Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)
Christianizing the Indians.. Good or Bad? |
Post Reply 
|
Page <1234 6> |
| Author |
 Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search  Topic Options
|
|||
Guests 
Guest 
|
 Quote Reply
 Topic: Christianizing the Indians.. Good or Bad?Posted: 24-Oct-2007 at 13:06 |
|||
The Mesoamerican cross probably originated from a stylized corn cob |
||||
 |
||||
|
SuN.
Pretorian 
Joined: 26-Sep-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 156 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Oct-2007 at 13:14 |
|||
|
Very Very bad. Converting anybody forcefully is bad. Destroying anybody's culture is bad. People shout at osama for terrorism. What these Spanish, English etc. did was far far worse crime against humanity. It was a blot on humanity.
|
||||
|
God is not great.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Oct-2007 at 02:57 |
|||
Indeed, the people that suffered the most with colonization were the Natives of the Americas, Australia and the Pacific. All of them were invaded and converted in minorities in theirs own lands. They also suffered slavery, explotation, genocide and cruel crimes against humanity, the introduction of disseases, alcoholism, the pushing outside the mainstream into poverty and marginalization, the destruction of the genetic heritage through intermarriage and overcrowding by outsiders, the destruction of the culture, etc.
In comparison, all the crimes commited in Asia and Africa seem smaller, even considering how much those people suffered as well. In Africa nature conspired killing invaders with new disseases that killed in mass the Europeans. In Asia, the Europeans simply didn't have enough strenght to dominate milatary powers like Japan and China, and attacked what they could.
Only in the Americas, Australia and the Pacific, the European managed to change the demography in such scale the continent was never again was it was during 20.000 years before that tragic invasion.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Sander
AE Moderator 
Joined: 20-Mar-2007 Location: Netherlands Online Status: Offline Posts: 597 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Oct-2007 at 08:31 |
|||
Japan was well organized in the 1800s but China was western conquered.
Obviously , conquering , controlling and more can be done without mass scale forced Christianizing . This worked well at many places in north Africa, Asia etc . But if one also forces the people to adopt other religions, that a big loss of pre colonial identity. For some reason, in both the americas europeans( wether northen or southern ) seem to have been more fanatic than at most other places in the world.
Beeing Dutch will probably make me sound one sided in the following example but in regard to forced christianizing the people in the main dutch colonies were mostly left alone. Exploitation, killings etc, it was all there but no official mass conversion program in practice. The british did not seen to have been so fanatic in India either. There was some converting ofcourse but on the whole, Indies , India etc are now mostly like they were before, in religious sense. This saved much more pre colonial identity than in the americas.
Anyway, its important that achievements and histories of certain groups are not distorted. many people don't realize enough that much historio/ethnography of colonized areas has been written in colonial contexts and obscured some things. In many cases some healthy revisionism leads to better and sometimes surprising views
 Edited by Sander - 25-Oct-2007 at 12:22 |
||||
|
||||
|
SuN.
Pretorian
Joined: 26-Sep-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 156 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Oct-2007 at 15:00 |
|||
|
It was not that the colonists did not convert the people in Asia. The right statement is they could not convert people in Asia. The Chinese, Arabs, Turks, Persians, Indians were not poor or weak like the American, Australian natives. They were far ahead of the Europeans in most respects, but fell back militarily & technologically for some small time. The situation is going to be reversed in near future. Asia from Japan & Indonesia to Turkey & Dubai will again become the economic & military powerhouse of the world.
Japan was already at par with the west. China has cought up. Singapore, Hongkong, Dubai, Bombay are the new playgrounds of the neo-rich. India, Malaysia, Taiwan are the new frontiers of rising industry. So history is repeating itself. |
||||
|
||||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Oct-2007 at 15:09 |
|||
Where do you get the idea Amerindians were poor and weak, I wonder.
In fact, while Chineses, Arabs, Turks, Persians and Indians were striked periodically by hunger and deseases, pre-Columbian Americas was a paradise in comparison. In the Inca Empire nobody suffered of hunger. They have potatoes, the same food that helped Europeans afterwards.
