Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Christianizing the Indians.. Good or Bad?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 6>
Poll Question: Was the christianization of Indians good or evil
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
1 [4.35%]
1 [4.35%]
3 [13.04%]
4 [17.39%]
7 [30.43%]
7 [30.43%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Christianizing the Indians.. Good or Bad?
    Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 18:51
Whats the christianization of the Amerindians in the Americas in general (Spanish Empire, North America, Brazil/ by catholics and protestants) a good or a bad action? There are many reason for and against this.
 
What is your oppinion about this? Would you have done it in another manner? Was really an alternative?
 
an oppinion: from here:
 
 
Shadow%20of%20the%20Owl
 
The Trail of Tears
depicted in a
Native American painting called
"Shadow of the Owl"
 
Christianizing the Indians (1649)

It was on this date, July 19, 1649, that Edward Winslow, governor of Plymouth Colony (in what is now Massachusetts) helped to organize the Society for Propagating the Gospel in New England. Winslow (1595-1655) had become the colony's main representative in England, when he wasn't service as governor, so the Society was formed while he was abroad, between terms. The purpose of the Society was to Christianize the native people who had helped the beleaguered colonizers through their first winter, in which Winslow lost his own wife.

Winslow's band of Separationists had sailed on the Mayflower, via the Netherlands, whose atmosphere was not quite repressive enough. Their destination was the New World, where they established their own theocratic settlement at Plymouth in 1620. That first winter saw the deaths of half their 102 intrepid colonists, but making nice with the heathen residents enabled them to survive past 1621 and realize Winslow's other motive: Christian missionary work. No doubt they thought they were doing their American Indian friends a favor.

It was typical arrogance to suppose that the imported superstitions were in any way superior to the home-grown variety, but the Puritans achieved success just as the early Roman Church Christianized the dissolving Roman Empire: through force and law. Did they ever understand the beliefs of those they presumed to convert? As Canadian Justice Thomas Berger noted almost 350 years later,

The culture, values and traditions of native people amount to more than crafts and carvings. Their respect for the wisdom of their elders, their concept of family responsibilities extending beyond the nuclear family to embrace a whole village, their respect for the environment, their willingness to share all of these values persist within their own culture even though they have been under unremitting pressure to abandon them.*
The principal drive behind Christianizing the native people, aside from the cover story of saving their souls, has been to steal land for white settlements. This was ruthlessly accomplished through forced relocation (such as in the 1838 Cherokee "Trail of Tears"), suppression of tribal cultures and languages (for which at least the United Church of Christ apologized in 1991), and shipping Indian children to boarding schools for re-education (where stories of physical and sexual abuse eventually surfaced).

During the second half of the 19th century especially, Christianizing Indians turned aggressive. The Indian victory at Little Big Horn in 1876 was overshadowed by the collapse of resistance at Wounded Knee in 1890. US Indian Affairs Commissioners advocated the concentration of Indians on small reservations, more easily to control them, politically and economically. The native religions were crushed, even though they were comparatively harmless, as one author notes:

Rather than going to church, I attend a sweat lodge; rather than accepting bread and toast from the Holy Priest, I smoke a ceremonial pipe to come into Communion with the Great Spirit; and rather than kneeling with my hands placed together in prayer, I let sweetgrass be feathered over my entire being for spiritual cleansing and allow the smoke to carry my prayers into the heavens. I am a Mi'kmaq, and this is how we pray.**
In propagating their Gospel, Winslow and his fellow Christians down to the 1978 American Indian Religious Freedom Act (Public Law 95-341) were behaving in a conspicuously Christian manner toward heathens... with predictably disastrous results.

"If you take the Christian Bible and put it out in the wind and the rain," said one Native American woman, "soon the paper on which the words are printed will disintegrate and the words will be gone. Our bible is the wind."

* Justice Thomas Berger, Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry, aka the Berger Inquiry (1974-1977), quoted from religioustolerance.org.
** Noah Augustine, in "Grandfather was a knowing Christian," Toronto Star, 9 August 2000, quoted from religioustolerance.org.



Edited by pinguin - 05-Oct-2007 at 18:55
Back to Top
Adalwolf View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 08-Sep-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1230
  Quote Adalwolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 19:20
Bad when Natives were forcefully converted. Now, if missionaries went and just preached about Christianity, and natives converted of their own free will, that is fine. 
Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail.
     Edward Abbey
Back to Top
pekau View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Atlantean Prophet

Joined: 08-Oct-2006
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3335
  Quote pekau Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 00:04
Mostly, this was a failure because they often forced them and caused them to resist not only Catholic ideology, but also to the Western civilization. Plus, this missionaries often spreaded European diseases that natives are not immune of. These unsuccessful missionaries often helped the Western aggression to be more familiar with geography of the North and South America...
     
