This topic has interested me, because I'm a docent at the Carmel Mission, CA. We were told, during the docent training process, that occasionally, tourists have come in asking questions about the "torture of indians", or making snide remarks about how white man facilitated in destroying the indian's culture, etc... As if to put the docent on the defense that, like somehow the church (afterall, this is a church/mission) were evil in their treatment of indians, and worse yet, under color of God, the church, etc... Like, the insinuation might be: "Sheesk, WHAT hypocrites! Why did we mess with their affairs, enslave them, etc... right? And worse yet, do it in the name of the church! How dare we!! You docents and the whole church and white culture should be ashamed of themselves. Harrumpph! " (ok, I exaggerate a bit, but if tone and attitude could talk, I've sensed just this!)
I actually overheard a lady, who .... looking at a statue of Father Serra (who founded several of the 21 missions here in CA), make some comment like "there's the guy who enslaved and tortured the indians" blah blah
So I did some research into the topic, and found some interesting moderating information. Let's start with whether or not the indians were un-civilized to begin with. I guess your indian in the bar (and the politically correct types who tour our mission) would have you believe that indians were just peace-loving, innocent as the pure-driven snow, etc.. eh? Truth is indians warred against each other constantly, as recorded in early explorer's writings. "Scalping" existed long before the White man got here. So they were as prone to war, violence, etc... as any culture or race of people in the world is. Early explorers were aghast that some indians sacrificed their babies live, in the course of their religion or culture or for whatever reason. Hmmm, no problem there, eh?
Women were treated like property or cattle. Traded back and forth between indian men. Hmm, what would feminism think of that today? I can go on and on with proofs and accounts like this.
The missions here were a cooporate concern of both church and state. So, while yes, the state had a vested economic interest in establishing a toe-hold of civilization, the priests also had a sincere vested interest in spreading the gospel, which they genuinely believed in. Once communities got started, yes, everyone contributed. No one who voluntarily commited themself to mission life, just got to sit around and enjoy the fruits of other's labors (gee, fancy that). Communal contribution was expected. You had a job to do, as did everyone! If you didn't contribute, you were not going to live there and continue to get freebies. Call that slavery? Sure, if you want. And yes, punishment for theft (indians were rampant thieves, this is no secret to historical accounts!) was punished swiftly. So too was it punished for white settlers. In other words, coorporal punishment was par for offences, for
all of society at that time in history. The padres themselves practiced forms of denial, poverty, self-punishment, etc... But what gets passed on by the politically correct? Images or citations of indians in stocks. Nevermind the context of what had happened, and how society (both secular and church) worked at that time.
And as for diseases, NO ONE knew what was going on. Europeans had no ill-will, and the science of all that was unknown, or just un-folding at best. We know NOW, looking back, why the epidemics occured. But who knew at that time? I mean, heck, what we were all to do? Remain in Europe and never set foot here?
Indian activists and raving liberals are probably too brainwashed to see the light, but there it is. With that said, it is probably true that they can point to some injustice that was not correct on the part of White man. No doubt, we too, are not and were not "pure and the wind-driven snow". But to say it's all the "evil white man" is not historically correct. There's my rant
I guess no one can say that Manhattan Island was "stolen", eh?