Besides, if you consider how "weak" Amerindians were, you should realize that even with all theirs powers, during the first three centuries of colonization only half of the Americas were in hands of the Europeans, and that wasn't because they didn't try to get more.
Your concepts of "weak" and "poor" are not only wrong but it shows some biass.
That's true with respect to China and Japan. I doubt with respect to India, Indonesia or Phillipines, though, that were conquered with relatively easy.
Maybe. Nobody owns the future. Things change when we less expect it. So, Asia does not have the future in theirs hands as yet...
Edited by pinguin - 25-Oct-2007 at 15:12 |
||||
|
||||
|
SuN.
Pretorian
Joined: 26-Sep-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 156 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Oct-2007 at 16:17 |
|||
|
My statement about native American civilizations does not need any proof as everybody knows what eventually happened. The fact that Asia & America had different results eventually is itself proof of my statement. Mere availability of food does not make a region prosperous. Afghans in the recent past often did not have food to eat. But they were not weak.
Not only China & Japan but nearly the whole of Asia was very developed. India was called the Golden bird by westerners. The Persian & Ottoman empires were some of the biggest & richest. Culturally The region from Syria to India was the begining of civilization & culture. No matter how much you speak about the prosperity or strength of the native Americans, the fact was that they were simply nowhere in comparison to the turks or arabs or persians or afghans or mongols or indians. This was the reason thay the colonists were not able to completely subjugate the Asians. THe colonists came & went. The Asians are pretty much still there. All their cultures, religions, languages & civilizations fully intact. And growing. It is not that I wish to prove the superiority of Asians over native Americans. I am just stating the facts. The native Americans & Asians are brothers. The semi - mongoloid appearance of the native Americans is ample testimony to this. Anyway at every place the colonists tried to convert as many as possible, with different results. This is demonstrated by the high no. of christians in places where the tribal populations were not developed, much exposed to outsiders. This has been the story everywhere. Edited by SuN. - 25-Oct-2007 at 16:27 |
||||
|
||||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Oct-2007 at 16:47 |
|||
Then how do you explain that India, Indonesia, South East Asia, Phillipines and many other places suffered not less the oppresion of the Europeans?
How do you explain the expansion of Christianity in those territories? Or the fact that only a decade ago China could recover Hong Kong?
Don't beliueve so. Places like Tenochtitlan were more advanced by far than rural Asia. Of course Asia has more technology than the Americas but the difference is not as sharp as you prettend.
There is other difference which, in my oppinion, it is a lot more important than development: demographic density. Asia was several orders of magnitude more populated than the Americas at the times of the European invasions. The Americans simply didn't have the manpower enough to resist.
Agreed. However, the native american brothers also developed theirs civilizations in absolute isolation.
Yeap. And in phillipines, with 1/100th of the manpower the Spaniards had in Mexico, they managed to convert the locals in Catholics. Amazing, isn't?
|
||||
|
||||
|
Omar al Hashim
King 
Suspended Joined: 05-Jan-2006 Online Status: Offline Posts: 5697 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 03:13 |
|||
|
The Spainards forcably overlaid a pseudo-catholism over their captured territories in the true spirt of the inquisition. That applies not only to their territories in the Phillipines and America, but also to their european possesions in their struggle against protestantism.
While the philipinos are now catholic, they retain, in many aspects, a hindu tradition, because while the spaniads forced them to be catholic, hindu religion continued. Only after several generations of being pressured to be catholic, did catholisim become self-sustaining.
The spainaids, unlike the English or Dutch, cared alot about converting the natives. The English and Dutch were much more interested in profits, with any missionary activity being an afterthought. Indeed, stating that the English were sucessful in converting the Aborigines is a highly questionable statement.
A different kind of oppression. The Spanish forced you to be catholic before they thought about getting you to work. The East India Companies of the English and Dutch, forced you to work in the fields and only tried to convert you as an afterthought.
