Christianism logo image

ADDITION 32

from (3/12/2000): San Diego State University: photograph, with caption:

"Women's History Month Exhibit

Creating Their Own Path

Women Who Paved The Way"


"SDSU'S Dept. of Women Studies"

"Missionary Kate McBeth and a group of Nez Perce women (ca. 1889-91). When the CONVERSION OF INDIANS TO CHRISTIANITY became part of FEDERAL POLICY in the early 19th century, missionaries were encouraged to live among various tribes and set up schools and churches [an example of how Imperialism was effected, upon, and in, "American Indian societies"]. Conversion to Christianity almost always diminished the role of women in the governance of American Indian societies, which were, unlike Christianity, traditionally matrilineal [overstated (complex)] societies."

[Note: I thank a woman professor, for the article by Carol Devens, 1423, the book by Clifford E. Trafzer, 1439, the reference: Encyclopedia of North American Indians, Frederick E. Hoxie, editor, Houghton Mifflin, c1996 (no Bibliography, but, Bibliographies (69-71). numerous Biographies)].



from: Addition 11, 908: [drawing of 5 Indians] 'In 1816, when world traveler Louis Chorls drew these [California (31st state, 1850)] Mission converts, he wrote, "I have never seen one laugh. I have never seen one look one in the face. They look as though they are interested in nothing." By 1816 this was true.'

from: Addition 11, 909: 'In 1850 Pedro Alcantara, born in 1786, spoke of his people, "I am a Christian Indian, I am all that is left...I am alone. I do not complain, the antelope falls with the arrow."'

PAGE 1409




from: The Infidel's Text-Book, Being the Substance of Thirteen Lectures on The Bible. By Robert Cooper [1819 - 1868] [see 1413], Author of "The Holy Scriptures Analyzed," &c.,

"The greatest part of the Christian world can hardly give any reason why they believe the Bible to be the Word of God, but because they have always believed it, and they were taught so from their infancy."--Dr. Isaac Watts.

First American, Republished from the London Edition. Boston: Published by J.P. Mendum, at the Office of the Boston Investigator. 1876 (1858) (England 1846).

[this reference, thanks to Neil Nissenbaum ("Onslow Free Thought Society--Newsletter--"(neilniss@onslowonline.net))].

'We will now notice a people who were unknown to Christians till so late a period as the 14th century--the American Indians. Even this uncultivated race entertained views of morality of which "civilized" Christians might be proud. The reply of the famous Indian, Red Jacket, to the Christian Missionary, Mr. Cramp [Cram], is highly characteristic.--The priest tells the Indians that they were in darkness, and that there could be only one true religion, and it was his. The reply of the Indian affords a memorable instance of the moral dignity and simplicity of that virtuous and unsophisticated race. It is given in Howitt's "History of Christianity and Colonization [Colonization and Christianity] [1838]," p. 397-401. Red Jacket [Sagoyewatha 1758? - 1830 (Seneca Chief)] eloquently observes:--

[from: Colonization and Christianity: A Popular History of the Treatment of the Natives by the Europeans in all their Colonies, William Howitt 1792 - 1879 ['Howitt was a professed "adherent of the main doctrines of the Quakers and the New Testament,"' (A History of Freethought in the Nineteenth Century, 2 vols., vol. 1, J.M. Robertson, 1929, 78)], Negro Universities Press, 1969 (1838), 397:

'In the year 1805 a council was held at Buffalo, by the chiefs and warriors of the Senecas, at the request of Mr. Cram from Massachusetts. The missionary first made a speech, in which he told the Indians that he was sent by the Missionary Society of Boston, to instruct them "how to worship the Great Spirit," and not to get away ["get away" = acquire, etc.] their lands and money; that there was but one true religion, and they were living in darkness, etc. After consultation, Red-Jacket returned, on behalf of the Indians, the following speech, which is deservedly famous, and not only displays the strong intellect of the race, but how vain it was to expect to christianize them, without clear and patient reasoning, and in the face of the crimes and corruptions of the whites.