   
Join us.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 03:21
The conversion south of the border was done in a different manner, but easy to understand if you know Catholic Christianity.
 
Catholicism makes a lot of use of symbols, like icons in the churches, scenes and representations. This is something protestants can't accept or understand, but the explanation is simple:
 
The Catholics usually transmit theirs message both addresses to people of low and high culture. In the Middle Ages, most people didn't know how to read, so they "read" the "scriptures" by looking to the icons and representations in the Church. The Churches were the "books" of the analphabets. Of course, the most educated Catholics (those that wrote) had also access to the scriptures, but most the people learned the dogma by seeing images in the churches.
 
Now, the first thing the Spaniards did when they arrived to new territories was to build churches. And the churches called the curiousity of Indigenous people. Just imagine the curiousity of people if green people of Mars landed in the main square of your town! The natives felt attracted to that curious symbology-
 
It was not long after that the parallels arose: the cross was a common symbol between some Amerindian believes and the Christian. The figure of the Virgin Mother was similar to the godness of Earth, Christ on the cross was similar to human sacrifice!
 
Natives understood it at once, and priests realized that as well quite soon, and Christianization was focussed in re-engineering the believes of the Natives more than replacing them. It was an amazing work.
 
Even today, in many Catholic traditions in Latin America we are not certain how much is Christian and how much is Amerindian in some amazing, and beautiful, syncretic ceremonies that are preserved up to this day. The best Known example is the case of the Virgin of Guadalupe in Mexico.
 
Just another example. In the same routes in Lima, Peru, where the mummies of the Inca rulers were carried in procesion once a year, today pass the procesions of Catholic saints! So the mummies were changed by figures of wood, but the veneration, procession and faith were the same...
 
Amazing, isn't it?
 
So, was it good or bad? I believe the fact Indians could be Christianized saved them of complete genocide, at least South of the Border.
 
Pinguin
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Edited by pinguin - 06-Oct-2007 at 03:26
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1810
  Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 03:43
Its good in my opinion, I am a Muslim by the way, because it ended some of the most savage rituals the world have ever seen like sacrifycing children and POWs in the thousands (Sorry, I saw Apocalypto and I was terrified by the amount of sacrifice done so if I am wrong please tell me Pinguin)
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 04:03
Well, I believe Gibson was wrong about the Mayas. They practised human sacrifices as well, but not in the scale of the movie. However, a movie about the Aztecs, at the times of the Conquest, would have been pretty much the same as seeing Apocalypto.
 
In fact, one of the reason that many natives took the Spaniard side were precisely because they were afraid of Aztec the human sacrifices.
 
So, you are not wrong, I believe in seeing that as a brutal practise. However, Amerindians weren't the only people that have that custom. In ancient times in Eurasia and Africa, human sacrifices were quite common. In Palestine and also in Carthago the cult of Baal and others required human sacrifices. In China and in Mesopotamia there are remains of human sacrifices of the servants of the Kings, so they accompanied him to the other world. Germans, Celts and Norses also practised human sacrifices. However, you are right again that in those regions they were never practised in the scale of the Aztec empire.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Edited by pinguin - 06-Oct-2007 at 04:08
Back to Top
Sander View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator


Joined: 20-Mar-2007
Location: Netherlands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 597
  Quote Sander Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Oct-2007 at 23:15
 
Voted for nr. 5 
 
motivation  for it follows later
Back to Top
ehecatzin View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 16-Oct-2007
Location: Mexico
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
  Quote ehecatzin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Oct-2007 at 03:56
Pinguin makes a lot of good points and observations, in deed the first Spanish missionaries decided to adapt the mesoamerican religion into cristianity, another good example of this is the Day of the dead, wich despite several attempts from the church, was a celebration they couldnt take away, so they just decided to exten the celebration to two days, the second one being called "the day of all the saints" just after the day of the dead.

The thing is, they only started to take this mixing religions aproach after many failed attempts to convert the population, when Mexico city cathedral was built (using the Great temple stones) the priests were surprised to see so many people coming to the cathedral, just as pinguin says, the detail here is that the natives who where used to build the cathedral hid images of their Gods in it, and the people knew it and went to the cristian temple to worship their own Gods, this shows that even for the Mexica, their religion was much more than human sacrifices.

Still, answering the post poll, I choose No.4 the religion itself was not the problem, but along with it came all sort of things that destroyed mesoamerican culture, like the spanish inquisition, not only torturing people on public, but condeming as demonic every part of the native culture.