Plus, the Spanish were much more militarily dominant over their colonies than the English or Dutch. The English started off small, relied almost exclusively on Indian troops in Asia, and only managed to gain dominance through very cunning diplomacy over several centuries. The Spanish came and conqured, their Iberian counterparts the Portugese tried this in Asia and were defeated more often than not. |
||||
|
||||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 04:19 |
|||
|
That's interesting! I didn't know there was syncretism in the Catholic believes of phillipines, too. It is amazing that all over the world the people of different religions addopted Catholicism but preserved part of theirs own ancient believes.
That happened with the Celts in Ireland (The celtic cross with the Sun on it is very revealing), with the Natives in the Americas, with the African slaves in the Americas and also with Polynesians in Easter Island. And now you tell me that Phillipines wasn't the exception.
Syncretism is something really amazing.
Edited by pinguin - 26-Oct-2007 at 04:19 |
||||
|
||||
|
SuN.
Pretorian
Joined: 26-Sep-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 156 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 08:34 |
|||
Then how do you explain that India, Indonesia, South East Asia, Phillipines and many other places suffered not less the oppresion of the Europeans?
How do you explain the expansion of Christianity in those territories? Or the fact that only a decade ago China could recover Hong Kong?
Please read my previous post & then read the history of conversion in these lands. You may need to do some homework on this. The clue is already their in my post. Please be open minded. [/QUOTE]
Don't beliueve so. Places like Tenochtitlan were more advanced by far than rural Asia. Of course Asia has more technology than the Americas but the difference is not as sharp as you prettend.
There is other difference which, in my oppinion, it is a lot more important than development: demographic density. Asia was several orders of magnitude more populated than the Americas at the times of the European invasions. The Americans simply didn't have the manpower enough to resist. Thanks for accepting my stand & mentioning the exceptions. [/QUOTE]
Agreed. However, the native american brothers also developed theirs civilizations in absolute isolation.
Did I ever say no? I said they are brothers. They may have separate cultures. I am a Christian. My real brother is Hindu. My father is Buddhist, we stay in a joint family & have been so ever. [/QUOTE] Yeap. And in phillipines, with 1/100th of the manpower the Spaniards had in Mexico, they managed to convert the locals in Catholics. Amazing, isn't?
Please study the conditions prevailing in Philippines at that time & the conditions prevailing in Syria, Arabia, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, India at that time & you will get the answer. Edited by SuN. - 26-Oct-2007 at 08:37 |
||||
|
||||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 13:56 |
|||
|
Fellow, I know those conditions. I know the development of Asia in those times. It its just that you gave me the impression you have the idea that all the Americas were at the technological level of the natives of the Land of Fire at contact. The Europeans conquered were they had a chance. And the colonies they establish in Asia were the result of some regional weakness. In the 16th century it was absolutely impossible for Europeans to invade China or Japan, for instance, because there wasn't a technological advantage of Europe's technology with respect to those countries. They could grabs pieces of Indonesia and Phillipines simple because they were less developed and less populated that theirs neighbours up north. In the case of the Americas there was no way to stop Europeans from landing. How could 25 million people defend the 40% of the land surface? Europeans were comming by millions and pretty soon overcrowded locals.
Finally, distances make a difference. For every Spanish gallion that went from Mexico to Phillipines, a hundred went from Cuba to Spain. There is no way to compare the difference in traffic, communications and manpower.
Edited by pinguin - 26-Oct-2007 at 13:57 |
||||
|
||||
|
Sander
AE Moderator
Joined: 20-Mar-2007 Location: Netherlands Online Status: Offline Posts: 597 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 18:29 |
|||
It s rather the other way around. India and Indonesia were not even unified nations.China on the other hand was one unified empire. From all conquered regions in the far east , it was the largest nation. It had the biggest ecomy, large armies and 100s millions of people but it needed the least number of european troops to get conquered. After this it was sliced up. That these parts were called spheres of influences, is a bit decieving. occupation, domination and exploitation were just as real here.
