Support NeoGAF

[AuthenticM]

I just read this article on Vox saying how Junipero Serra was basically wiping out Native American culture, as well as keeping them in camps and having them beaten if they were uncatholic. Here are excerpts:

Junipero Serra was an 18th-century Spanish missionary who is as responsible as anyone else for establishing the Catholic presence in colonial California. Serra founded nine of Spanish California's 21 missions: closed communities for Native Americans who agreed to convert to Catholicism, in which they practiced European-style agriculture and Catholic-style morality.

If you knew all this already, you probably went to school in California. California history classes have treated Serra as a state hero for decades; children have often been required to build dioramas of the missions. And in the US Capitol, which is decorated with statues from every state of important historical figures, the California statue depicts Father Serra.

Since California is so culturally liberal now, it's easy to assume that the state wouldn't lionize Serra so much if he weren't actually good for the natives. But his prominence is the result of a very different period in state history — one in which the state was much less interested in the opinions of nonwhites. According to Santa Clara University historian Bob Senkewicz, Serra started getting lifted up as a "California hero" during the late 19th century, during the "Spanish revival movement" (which happened, not coincidentally, after whites were beginning to thoroughly settle into the state). As Senkewicz told Emma Green in an (extremely good) article in the Atlantic about Serra: "[They] created a mission mythology of dedicated, selfless missionaries and happy, contented Indians [...] a kind of bucolic arcadia."

"Bucolic arcadia" is definitely not how most people these days would describe colonialism in the Americas — whether practiced by priests or soldiers. And Junipero Serra was undoubtedly on a colonizing mission: he wanted to save the souls of the natives as well as assimilate them into European culture. So, unsurprisingly, in the late 20th century, as historians started scraping off the "mythology" of colonialism to uncover what had been painted over, they had to reevaluate the mission system and Serra himself.

One way to answer the question of whether Junipero Serra was really good for the Native Americans he purported to serve was how natives were treated on the missions themselves. The backlash against Serra began when historians began to look at birth and death records on the missions and discovered that more natives were dying under Serra's watch than being born — not a great indicator that Serra was saving native lives. The contemporary picture of the missions is less a "bucolic arcadia" than a feudal labor camp, with natives beaten if they violated Catholic teachings or didn't work hard enough. Serra's defenders point out that no native was forced to convert to Catholicism and live on the mission if he or she didn't choose to; his critics point out that once someone chose to convert and live on the mission, soldiers would be sent after him if he tried to escape.

As for why Francis canonized him? A simple matter of catering to the hispanics, who form a big chunk of the catholic demographic.

Junipero Serra isn't just the first saint to be canonized on American soil; he's the first American Hispanic saint to be canonized, period. And to many Catholic observers, this is the key to Serra's fast-tracked sainthood: a simple matter of demographics.

Thanks in no small part to the efforts of Serra and his missionary colleagues, Catholicism is a global faith — and one with a substantial power base in Latin America. Pope Francis himself reflects that: He's not just the first Latino pope but the first pope to come from the Western Hemisphere. And the American Catholic Church, in particular, would be in dire demographic straits if not for Latin American immigrants and their children.

This is one (perhaps cynical) way to look at Pope Francis's focus on immigrants during his trip to the US: He's talking about the people who are keeping the Catholic Church alive in America. But it's also a way to look at Francis's advocacy of Serra: a Hispanic saint for a Hispanic church.

More at the link above. I encourage you to read it.

 

[BlastProcessing]

I just saw this. Not a good look.

 

[Gentleman Jack]

NPR has also been giving this extensive coverage.

A Saint With A Mixed History: Junipero Serra's Canonization Raises Eyebrows

Savior Or Villain? The Complicated Story Of Pope Francis' Next Saint

Locals ended up in the missions for a number of reasons. Many came looking for food; the Spanish colonizers brought with them nonnative animals that ate plants and berries crucial to the ecosystem that Native Americans depended on, leaving starvation in their wake. The priests were known to lure people into the mission with gifts. Young men from neighboring areas were also rounded up by Spanish soldiers for agricultural and construction work. However people arrived, they were invariably forced to stay in the missions and adopt Spanish ways of life, stripped of their tribal languages and cultural identities and gradually known as "Mission Indians."

"People were enslaved in the missions," says Vincent Medina, 28, assistant museum director at San Francisco's famed Mission Dolores. "They were whipped if they spoke their language. If they tried to escape, they were forcibly brought back, flogged and punished, and kept in stocks. People were getting diseases. They were horrible places to be."

