JESUIT TREASURES - ARE THEY REAL?

[cactusjumper]

It wasn't difficult at all Joe. Dunn's " Black Robes in Lower California" is one source. View attachment 958777 View attachment 958778 "I believe you are in error as to attributing that charge to Balthasar." The "error" seems to be Dunne's, rather than mine. Regards:Wayne

Wayne,

As I wrote:

"I believe those specific charges came from and through these people: Don Jose Baserte, General Centurioni, Jose de Galvez and Ignazio Visconti. I believe there was some friction between those men and the Jesuit Order."

I have read all of the quotes you are providing. They don't tell the entire story, which is why I suggested you reread Dunne. If you continue reading the story where you are getting your quotes, you will have a better understanding of what happened. On the other hand, maybe I am just not understanding what you are trying to say. Happens to me a lot these days.

Take care,

Joe

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[cactusjumper]

May I then direct your attention to The Sonoran Missions and Indian Raids of the Eighteenth Century by Maria Soledad Arbelaez, from the Journal of the Southwest, Vol. 33, No. 3 (Autumn, 1991), pp. 366-386, whereas: So it seems that in regard to your claim above, the Indians thought otherwise.

deducer,

I like it that you lump all the Indians together like that. There are two sides to that coin.

Good luck,

Joe

 

[cactusjumper]

Roy,

I suppose it was just bad luck that the Indians murdered Father Garces. There are many other reports that place the Jesuits in high regard with the natives. The Jesuits, on arrival in Northern Mexico, took people and lands that the Franciscans would not have.

The history is not all one sided.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Oroblanco]

Roy, I suppose it was just bad luck that the Indians murdered Father Garces. There are many other reports that place the Jesuits in high regard with the natives. The Jesuits, on arrival in Northern Mexico, took people and lands that the Franciscans would not have. The history is not all one sided. Take care, Joe

Yes and we might take note of what led these "new" Indians, namely Yumas, to rise in revolt against the Spanish and Franciscan padres that resulted in the death of father Garces; they were being forced to work at mining! The Yumas were perhaps less "amenable" to being enslaved than the Pimas, Opatas, and Papagos, and it is notable that father Garces did not have such problems until they started to follow the standard "reduction" practice of forced labor.

I would suggest to you the Jesuit Relations from New France, which while only peripherally involved with the American southwest, it is notable that the Jesuits were constantly focused on how to turn profits in their new missions. Or read The Economics of the Goa Jesuits, 1542-1759: An Explanation of Their Rise By Charles J. Borges, which is of course focused on the Jesuit activities in India, but follows their usual pattern of, "acquisitiveness" and massing wealth.

Of course history is not one sided, and there were good padres whose main concern was saving the souls of the "wretched" pagan peoples, but in my opinion these priests are the minority, not the majority.
Roy

 

[deducer]

deducer,

I like it that you lump all the Indians together like that. There are two sides to that coin.

Good luck,

Joe

Not sure what that has to do with the fact that I used a legitimate source to discredit your claim that the Jesuits "did their best to save the Indians from the Spaniards" when that was pretty obviously not the case.

This is not to say that there were not a few Jesuits that did try, but for the most part, they did not come over here to convert.

 

[deducer]

Roy,
There are many other reports that place the Jesuits in high regard with the natives.

If there are so many, you would surely find no trouble citing just a few that specifically state the natives held the Jesuits in high regard.

 

[cactusjumper]

Not sure what that has to do with the fact that I used a legitimate source to discredit your claim that the Jesuits "did their best to save the Indians from the Spaniards" when that was pretty obviously not the case. This is not to say that there were not a few Jesuits that did try, but for the most part, they did not come over here to convert.

deducer,

As long as you are convinced you are right, what does it matter? Yes, there are many cases where the natives loved their Fathers. If you had researched the Jesuits in Mexico, you would already know that.

Good luck,

Joe

 

[deducer]

deducer,

As long as you are convince you are right, what does it matter?

Yes, there are many cases where the natives loved their Fathers. If you had researched the Jesuits in Mexico, you would already know that.

I am not concerned with being right or wrong, but only with ensuring that I gather facts that lead to an objective conclusion. I try my best to avoid presuming, or outright guessing.

Why would I research Jesuits in Mexico to find out if the "natives loved their fathers"? The Jesuits would of course try to convince you that they were loved. I would research the Indians themselves; and as a matter of fact, the consensus is pretty much that the fathers were reviled for the most part by a majority of the Indians.

Appendix 3 of the article I cited lists that, of the 81 missions in Mexico, 54 came under attack at one time or another. That's a pretty high number don't you think?