Edited by Sander - 26-Oct-2007 at 18:47 |
||||
|
||||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 19:00 |
|||
|
China was only "conquered" in the 19th century. If Europeans had tried in the 15th, they would have been crushed. They attempted it in Japan but it didn't work... |
||||
|
||||
|
Sander
AE Moderator
Joined: 20-Mar-2007 Location: Netherlands Online Status: Offline Posts: 597 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 19:06 |
|||
|
1800s . yes but that counts for most states. Places like Goa India and Malacca, Malay peninsula were conquered in the 1500 s but these were relatively small pieces. If If you look at the more stronger states in India or SEA, you will see that its mostly end 18 th or 19 th century as well. Besides, before China could get full attention from the western powers m it was convenient that intervening part from India to China would be under firm control.Edited by Sander - 26-Oct-2007 at 19:15 |
||||
|
||||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 19:45 |
|||
|
The Americas were conquered earlier simply because the routes were shorter and it made more sense, because population densities were lower there. That meant, there were room were to put the excedents of population of the very fertile Europe of the time. It was only after the Independence of the U.S. that Britain changed the focus of its Empire to Asia and afterwords to Africa.
But by those times, immigrants continued to come to the Americas, instead of going to the new colonies (except Australia). The other colonies of Asia were mainly of explotation, while the Americas were make in colonies of settlement. Edited by pinguin - 26-Oct-2007 at 19:46 |
||||
|
||||
|
Sander
AE Moderator
Joined: 20-Mar-2007 Location: Netherlands Online Status: Offline Posts: 597 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Oct-2007 at 05:02 |
|||
|
There is a bit too much diverting. Lets keep Indians and christianizing centred again.
 I wonder, are there for the old Spanish Americas examples known where large ethnicities controlled by Spainards ( so not isolated communities)were allowed to stay non catholics and practice their pre colonial religions?
|
||||
|
||||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Oct-2007 at 05:45 |
|||
|
The answer has to be ambiguos: yes and no.
The Quechuas and Aymaraes, for instance, still today pray to the Pachamana (Mother Land) and offer her coca leaves... while at the same time attends to Church to hear the priest to pray. Being Catholic and following the ancient rituals was done at the same time. Sometimes encouraged by the priest themselves. Remember that even Spanish, besides being catholics, they also carried European superstitions with them, that were also tolerated to certain degree. What mattered was that you were Catholic... more or less.
Then you see the devils' parade in where everyone dresses as devils, ..... honouring the God or the Virgin!!!
The only way you understand that is going inside a Catholic Church in the Mayan region and realize you have not a clue where Catholicism stop and Paganism begins.
Now, the natives that preserved theirs freedom, kept theirs religions intact. However, in recent times they also become christianized but they still practise theirs rituals. In Chile, at least, native rituals are sometimes made in ecumenic ceremonies even in the main cathedral of Santiago.
On the other hand, influences go both ways. In Medicine is more clear. Herbal medicines of natives are common practises everywhere in the Americas. In Chile, for instance, there are chains of drug stores where you can buy all the naturistic medicines natives produce, sold in industrial envelopes and presentation.
These days, indigenous ceremonies are presented like part of our ethnic heritage to foreigners and to ourselves. Native religions are naturalistic and shamanistic, quite suitable for "new age" mentalities, so in recent years many non-native people has been influenced by theirs conceptions as well. Which is happening when Catholicism is sunking in this part of the world.
Edited by pinguin - 27-Oct-2007 at 05:51 |
||||
|
||||
|
Sander
AE Moderator
Joined: 20-Mar-2007 Location: Netherlands Online Status: Offline Posts: 597 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Oct-2007 at 06:06 |
|||
|
So your answer is more or less : No , they had to be catholic but the spaniards , in general, tolerated that some older /local elements were incorporated. Edited by Sander - 27-Oct-2007 at 06:08 |
||||
|
||||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Oct-2007 at 06:17 |
|||
|
Yeap, they had to be Catholic.
Still today, there are many "Catholic" like me that only go to church for their own baptism, the wedding and the funeral, besides some social compromises.
The fact is that in Bolivia everyone has its own Ekeko to bring good luck, and I bet priests and nuns have one too.
 |
||||
|
||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1234 6> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.108 seconds.
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.108 seconds.