 

[davepoobond]

at least as a CA resident, we sort of segment our state's history with colonial times since it was under the control of the Mexican/Spanish colonial government at the time.

When we learned about all of the missions in elementary school, it was generally in a favorable light, but i don't remember a whole lot about Serra. I definitely don't remember any of the parts about subjugating the Native populations like slaves etc.

 

[Rest]

State Hero? I've never heard of the guy. We did build models of the Missions though. Dubious and bad history is still important.

I definitely don't remember any of the parts about subjugating the Native populations like slaves etc.

I do. They softened it a little (we were just 4th graders,) but it wasn't a secret that the aborigines weren't exactly willing volunteers.
Come to think of it though, we learned about the natives in the southwest missions being treated as slaves, tortured, or killed though. That was a little later in school, but the bias in favor of California's missions was still present.

 

[BlastProcessing]

at least as a CA resident, we sort of segment our state's history with colonial times since it was under the control of the Mexican/Spanish colonial government at the time.

When we learned about all of the missions in elementary school, it was generally in a favorable light, but i don't remember a whole lot about Serra. I definitely don't remember any of the parts about subjugating the Native populations like slaves etc.

I mean, my history class depicted Custer's Last Stand as an unprovoked and vicious attack. This was in the 80's/90's. And we certainly never touched on the fact that Andrew Jackson is one of the biggest SOBs in American history.

 

[Rest]

I mean, my history class depicted Custer's Last Stand as an unprovoked and vicious attack. This was in the 80's/90's. And we certainly never touched on the fact that Andrew Jackson is one of the biggest SOBs in American history.

Really? We did. I've always wondered why he's on any of our money, the guy perpetrated a genocide.

 

[NoRéN]

at least as a CA resident, we sort of segment our state's history with colonial times since it was under the control of the Mexican/Spanish colonial government at the time.

When we learned about all of the missions in elementary school, it was generally in a favorable light, but i don't remember a whole lot about Serra. I definitely don't remember any of the parts about subjugating the Native populations like slaves etc.

Definitely not in the textbooks. However, my teacher made a point to mention that the textbooks glossed over a lot and if we wanted the entire story we would have to do the research ourselves outside of the school.

Glad she did. This was in the 90s.

 

[mcz117chief]

He definitely did wrong things but his intentions were good but misunderstood or not what the Americans were used to. He was just trying to bring the teachings of Christ to Americas, which is a noble goal but very hard one and many, if not most, have gone astray in one way or another. Junípero Serra was beatified by John Paul II so Francis just followed up on what John started.

I mean, look at Saint Paul, he was a grade A asshole and yet he is one of the prime symbols of Christian faith.

Of course, we should all endeavour to emulate what Jesus Christ did, but we are not Gods, we are humans and we make mistakes. Saying that Junípero Serra did nothing wrong is disingenuous at the least and hypocritical at the worst but still we must consider the good things he has done as well and I am sure that John Paul II and Francis did their homework and didn't canonise him just for the sake of canonising an American.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

I would have canonizedBartolome de la Casas.

Seems to be the better choice given this pope's political standings.

 

[mcz117chief]

I would have canonizedBartolome de la Casas.

Seems to be the better choice given this pope's political standings.

He needs to get beatified first, then they need to find records of him performing miracles and then can they canonise him. But yeah, he does seem a lot less controversial.

 

[BlastProcessing]

Really? We did. I've always wondered why he's on any of our money, the guy perpetrated a genocide.

Really. We talked about the Battle of New Orleans and that was it for Jackson.

 

[Africanus]

You know, there are mistakes such as a broken plate, or an accidental slip of phrase, then there is aiding the forced conversion of native people while both killing their culture and heritage and ostracizing them from their people.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

He needs to get beatified first, then they need to find records of him performing miracles and then can they canonise him. But yeah, he does seem a lot less controversial.

There's actually a lot of Spanish missionaries that were like de las Casas. That history tends to get written over.

 

[DrBo42]

He needs to get beatified first, then they need to find records of him performing miracles and then can they canonise him. But yeah, he does seem a lot less controversial.

I had no idea that was a real prerequisite. Wow. These are loose definitions of miracles right? Like praying for rain and when it happens he's like "Yo, I did that."

 

[Gentleman Jack]

Junípero Serra was beatified by John Paul II so Francis just followed up on what John started.