 

[cactusjumper]

I am not concerned with being right or wrong, but only with ensuring that I gather facts that lead to an objective conclusion. I try my best to avoid presuming, or outright guessing. Why would I research Jesuits in Mexico to find out if the "natives loved their fathers"? The Jesuits would of course try to convince you that they were loved. I would research the Indians themselves; and as a matter of fact, the consensus is pretty much that the fathers were reviled for the most part by a majority of the Indians. Appendix 3 of the article I cited lists that, of the 81 missions in Mexico, 54 came under attack at one time or another. That's a pretty high number don't you think?

deducer,

It's really quite simple. In seeking the truth, it only makes sense to examine both sides of the question....Pro and con. In those days, the natives were able to take their complaints to the Spanish courts in Mexico. In many cases, they did. They aired their complaints against the Jesuits. Being forced to work in Jesuit mines was not one of those complaints.

The only real way we can hope to educate ourselves about that history, is by reading what the historians and contemporary writers have recorded. While any of them could have been mistaken or even lied, only by comparing their stories with others can you get some sense of what might have truly happened.

We all, including you, presume and guess.....based on what we hear and read. No one, alive, was there.

Good luck,

Joe Ribaudo

 

[Oroblanco]

Cactusjumper wrote <to Deducer>

Being forced to work in Jesuit mines was not one of those complaints.

Have you not read treasure stories, which can be traced to Indians? Or perhaps, let us cite the 1690 rebellion in which father Saeta was among the first killed by the Indios, right after he had penned a letter to father Kino stating he would be able to pay for things in SILVER? Where was he getting his silver, from the air? Or are you taking the position that all of the many Indian revolts were simply for being forced to work at farming, which was much the same work they would have been doing whether there were any padres or not?

Two leagues southwest of Oquitoa is the royal presidio of Altar, and seven leagues in the same direction is Pitic,48 a dependent mission of Caborca, the principal mission at 30 degrees, 56 minutes latitude by 261 degrees, 49 minutes longitude. There, the rebellious Pimas put to death Father Francisco J. Saéta in 1695 and Father Tomás Tello in 1751. It is administered by Father Antonio María Benz who also tends the dependent missions of Pitic and Bisani, eight leagues farther to the southwest and about twenty leagues from the sea.49 Several mines have been worked near Bissani, but for some years there has been a great scarcity of water.

<from Rudo Ensayo>

What will it take Joe, to convince you that the Jesuits, and Franciscans for that matter, were mining in the southwest? You have said that you have great respect for the Amerindians, yet you totally dismiss all Indian stories of mines they were forced to work for the padres. I don't get it.

Good luck and good hunting amigos, I hope you find the treasures that you seek.

Oroblanco

 

[Oroblanco]

Oops that should be the 1695 revolt, not 1690.

 

[Springfield]

...Or are you taking the position that all of the many Indian revolts were simply for being forced to work at farming, which was much the same work they would have been doing whether there were any padres or not? <from Rudo Ensayo> What will it take Joe, to convince you that the Jesuits, and Franciscans for that matter, were mining in the southwest? ...

Last summer, I spoke at length with a well-informed traditionalist at Taos pueblo about this very subject. Her opinion was that, despite the fact that they were forced to do agricultural work to support the Franciscan intruders, by far the most riveting motivation for the 1680 Pueblo Revolt was the 'false religion' that was thrust upon the natives and the padres' efforts to crush out the natives' own spiritual beliefs. The priests in New Mexico, almost to a man, were targeted and wiped out. At Taos, anyway, the original church was immediately destroyed.

By the way, when I asked about the mining, she said the Spanish in Santa Fe were active in the Ortiz Mountains before the revolt - and they were bad actors too - but the Franciscans weren't into mining in northern New Mexico, at least to her knowledge. The 1680 revolt was mostly about Catholicism. Arizona may have been different.

 

[UncleMatt]

I think one needs to be careful about the introduction of bias and agenda when discussing motivations for people who lived hundreds of years ago. Some people tend to overestimate religion as a motivation simply because they have a focus to promote those beliefs. Unless the person you spoke to was basing her opinions on historical records, I would be careful about that. When you say she was "well informed", what does that mean exactly?

 

[Springfield]

I think one needs to be careful about the introduction of bias and agenda when discussing motivations for people who lived hundreds of years ago. Some people tend to overestimate religion as a motivation simply because they have a focus to promote those beliefs. Unless the person you spoke to was basing her opinions on historical records, I would be careful about that. When you say she was "well informed", what does that mean exactly?

She was an anthropologist who returned to live in the pueblo (one of only 12 or 15 who do) with her family, who have been there since the revolt. As you may know, all the pueblos have viejos who maintain tribal history, customs, religions, etc., with traditionalists societies by invitation only - usually men. I don't know where she fit into the secret club. Most natives couldn't care less about the old ways and have half-assimilated to whitey's schemes. Money, cars, mortgages, etc. A few haven't. This woman's grandfather taught her the oral history, which apparently isn't always the same as that recorded by padres, ethnologists, etc. None of us was there of course, even today's natives, so who knows? History is a large database of personal anecdotes and the history we're privy to, even 'historical records', is always culled from those personal experiences of the multitudes with the writer's bias in place. Believe what you want.

 

[UncleMatt]

forgive my skepticism, I was just curious. I have members of my own family who profess to be "experts" on Native American beliefs and culture, and they get a lot of things very wrong.

