Christianizing the Indians.. Good or Bad?

Originally posted by pinguin Originally posted by The Canadian Guy This argument is never going to end...so I will not debate it any further!   Fellow, go to the point. Tell us precisely what happens in the schools for Indians at the beginning of the 20th century up to the 60s. I bet the other fellow don't have idea. I do, and I understand what you are saying.   The point is, not always christianization was that way. Fortunately, the times of Inquisition are gone, let's hope foundamentalism don't start again

When children were taken away form their families(and were beaten if they didn't leave) When they were in the school ground for the first time. They were beating for speaking their own tounge . They were  forced to take off anything they bore that was "Indian". Within a month, if they still live like and Indian they were beating. I many cases the females were sent into a room and were sexually abused. Every other child can hear the screams and moans of the two inside the room. Some tried to flee back to their families but most were unsuccessful. If they were caught, they would not feed them for a couple days. They were force to worship Jesus as almighty and a saviour, if they refused to go, they were again beaten.  After all this..if they make faith of god, they were deemed civilized and  that is that. Most didn't want to go back to their families, and most married non-Indians.  Some cases were rare and very few children died.


Edited by The Canadian Guy - 31-Oct-2007 at 22:01

Originally posted by pinguin   No more than what happens anywhere. I lived in Canada in an environment where everybody was nordic and most people have light eyes (germanics, ukranians, etc.). Well, the common people in the street didn't look as attractive at all like people shown on TV. Women were fat, rough facial features, all kind of imperfections.   On TV, though, people was perfect.   That's the same everywhere.

Of course it is, but the difference is that in Canada (or Europe for that matter) 90% of the population is white, while in Mexico whites are a minority. So when in Canada or Europe 90% of the 'pretty people' on television and so are white that's normal, but showing the same amount of whites on Mexican television enforces the stereotype that only white people can be pretty/succesful/whatever.

In fact, another student of my university who also went to Mexico told that a Mexican once told her that 'in Europe everyone is attractive', with which he meant that in Europe everyone is white.

I'm not claiming that racism is absent in Europe, but it is without a doubt much stronger in Latin America. And it's not only Mexico. Guatemala for example, even though 45% of the population is pure Mayan, the country hasn't had one Mayan president yet.

Originally posted by Mixcoatl Of course it is, but the difference is that in Canada (or Europe for that matter) 90% of the population is white, while in Mexico whites are a minority. So when in Canada or Europe 90% of the 'pretty people' on television and so are white that's normal, but showing the same amount of whites on Mexican television enforces the stereotype that only white people can be pretty/succesful/whatever.

Good for who? I know it my outlook on the situation. For the Native Americans, it may be "bad", but some natives liked the new religion. The European Catholics had "good" reasons for Christianizing them too.

Exactly my point, thanks for pointing that out The Canadian Guy.

Originally posted by The Canadian Guy My people did accept it early on. In fact still few Ojibwe accept the Christan faith.

Originally posted by pinguin Originally posted by garciaparra22 Regoberta Menchu  is not Mestiza     . Fellow. Most Amerindian peoples of today in Latin America are Mestizos. In the Mapuche population the European blood is circa 40%. However, I know Rigoberta is pure or almost pure Mayan   It was just a joke to confusse Europeans. In any case, I admire Rigoberta, but I bet she won't be selected to work in a soup opera. Other Mexican artists, though, with lot of Amerindian blood have been actresses in Mexican novelas. So I wonder when those accusations of TV-racism will stop.

What I have noticed at least is that the classical American racial categorization isn't that prevalent in Latin America. A lot of Latin Americans have mixed ancestries so there are various "groupings" if you will, however, they aren't really enforced or used. A European Mexican is much the same a mixed, or Amerindian Mexican at least from what I have seen from Latin Americans that I know. Is that notion largely correct?

Originally posted by es_bih What I have noticed at least is that the classical American racial categorization isn't that prevalent in Latin America. A lot of Latin Americans have mixed ancestries so there are various "groupings" if you will, however, they aren't really enforced or used. A European Mexican is much the same a mixed, or Amerindian Mexican at least from what I have seen from Latin Americans that I know. Is that notion largely correct?

How could we be racists if we have the same "racial" differences inside our families.

By denying those differences.