"Friend and brother, it was the will of the Great Spirit that we should meet together this day. He orders all things, and he has given us a fine day for our council. He has taken his garment from before the sun, and caused it to shine with brightness upon us. Our eyes are opened that we see clearly; our ears are unstopped that we have been able to hear distinctly the words that you have spoken. For all these favours we thank the Great Spirit and him only.

PAGE 1410


"Brother, this council-fire was kindled by you. It was at your request that we came together at this time. We have listened with great attention to what you have said; you requested us to speak our minds freely: this gives us great joy, for we now consider that we stand upright before you, and can speak whatever we think. All have heard your voice, and all speak to you as one man; our minds are agreed.']

[following, is the continuation of the speech, by Red-Jacket, from: The Infidel's

Text-Book]

"Brother, you say you want an answer to your talk before you leave this place. It is right you should have one, as you are at a great distance from home, and we do not wish to detain you; but we will first look back a little, and tell you what our fathers have told us, and what we have heard from the white people.

"Brother, listen to what we say. There was a time when our forefathers owned this great island. Their seats [places, abodes, etc.] extended from the rising to the setting sun. The Great Spirit had made it for the use of Indians. He had created the buffalo, the deer, and other animals for food. He made the beaver and the bear, and their skins served us for clothing. He had scattered them over the country, and taught us how to take them. He had caused the earth to produce corn for bread. All this he had done for his red children because he loved them. If we had any disputes about hunting-grounds, they were generally settled without the shedding of much blood; but an evil day came upon us: your forefathers crossed the great waters, and landed on this island. Their numbers were small; they found friends, and not enemies; they told us they had fled from their own country for fear of wicked men, and came here to enjoy their religion. They asked for a small seat. We took pity on them, granted their request, and they sat down among us. We gave them corn and meat, they gave us poison (spirituous liquors) in return. The white people had now found out our country, tidings were carried back, and more came among us; yet we did not fear them, we took them to be friends: they called us brothers, we believed them and gave them a larger seat. At length their numbers had greatly increased, they wanted more land,--they wanted our country! Our eyes were opened, and our minds became uneasy. Wars took place; Indians were hired to fight against Indians, and many of our people were destroyed. They also brought strong liquors among us; it was strong and powerful and has slain thousands.

"Brother, our seats were once large, and yours were very small. You have now become a great people, and we have scarcely a place left to spread our blankets. YOU HAVE GOT OUR COUNTRY [see Addition 11, 909; 1416], BUT ARE NOT SATISFIED;--YOU WANT TO FORCE YOUR RELIGION UPON US.

"Brother, continue to listen. You say that you are sent to instruct us how to worship the Great Spirit agreeably to his mind, and if we do not take hold of the religion which you white people teach, we shall be unhappy hereafter. You say that you are right, and we are lost; how do you know this? We understand that your religion is written in a book; if it was intended for us as well as you, why has not the Great Spirit given it to us, and not only to us, why did he not give to our forefathers the knowledge of that book, with the means of understanding it rightly? We only know what you tell us about it; how shall we know what to believe, being so often deceived by the white people?

PAGE 1411


"Brother, you say there is but one way to worship and serve the Great Spirit. If there is but one religion, why do you white people differ so much about it? Why not all agree, as you can all read the book?

"Brother, we do not understand these things. We are told that your religion was given to your forefathers, and has been handed down from father to son. We also have a religion which was given to our forefathers, and has been handed down to us their children. We worship that way. It teaches us to be thankful for all the favors we receive; to love each other, and to be united;--we never quarrel about religion.

"Brother, the Great Spirit has made us all; but he has made a great difference between his white and red children. He has given us a different complexion, and different customs. To you he has given the arts; to these he has not opened our eyes. We know these things to be true. Since he has made so great a difference between us in other things, why may we not conclude that he has given us a different religion according to our understanding? The Great Spirit does right: he knows what is best for his children: we are satisfied.