 

[Springfield]

forgive my skepticism, I was just curious. I have members of my own family who profess to be "experts" on Native American beliefs and culture, and they get a lot of things very wrong.

Yeah, I know what you mean. The older I get, the more I realize that 'truth' seems to be a pretty slippery commodity. It seems to always be changing.

 

[UncleMatt]

And many people are simply casting around trying to get people to buy into their perspective on things, which was why I voiced that concern.

 

[markmar]

Food for thoughts , part 2 . Evening in the mountains .

 

[cactusjumper]

Cactusjumper wrote <to Deducer> Have you not read treasure stories, which can be traced to Indians? Or perhaps, let us cite the 1690 rebellion in which father Saeta was among the first killed by the Indios, right after he had penned a letter to father Kino stating he would be able to pay for things in SILVER? Where was he getting his silver, from the air? Or are you taking the position that all of the many Indian revolts were simply for being forced to work at farming, which was much the same work they would have been doing whether there were any padres or not? <from Rudo Ensayo> What will it take Joe, to convince you that the Jesuits, and Franciscans for that matter, were mining in the southwest? You have said that you have great respect for the Amerindians, yet you totally dismiss all Indian stories of mines they were forced to work for the padres. I don't get it. Good luck and good hunting amigos, I hope you find the treasures that you seek. Oroblanco

Good Morning Roy,

I don't take all "treasure stories" as Gospel, no matter who the source is.

I believe Springfield has hit the nail on the head in placing the Indian revolts at the feet of RELIGION. Most of that trouble was caused by a resentment of the new religion being forced on the natives. Forcing out the old beliefs and ways of living was a primary contributor to the conflicts.

That opinion is based on what I have read. Others may have come to another conclusion, which I have no real problem with. After all, I used to believe the same thing.

The Jesuit Fathers wrote of many mines around the missions. It does not follow that those mines belonged to the Order.
I have written many times about mines. None of them belonged to me. The Bully Bueno comes to mind as one of them. Spanish mines were an important source of income and security to the Jesuits. They took care of the Miner's needs, as well as the Indians.

Treasure stories are not enough to make me believe in Jesuit mining.

Take care my friend,

Joe

 

[Oroblanco]

Cactusjumper wrote

Good Morning Roy,


I don't take all "treasure stories" as Gospel, no matter who the source is.


I believe Springfield has hit the nail on the head in placing the Indian revolts at the feet of RELIGION. Most of that trouble was caused by a resentment of the new religion being forced on the natives. Forcing out the old beliefs and ways of living was a primary contributor to the conflicts.


That opinion is based on what I have read. Others may have come to another conclusion, which I have no real problem with. After all, I used to believe the same thing.


The Jesuit Fathers wrote of many mines around the missions. It does not follow that those mines belonged to the Order.
I have written many times about mines. None of them belonged to me. The Bully Bueno comes to mind as one of them. Spanish mines were an important source of income and security to the Jesuits. They took care of the Miner's needs, as well as the Indians.


Treasure stories are not enough to make me believe in Jesuit mining.

Well, I used to believe that ALL stories of lost treasures and mines were so much bunkum. My point about the treasure stories originating from Indians formerly under Jesuits was that you choose to dismiss them out of hand, while espousing that you have high respect for Amerindians. Notthat the stories alone would ever convince you of anything.


I have a simple question for you Joe:
Do you believe that the Jesuits owned and operated mines in the southwest?


As to the causes of the 1680 Pueblo revolt - here is an extract:

In 1680 came the great revolt of the Pueblo Indians. The Indians blamed the operation of the mines for the condition of practical slavery to which they were reduced by the Spaniards

< from the New Mexico Blue Book or State Official Register, 1919, pp 50>


I have no doubt that the religion was a main cause, however to dismiss the mines and ensuing enslavement is helping those whom are trying to whitewash the history of the missionaries. There was a reason why the Pueblos included the demand that the padres restrict their activities to agricultural pursuits as a condition of peace in 1692.


Before this goes off onto New Mexico entirely, perhaps it is enlightening to remember that the founder of the colony, Juan de Onate, requested six new Royal brands for use on silver bars to be exported from the new territory soon after establishing his capital. There would not have been any need for such brands to mark bars, if there were no mines. Even the two Franciscan priests killed prior to Onate's entrada, reportedly discovered eleven silver mines. Word of the rich silver mines of New Mexico reached all the way to the royal court of France and to the Jesuits operating in New France. Most if not all historians have little or nothing to say about the missionaries mining activities because they do not look for that. In fact this is a topic of debate only in our world of treasure hunters. Historians simply don't care about it.


One last point here, but considering that we have been able to find plenty of documentary evidence, including from Catholic sources, that the missionaries were mining, and such highly respected historians as father Polzer seemingly failed to find or deliberately withheld, I don't see good reason to continue to put any trust and faith in any Jesuit source that pretends that the Order never had any mines or never enslaved the Indians. They have a vested interest in covering up the truth.


Good luck and good hunting amigos, I hope you find the treasures that you seek.
Oroblanco