May 17, 2008

The missions' mission

Newcomb:  Spirit-breaking:  Mission horrorsIn 1769, Catholic priest Junipero Serra founded the Catholic mission system in California. In 1775, the Franciscan and Dominican orders in California made a joint statement characterizing their mission. The language they used provides insight into their way of thinking and their behavior in the missions.

In the joint statement, the two orders said that their task was the "spiritual and temporal conquest" of the "vast territory" called California. They also referred to themselves as being "in this corner of the world of Old and New California, occupied with the spiritual conquest and conversion of the infidels." Infidels translates to "not of the faith," or, in other words, non-Catholic.

Conquest is one aspect of the paradigm of domination that underlies the colonizing mission of the Vatican and the Catholic Church in the Americas, in keeping with papal decrees that called for the "subjugation" of "barbarous nations." As part of this charge, one task of the church was to break the free spirit of and "reduce" those who were "not of the faith." Spiritual conquest involved the use of spirit-breaking techniques that served as part of the arsenal that was employed against the originally free and independent Indian nations and peoples of California.
Comment:  Nice to get the backstory on these popular tourist spots. To reiterate, the missions' goal was "spiritual and temporal conquest." Destroying a people's religion and culture is one aspect of genocide, of course.

4 comments:

writerfella said...

Writerfella here --
It often isn't examined or even delineated, but genocide happens in stages, beginning with contact and conquest or contact and subjugation, then follows assimilation and deconstruction, and at last isolation and acculturation. It worked in the Americas, but for obvious reasons failed in Korea and Viet Nam, and is failing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hints about historical lessons well learned? In those last four arenas, enemy strongholds and territories were called "Indian Country'...
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'

dmarks said...

I don't follow your comparison of this to the Korean War? Are you actually implying that it was the US failing to conquer all of Korea, and North Korea remains the free place?

writerfella said...

Writerfella here --
Though both Korea and Viet Nam were 'allied actions,' they only set the pattern for the later conflicts, also ostensibly 'allied actions.' But the largest role in any of those four was held and is being held by the US. But no, you have misread, dMarks, as writerfella only was indicating that success achieved in 'the Indian Wars' granted ill confidence that such success also would be guaranteed by tactics and strategies learned at that time. Their name may have been changed into 'hearts and minds' but the meaning still is the same...
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'

Rob said...

Unless you miswrote, Russ, the "it" in the following sentence

"It worked in the Americas, but for obvious reasons failed in Korea and Viet Nam, and is failing in Iraq and Afghanistan."

is genocide. To put it plainly, you've implied that the US goal in Korea and Vietnam was genocide.

If that's your position, I disagree. I think our goal was to defeat our enemies militarily but not to wipe them out culturally or physically.

Every act of aggression or imperialism isn't also an act of genocide. There are enough cases of actual genocide without stretching the definition to include such things as non-genocidal wars.