"Brother, we do not wish to destroy your religion, or take it from you; we only want to enjoy our own.

"Brother, you say you have not come to get our land or our money, but to enlighten our minds. I will now tell you that I have been at your meetings, and saw you collecting money from the meeting. I cannot tell what this money was intended for, but suppose it was your minister; and, if we should conform to your way of thinking, perhaps you may want some from us.

"Brother, we are told, that you have been preaching to the white people in this place. These people are our neighbors; we are acquainted with them: we will wait a little while, and see what effect your preaching has upon them. If we find it does them good, makes them honest and less disposed to cheat Indians, we will then consider again what you have said.

"Brother, you have now heard our answer to your talk; and this is all we have to say at present. As we are going to part, we will come and take you by the hand, and hope the Great Spirit will protect you on your journey, and return you safe to your friends."

[Note: this reply, by Red Jacket, resembles other Indian replies; courteous--OVERPOWERED!]

"The Missionary, hastily rising from his seat, refused to shake hands with them, saying, 'there was no fellowship between the religion of God and the works of the Devil.' The Indians smiled and retired in a peaceful manner."

O! what a contrast between the Barbarian and the Christian! How noble the virtue of the one, how disgusting the bigotry of the other! What a glorious triumph of morality over religion! What an unanswerable proof that a people may be VIRTUOUS WITHOUT THE BIBLE, AND VICIOUS WITH IT!' [259-262].

PAGE 1412


from: A History of Freethought in the Nineteenth Century, J.M. Robertson, 2 vols., vol. 1, Watts, 1929 (1930, G.P. Putnam's Sons).

"As regards militant freethought on the popular plane, the activities thus far reviewed may be said to be summed-up in 'The Infidel's Text-Book' (1846), a condensed reproduction of thirteen lectures by Robert Cooper [see 1410]4 (b. 1819), a young schoolmaster in the Co-operative Schools, who at seventeen was an acknowledged Owenite lecturer and debater. A youthful work by him, 'The Holy Scriptures Analysed,' was denounced by the Bishop of Exeter in the House of Lords; and he was dismissed from his post (1841), becoming a Socialist Missionary, with a strong freethinking bent.

The 'Infidel's Text-Book' reflects the temper naturally generated by persecution in young combatants, who, aspersively dubbed infidels, defiantly bear the flag. It is, as the author claims, a systematic attack on the Bible all along the line, drawing on a considerable knowledge of eighteenth-century criticism, remorselessly applied; and for a good many years it was a popular militant hand-book, till in 1858 he re-modelled it into a treatise on 'The Bible and its Evidences.' In 1854 he started the London Investigator, which entered on a new current of propaganda, coming in 1858 into the powerful hands of the young Charles Bradlaugh [1833 - 1891]. Like him, Cooper was until his death (1868) actively engaged in political reform, thus carrying on the twofold impulse set up by Paine [Thomas Paine 1737 - 1809]." [78-79].

PAGE 1413


from: Beyond 1492, Encounters in Colonial North America, James Axtell, Oxford, 1992.

'On the eve of contact with Europeans, native Americans everywhere were in the inexorable process of adapting to changes in their environment, natural and man-made, as they had been for thousands of years.2

But the unforeseen arrival of Columbus [Christopher Columbus 1451 - 1506] accelerated change in both of the ancient worlds he effectively yoked together, particularly in that world he came to regard as new. For the Admiral and his successors carried in their holds powerful catalysts of change, the likes of which the natives had never known. Epidemic disease was the most powerful and the most terrible because it killed and maimed without warning and apparently without reason. It could be spread at will by those possessed of its maleficent secrets, but never stopped until it had run its deadly course through the "virgin soil" populations of the Americas. It attacked with indiscriminate and lethal efficiency, claiming as its victims young and old, men and women, shamans, kings, and commoners alike, leaving only the pale newcomers unmarked and standing. Smallpox or pneumonic plague could easily erase 50--90 percent of a native community or tribe in one terrifying visitation, forcing the dazed and battered survivors to alter their lives in ways scarcely experienced or imagined before 1492.3

