only certain way” (123). Cabeza de Vaca’s transformation from a condescending invader to a man declaring the need for kindness towards natives proves that his ideas towards Indians had transformed from superiority towards equality. If Cabeza de Vaca’s advice to governmental power on expansion had been heeded it is possible that the horrors of future imperialism would have been averted.
Of the text named Bartolome de las casas: In Defense of the Indians(c.1550) it covers what is to be the Spanish Conquistadores, and talks of the natives to which at the time seen by many are barbaric, ignorant, incapable of learning, just another group of people to be conquered. But to the Catholic missionaries they see the Natives as new people to influence and enlighten. But if at any time the person drops the belief of Christianity they would use deadly force against the person or family. Adding to that Hernán comments that their cities are “ worth of admiration because of its building, which are like those of Venice”(Poole 4). While the argument remain if really would the Natives had stood a chance what
As I stated before, though lack of belief would surely paint him as a charlatan, I believe Saint Emmanuel to be a saint. He had a great heart and surely practiced pious behavior. He was the opposite of selfish and made it a priority that the villagers not live in suffering or confusion. When the villagers died, he made sure that they died with hope even though he himself had uncertainty of the unknown. Personally, being a saint is not about being perfect or being close to God as possible. Thus, being whether or not you are considered a saint should not be measure on how “holy” or honest you are because like in Don Manuel’s case, deceiving the villagers was the only way that he could made in impact on their lives.
He said what Ricci had done was a “slip”. Disagreed with Spence, Brook said “such a characterization underestimates the conscious intentionality of work and Ricci’s exploitation of his subject matter for Christian purpose.” (Brook, p.832)That meant because Ricci had his own Christian purpose to tell the story in such a way, it was not respectful to Ricci’s original intention when Spence told the reader the facts. Despite those small shortcomings, Spence did a really good job in portraying the historical figure Ricci. He provided the background and early life of Ricci to tell us why he was determined to preach outside.
Father Serra made it his mission to spread Catholicism to remote areas of New Spain. He was truly devoted to the religion and went to great efforts to teach those afar. (66) Apart from having complete faith in the Catholic religion, he who experienced the losses of his colleagues seemed to have wanted the gentiles and unbelievers to have faith in something during a time of great hardship. Perhaps it was a way for him to help those to alleviate the pain they suffered and not just about Catholicism but Catholicism was the means to do it. In books we are left to figure out whether Junipero Serra was a good or bad guy but the thing we can be certain about is that he was human who had faults like everybody else. His devotion baptized numerous children but adults were not too keen on getting baptized. (93) Adults were kept in their ways but children were more receptive to Serra and the Franciscans. It seems c...
Bowden’s idea of why this happened focused mainly on the old misunderstood traditions of the tribes living in Mexico. He shows how the friars, churches and icons took the blunt of the revolts force. Bowden points out the religious differences and similarities be...
Mark did not give any experiences from people. Mark’s article was fairly short and he was mainly criticising Cesar, rather than creating his own point and informing the
Finally, when it came down to the types of ceremonies and views both civilizations had, they were on two different pages. The Natives believed happiness was the key to good fortune. So, in order to get that fortune, they’d do sacrifices, and rituals to please the “mighty ones”. Then, as stated in the book “A History of Latin America”, it says, “Jews publicly converted to Christianity to avoid the torture…”, In which, this showed how religion and the spiritual views were forced upon people in the Spanish civilization.
Las Casas emphasizes on three main issues throughout his account. First, in almost each chapter, Las Casas writes about the luscious qualities of the land and the different indigenous peoples that inhabit them. Second, he explains and describes in detail how the natives were rapidly being massacred by the invading Christian Europeans. Finally, Las Casas discusses how God had brought justice to the Europeans for their diabolical acts upon the natives. Las Casas, a former slave owner himself, realized that those whom he previously enslaved were just as much human and capable of learning and practicing the Christian faith as he was. As a bishop, he realized he could do little for the Natives except document his experiences (in as much detail as possible) and hope that the royal administration would have sympathy for the Natives and establish laws to protect them from the Europeans.
Cabeza de Vaca, like many other Spaniards, wanted to seek fortune in the new world, but things did not go as planned, and he eventually lost everything. Although he came to conquer in the name of Spain, he ended up living amongst the Native Americans in need for survival and became very close to them. Although originally the Spaniards were very narrow minded and believed the Indians were uncivilized and barbaric, Cabeza de Vaca shortly found out that they were not uncivilized, but quite the opposite. He saw that they were just as human as the Spaniards were and were no less than they were. His perception of humanity altered as a result of living with “the others.”
Two conflicts during this time are seen as significant towards this battle between the interests of the Natives in the Americas. One of which was between two men: Bartolomé Las Casas and Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda. Las Casas defends t...
Once settled down the English and Spanish went in two different directions in regard to their religion. The Spanish conquistadors’ and friars’ in the southwest wanted to spread christianity to anyone they could. The Spanish would conqueror Native American tribes and force christianity upon them. To the Spanish in the southwest they just wanted the Native Americans’ to have some type of Christian beliefs. The Puritans’ however were very strict about following their values. For instance, Anne Hutchinson and Roger Williams were both banished from the colony for going against their official teachings. As well, as being less tolerate, the Puritans’ were not as aggressive as forcing their religion onto Native Americans’. Other than praying towns, the Puritans’ did not force their beliefs on to the Native Americans’ who lived around them. The Spanish on the other hand sought out Native Americans’ to convert them. The Spanish, after conquering a tribe or ransacking a village, would force the Native Americans’ to convert. If they refused they would use the encomienda system to convert them. The encomienda system was a Spanish practice, where they enslaved Native Americans who refused to convert to Christianity. The conquistadors’ would force them to mine gold and silver until death or conversion. How they Spanish and Puritans’ managed their religion reflected on how the two interacted with Natives. The two differed in their treatment toward Native Americans’ with the intimate relationships they had with them. In the southwest many Spaniards would marry Native American women and bear children called mestizos. In Massachusetts, however it was unheard of to have any type of intimate relations between whites and Native Americans.