They found a second miracle?

 

[mcz117chief]

There's actually a lot of Spanish missionaries that were like de las Casas. That history tends to get written over.

We have a saying in our school: The closer you are to Rome the greater chance you get canonized.

I had no idea that was a real prerequisite. Wow. These are loose definitions of miracles right? Like praying for rain and when it happens he's like "Yo, I did that."

Nah, it isn't easy like that. It is more like if a person who is blind his entire life gets touched by the person in question and suddenly the blind man can see.

They found a second miracle?

I don't know. It is the committee's work to find out things like these. They should, however, disclose the information so that his canonization can be considered valid.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

I had no idea that was a real prerequisite. Wow. These are loose definitions of miracles right? Like praying for rain and when it happens he's like "Yo, I did that."

If you're more cynically minded, it can get absurdly hilarious. I say this will all due respect to my Catholic brothers and sisters.

 

[davepoobond]

I mean, my history class depicted Custer's Last Stand as an unprovoked and vicious attack. This was in the 80's/90's. And we certainly never touched on the fact that Andrew Jackson is one of the biggest SOBs in American history.

we did in our American History class in high school. We went through quite a bit about the Trail of Tears.

Really? We did. I've always wondered why he's on any of our money, the guy perpetrated a genocide.

he's on our money for things other than "genocide" (which would be a retroactively applied term, in this case) obviously -- plus he wasn't the only one involved, Congress passed a law for the forced resettlement.

he did a lot to establish presidential power, and was seen as the first everyday man president (ie not upper class).



that's kind of off base anyway. i dont think anyone should be surprised that colonial societies did not treat Native populations very well. its the whole basis of colonialism to subvert the existing population.

 

[Rest]

Really. We talked about the Battle of New Orleans and that was it for Jackson.

Really? We glossed over his military stuff. It was basically "he won some battles and was popular. He shot some dudes over honor or some shit. He fucked around with the banks a little. But what he really did was murder indians. In every way he could. For no reason. And stole land from the Cherokee, who were integrated into American society, but weren't white, so he said 'fuck them.'"

he's on our money for things other than "genocide" (which would be a retroactively applied term, in this case) obviously -- plus he wasn't the only one involved, Congress passed a law for the forced resettlement.

I'm pretty sure congress didn't say to give them smallpox and feed them rotten food though, that was Jackson. And while I'm not really anti Jackson, like you said he did do things that were and are good for the country, I still think murdering people because of the color of their skin means we shouldn't honor him by putting his face on our money.

 

[davepoobond]

I'm pretty sure congress didn't say to give them smallpox and feed them rotten food though, that was Jackson. And while I'm not really anti Jackson, like you said he did do things that were and are good for the country, I still think murdering people because of the color of their skin means we shouldn't honor him by putting his face on our money.

Regarding smallpox, I believe you are conflating Andrew Jackson (presidency 1829–1837) with French and Indian War (1754–1763). Jackson wasn't even born before it was over! Let alone any part of USA really existing as an entity. I don't know about the rotten food thing, though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_disease_and_epidemics

There is only one documented instance in which a disease was proposed to be used as a weapon against Native American tribes. During the French and Indian War, Jeffery Amherst, 1st Baron Amherst, Britain's commander in chief in North America suggested using smallpox to wipe out their Native American enemy. In his writings to Colonel Henry Bouquet about the situation in western Pennsylvania,[9] Amherts suggested that the spread of disease would be beneficial in achieving their aims. Colonel Bouquet confirmed his intentions to do so.

The French and Indian War occurred before the US was even a country. That was a Colonial war, the British were in charge.

 

[Shenmue]

at least as a CA resident, we sort of segment our state's history with colonial times since it was under the control of the Mexican/Spanish colonial government at the time.

When we learned about all of the missions in elementary school, it was generally in a favorable light, but i don't remember a whole lot about Serra. I definitely don't remember any of the parts about subjugating the Native populations like slaves etc.

Hmm odd. In school the subject was always portrayed in a negative light. I also went to school in Southern California. Our teacher didn't have us build missions because of that.

 

[davepoobond]

Hmm odd. In school the subject was always portrayed in a negative light. I also went to school in Southern California. Our teacher didn't have us build missions because of that.

we had field trips to a couple of missions, it was a big deal. pretty much that whole year was about the missions (4th grade?)

maybe it depends on who your teacher was and what school district you were in.