Another force for change was equally new and audacious, but it appeared less dangerous because it wore a human face, however disfigured by unsightly hair. IF DISEASES WERE THE SHOCK TROOPS OF THE INVASION OF AMERICA, CHRISTIAN MISSIONARIES WERE ITS COMMANDOES, DISGUISED IN FEMININE BLACK ROBES AS MEMBERS OF A PEACE CORPS. Although they came bearing a message from a "Prince of Peace," they unconsciously bore a whole civilization that would not tolerate the America they had found. In its claim to universality and adamantine truth, evangelical Christianity had no room for "false gods," strange rituals, and local beliefs. It sought to bend the "pagan" and "infidel" worlds to its own will and vision of the good, true, and beautiful. In America as in China, "Christianity was a religion that changed customs, called into question accepted ideas and, above all, threatened to undermine existing situations."4 In countless instances, it not only threatened, it did so. As agents of change, missionaries in post-Columbian America had no human equals and only one strain of superiors.

PERHAPS THE BEST AGENTS OF ALL WERE THE JESUITS. By history and design, the Society of Jesus was destined to change the American world. It was a fraternity designed for war, the greatest human engine of social change. Its founder [Saint Ignatius of Loyola 1491 - 1556] was a stubborn Spanish-Basque courtier-soldier, much taken with the "exercise of arms" in young manhood. The Society he founded was sanctioned by the pope in 1540 in a bull entitled Regimini militantis Ecclesiae, which accurately reflected its pugnacious stance toward the Protestant Reformation and international "paganism." The Spiritual Exercises that Loyola devised for his recruits sought to dissolve their individual wills in Christ's, which, they were reminded, was to "conquer the whole world," particularly "all the lands of the infidel."5 ....' [155-156].

PAGE 1414






"In the Jesuit reserves of New France [see 1423], the natives experienced other alterations in their traditional ways of living and thinking, some the result of religious prescriptions, others because of the Jesuits' cultural preferences. All Jesuit neophytes had to acquire a new sense of time and, to some extent, space. CATHOLIC TIME was very different from the natural rhythms of the seasons by which the Indians kept time. Rather than the migrations of geese, the sprouting of green corn, or the break-up of river ice, the missions marked time by ecclesiastical calendars, mechanical clocks, and church bells. One day a week was set aside as a holy day of rest; 165 days (the equivalent of 5 1/2 months) a year were supposed to be meatless (although the benign pragmatism of the Sorbonne faculty enabled Canadians to regard the beaver as a fish).25 Bells called worshippers to Mass twice a day, and special holy days, dedicated to the lives of Christian saints from a strange and distant world, punctuated the church calendar." [165].

"The daughters of converts probably felt the loss of their customary freedom most keenly. Because the new converts believed that Eve tempted Adam with the fruit and brought sin upon mankind, her descendents were held liable for the sexual straying of his; and in the Catholic Church at this time, sexual sin was considered more dangerous than pride, the original transgression. Accordingly, the patriarchal priesthood and newly patriarchal native families were charged with bridling the dangerous "license" of Indian girls, most of whom traditionally enjoyed the sexual and behavioral freedom of their brothers.26" [166].

[Illustration] "Two Huron women converted by Jesuit missionaries, worshipping their new Christian God instead of (or perhaps in addition to) their ancient deity, the SUN. From Novae Franciae Accurata Delineatio (1657), probably by Francesco Bressani, S.J., who worked among the Hurons in the 1640s." [167].

[from: The Native American Sun Dance Religion and Ceremony, An Annotated Bibliography, Phillip M. White, Greenwood, 1998. "Introduction The SUN Dance is the best known and most dramatic of North American Indian ceremonies, and it is the most spectacular religious ceremony of native North America...."].