This kind of argument comes all the time in conversations in Mexico, all it takes is someone to say "damm Spaniards/church  they destroyed our culture" and a debate would start about how "the spanish brought many good things! like religion" yes...we didnt had a religion before, or culture..thanx europe!

ahh well I think Im ranting now, my wacom tablet just died and Im pissed...well just concluding, yes, cristianity, and more exactly the spanish inquisition killed mesoamerican culture.
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091
  Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Oct-2007 at 04:08
I chose the first answer, which should be no surprise to those who know me. Even though the various forms of Christianity the natives were given by the Europeans were not quite the fullness of the "real faith" (well, except for the Yupiks, Aleuts, and other Alaskan tribes), the gift of the Gospel of Christ is of incomparable value; it is the pearl of great price.
 
That said, while the "Christianization" of the native Americans was good, the methods through which it took place were sometimes morally reprehensible. While the majority of the missionary work was carried out by kind-hearted priests, there were instances when soldiers forcibly converted the natives. Any attempt to coerce someone into becoming a Christian is utterly indefensible.
 
-Akolouthos
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Oct-2007 at 21:54
Yeap...
But considering that in Europe protestants were burning hundred of thousand of witches for the fun of it, it is still amazing that Spaniards were patient enough to "give Indians a chance" to become Catholics....
 
That amazes me. 
Back to Top
eaglecap View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 15-Feb-2005
Location: ArizonaUSA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3959
  Quote eaglecap Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Oct-2007 at 23:23
I once met a Sioux Indian, who was a born again Christian, tell me the only good thing about the coming of the white man was he brought God's Word to them. This was her thoughts about the arrival of Europeans.
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε
Back to Top
ehecatzin View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 16-Oct-2007
Location: Mexico
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
  Quote ehecatzin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Oct-2007 at 07:51
Originally posted by pinguin

it is still amazing that Spaniards were patient enough to "give Indians a chance" to become Catholics....


And after being baptised they slaved their new native catholics and made them work until dead...actually after the smallpox epidemic pretty much killed most of the population there wasnt much people left to burn, better save them for manual labors. at least something like that happened in the Anahuac valley.

The spanish missionaries did becamed kinda patient when it camed to converting other conquered kingdoms, like the Purepechans for example, they had the whole "convert to cristian method" pretty practiced by then. Still even in Michoacan it was relatively easy to convert the population as well as most men where killed or slaved...
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091
  Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Oct-2007 at 08:30
Originally posted by ehecatzin

And after being baptised they slaved their new native catholics and made them work until dead...actually after the smallpox epidemic pretty much killed most of the population there wasnt much people left to burn, better save them for manual labors. at least something like that happened in the Anahuac valley.

The spanish missionaries did becamed kinda patient when it camed to converting other conquered kingdoms, like the Purepechans for example, they had the whole "convert to cristian method" pretty practiced by then. Still even in Michoacan it was relatively easy to convert the population as well as most men where killed or slaved...
 
Well, I think we need to distinguish between the depredations of the traders and colonists and the benevolent actions of the rather well intentioned (in the early colonial period, at least) missionaries.
 
-Akolouthos
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Oct-2007 at 21:48
Originally posted by ehecatzin

Originally posted by pinguin

it is still amazing that Spaniards were patient enough to "give Indians a chance" to become Catholics....


And after being baptised they slaved their new native catholics and made them work until dead...actually after the smallpox epidemic pretty much killed most of the population there wasnt much people left to burn, better save them for manual labors. at least something like that happened in the Anahuac valley.

Too much John Wayne movies... I guess LOL
 
Nope. Something that's not usually said because it is not P.C. is the following. Indians in both Peru and Mexico were treated like slaves even BEFORE Spanish arrived. Besides, it is not usually said that many INDIANS colaborated with the Spanish.
Even more, people don't usually remember that the Spanish foot soldier was usually treated as bad as the Indian....
Finally, the idea that 99.9999% of Amerindians died after the first cold they get is pretty dumb, indeed. Too much exagerated. The fact that Mexico, Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, Guatemala and many other countries are mainly Amerindian even today tell us other history.
 
 
Originally posted by ehecatzin


The spanish missionaries did becamed kinda patient when it camed to converting other conquered kingdoms, like the Purepechans for example, they had the whole "convert to cristian method" pretty practiced by then. Still even in Michoacan it was relatively easy to convert the population as well as most men where killed or slaved...
 
John Wayne once again. I have antecedents to claim the conquest of Chile was a lot more brutal and long than Mexico or Peru, with a lot more people dying. More Spaniards died in Chile than in all the countries of Latin America together. However, Indians not only survived but they are today a lot more than at the beginning of the conquist, and Spaniards never won!
 
Ban John Way historians LOL
 


Edited by pinguin - 18-Oct-2007 at 21:48
Back to Top
garciaparra22 View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 17-Oct-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 39
  Quote garciaparra22 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Oct-2007 at 20:01
Originally posted by Adalwolf

Bad when Natives were forcefully converted. Now, if missionaries went and just preached about Christianity, and natives converted of their own free will, that is fine. 
 