I remember how we had to plaster pictures of all of the missions on the walls and we had to draw each one or something weird like that.

 

[ReAxion]

Mission San Luis Rey de Francia wat up

 

[GenericBadGuy]

As a California resident growing up I did indeed need to do a mission project in elementary school, but I don't remember much of the curriculum touching on Serra. There are a lot of statues of him around here, but they are mostly neglected or forgotten. I think that despite his recent fame he may just disappear from the public eye just as fast.

The argument the men looking forward to his sainthood were making on the local news was "Judge him by the times he lived in. If you judge him by the way things were done back then then nothing was wrong." I would have to disagree wholeheartedly, and I've never been a fan of cultural relativism.

 

[Rest]

Regarding smallpox, I believe you are conflating Andrew Jackson (presidency 1829–1837) with French and Indian War (1754–1763). Jackson wasn't even born before it was over! Let alone any part of USA really existing as an entity. I don't know about the rotten food thing, though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_disease_and_epidemics




The French and Indian War occurred before the US was even a country. That was a Colonial war, the British were in charge.

I found an article that talks about Jackson using smallpox during the First Seminole War, but it had a very shoddy source. I do recall reading it in a textbook at school though.

 

[davepoobond]

I found an article that talks about Jackson using smallpox during the First Seminole War, but it had a very shoddy source. I do recall reading it in a textbook at school though.

even if that were the case, your original post made it seem like it was part of the Trail of Tears (which is the act referred to as genocide in your post), not the First Seminole War, which most people couldn't tell you anything about (and I wouldn't say that The First Seminole War qualifies as "genocide" since its against the Spanish colonials and their armed Native allies primarily). It is also not what people remember Jackson for anyway since he wasn't president at the time of the First Seminole War.

 

[AuthenticM]

NPR has also been giving this extensive coverage.

A Saint With A Mixed History: Junipero Serra's Canonization Raises Eyebrows

Savior Or Villain? The Complicated Story Of Pope Francis' Next Saint

Despicable.

I have the feeling that this story is just doing to die and nobody will give a shit very soon.

 

[Fuchsdh]

Really? We glossed over his military stuff. It was basically "he won some battles and was popular. He shot some dudes over honor or some shit. He fucked around with the banks a little. But what he really did was murder indians. In every way he could. For no reason. And stole land from the Cherokee, who were integrated into American society, but weren't white, so he said 'fuck them.'"

That's a pretty bad depiction of Jackson, even if you find his actions towards the natives reprehensible. With that said, most of the presidents after Madison and Monroe up through Lincoln are generally not well-covered, same with the Gilded Age presidents after Grant through Roosevelt. They're generally the weakest parts of US history coverage.

As a California resident growing up I did indeed need to do a mission project in elementary school, but I don't remember much of the curriculum touching on Serra. There are a lot of statues of him around here, but they are mostly neglected or forgotten. I think that despite his recent fame he may just disappear from the public eye just as fast.

The argument the men looking forward to his sainthood were making on the local news was "Judge him by the times he lived in. If you judge him by the way things were done back then then nothing was wrong." I would have to disagree wholeheartedly, and I've never been a fan of cultural relativism.

Well, even if you judge him by the times there were certainly people who disagreed with the actions of the Spanish in the Americas. Like it gets brought up, people weren't all gung-ho with Columbus' tough rule, and to bring up Jackson again there was lots of dissent, especially in Congress, towards the treatment of the Native Americans—especially since they were widely admired as the 'civilized' tribes.

Not judging someone by the values and times they lived in sounds pretty unfair, though, because world history will never conform to your ideas of good and bad. Transplant an average abolitionist from the 1860s to the 1920s and he'd probably happily attend a lynching—negroes shouldn't be enslaved, sure, but if one tried to have relations with a white woman? Humanity isn't ever settled, and our values aren't either. A hundred years from now students will probably be talking about how savage and stupid and horrible you and I are.

 

[bonesmccoy]

Despicable.

I have the feeling that this story is just doing to die and nobody will give a shit very soon.

Have you read accounts from historians who disagree with the NPR/Vox take? Not everyone who has studied that period of history thinks he was an evil bastard.

 

[Gentleman Jack]

Have you read accounts from historians who disagree with the NPR/Vox take? Not everyone who has studied that period of history thinks he was an evil bastard.

Share them.

Also this isn't 'NPR's take,' but a quote from the assistant museum director from one of Serra's missions.