 
 
I agree with you.
Back to Top
Lmprs View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 30-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1869
  Quote Lmprs Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Oct-2007 at 20:59
Anyone should be allowed to convert, but since Christianity was forced upon them in one way or another, it's bad. Religion was probably their least concern though.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Oct-2007 at 21:20
Originally posted by Feanor

Anyone should be allowed to convert, but since Christianity was forced upon them in one way or another, it's bad. Religion was probably their least concern though.
 
Who said it was forced? That's the point. What was forbidden was the practise of shamanism which was equated with witchcraft, and that was persecuted in the same way Celtic and Norse paganism. The main victims, indeed, where the shamans but not the regular people. However, shamanism survived, anyways, mixed with European underground magic.
 
Now, it is very clear for historical accounts that Catholicism satisfied natives, because allowed them to mantain theirs believes in syncretic forms. The bleedy Jesus in the cross sounded very familiar for mesoamericans and other amerindians, accustumed to human sacrifices. certain ideas like eating the blood (wine) and the flesh (bread) were not unknown either. Even carrying the saints in procession seemed familiar to Incas who did the same with the mummies of theirs ancient Incas. And the cross is very important in pre-colombian cosmologies, and no wonder Quetzalcoatl is represented carrying one.
 
Now, for people that doesn't know, in those times to be Christian was to be considered human, so it helped to protect natives as well the fact they were baptized.
 
 
 
 
 
 


Edited by pinguin - 23-Oct-2007 at 21:23
Back to Top
garciaparra22 View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 17-Oct-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 39
  Quote garciaparra22 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Oct-2007 at 22:39
Originally posted by pinguin

 
The bleedy Jesus in the cross sounded very familiar for mesoamericans and other amerindians, accustumed to human sacrifices. certain ideas like eating the blood (wine) and the flesh (bread) were not unknown either. Even carrying the saints in procession seemed familiar to Incas who did the same with the mummies of theirs ancient Incas.
 
 And the cross is very important in pre-colombian cosmologies, and no wonder Quetzalcoatl is represented carrying one.
 
 
 
 
 
However, it is interesting to note the resemblance of the Quetzacoatl legend with that of the myth of the Pahana held by the Hopis of northern Arizona. Scholars have described many similarities between the myths of the Aztecs and those of the American Southwest, and posit a common root.[3] The Hopi describe the Pahana as the "Lost White Brother
 

There are followers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claim that the idea of Quetzalcoatl descended from the visitation of Jesus Christ to the Americas after his resurrection in about 34 AD. This is recorded in great detail in The Book of Mormon following the end of his ministry in Judea. This claim is based in the idea that the name (translated as Feathered Serpent) was given because Christ was born and preached among the poor (serpents move along the ground) and because of the manner in which he appeared in Mesoamerica (descending from heaven). This idea is most prominently voiced by the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) and is not official doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Do you think Jesus Christ visited the Americas, and he was Quetzalcoatl ?
 
 
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Oct-2007 at 02:54

Of course not.

I just know the deep meaning of the cross in esoterical terms. (I was active freemason time ago). To speak very simple, there are common symbologies to all mankind that for some reason repeat over and over again in different religions. One is the cross. Other is the archetype of the martyr (sacrificial victim), lamb of the holocaus, et al. There are hundreds of them.
 
If you compare religions you will se that probably both Jesus and Quetzalcoatl were human beings that become God (were revered like that in the same way Caesar become a God, too)... And you will also realize they could very well have similar lives.
 
So, no wonder you can exchange them and still keep the same beliefs.
 
In fact, Santeria (using catholic saints to represent pagan gods) was always used as a way to preserve old gods. That happened between the pagans of Europe, Africa and the Americas.
 
Protestantism, which make enphasis in the scriptures, and forbides images, is a lot more rejecting of syncretism than catholicism. To preserve an ancient religion, catholicism is a lot more friendly.
 
 
 
 
 


Edited by pinguin - 24-Oct-2007 at 02:57
Back to Top
garciaparra22 View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 17-Oct-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 39
  Quote garciaparra22 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Oct-2007 at 03:17
Originally posted by pinguin

Of course not. 

 
If you compare religions you will se that probably both Jesus and Quetzalcoatl were human beings that become God (were revered like that in the same way Caesar become a God, too)... And you will also realize they could very well have similar lives.
 
So, no wonder you can exchange them and still keep the same beliefs.
 
 
 
 
You might be right. Quetzalcoatl  was probably a human being who was very knowledgeable,he probably was just a priest at the start and evolved to a god like person.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 6>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.