"Although native women and children were the initial targets of Jesuit control, their husbands and fathers were never far behind. They soon discovered that even grown men were not exempt from the lash of Christian discipline. No one who was whipped for running away from Spanish missions or for some venial sin in Canada could miss the Jesuit's hand behind the sting administered by garrison soldiers or by native gobernadores, fiscales, and dogiques.28 Nor could they fail to notice the loss of independence in their lives, nor how they had to answer to a new hierarchy of authorities, with precious little voice in their selection. In the Indians' new world, colonial--particularly Jesuit--rule meant an acute loss of autonomy in virtually every facet of life. For many natives, the Jesuit priest wa [was] the most visible and vocal symbol of their predicament.

TO AN EXTENT UNIMAGINABLE BEFORE COLUMBUS, BLACKROBED FOREIGNERS [CHRISTIANS!] NOW DECIDED FOR MANY NATIVES WHAT TO EAT, HOW TO LIVE, WHEN TO WORK, WHOM TO OBEY, AND EVEN THEIR FATE AFTER DEATH." [168].

PAGE 1415


from: Ethnohistory, Volume 7, ["Composed...at Indiana University"], 1960.

'Christianity and Indian Lands


Fred M. Kimmey


Indiana University


[44-57, text; 57-60, Notes, and, Bibliography]


One of the most curious aspects of the expansion of Europeans into North America is the attitude of the White man toward aboriginal land rights. Historians, it seems, have generally tended to oversimplify the issue. Although the historian Louis B. Wright has shown that religion played a far greater part in European expansion than the negative one of justifying universal aggression against pagans, in a more typical treatment another historian, James A. Williamson, dismisses the question by stating that Christianity saw itself as "ipso facto in a state of war with all infidels. That is the justification of the licence to 'conquer, occupy, and possess'...It is the moral basis of all the early empire-building of the European peoples."1 Admittedly, Williamson was dealing, in this instance, with the subject of John Cabot's first patent, a topic somewhat removed from the more legalistic problems of Indian land rights. Nevertheless, such explanations are misleading because they imply that the "state-of-war" justification was everywhere accepted among Europeans: this was not the case. Very popular and well circulated were opinions in opposition to arbitrary seizure, such as those stated by the clerics Francisco de Vitoria [1492 - 1546 ("However, unlike Las Casas, Vitoria changed his theory so as to justify the Spanish seizure of treasure in the Americas." (Internet (Oregon State U.))]2 and Bartolome de los [las] Casas [1474 - 1566]3 and by the "father of international Law," Hugo Grotius [1583 - 1645].4 But even more important, statements like Williamson's fail entirely to take into account the early seventeenth-century English theory that the Indian was receiving fair value for his land since the White man was bringing him the Word of the Lord....' [see footnotes 1, 2, 3, 4, page 1419] [44-45].

[reminiscent, of much "legal" action. Those in power know what they intend to do, then, via legal abracadabra, and/or fiat, they win--you lose!].



[Comment: (classic story) a native speaking: "When you came, we had the land, and you had the Bible! Now, you have the land, and we have the Bible!"]. [source?]. [See: Imperialism]. [from: Addition 11, 909]

PAGE 1416


'....we must go back to 1583 to the publication by Sir George Peckham [d. 1608] of a tract reporting the settlement of Newfoundland by Sir Humphrey Gilbert [c. 1539 - 1583].9 In this tract Peckham describes two sorts of colonizing activities: "The first when Christians by the good liking and willing assent of the Savages, are admitted by them to quiet possession. The second, when Christians being unjustly repulsed, doe seeke to attaine and mainteine the right for which they doe come."10 When trying to establish Christianity either type of activity may be undertaken. It is obviously best to use the first method whenever possible but if after "good and Fayre" means are used the savages cannot be satisfied, then "I hold it no break of equitie for the Christians to defend themselves, to pursue revenge with force,...for it is allowable...to resist violence with violence." And further, if they continue to attack, "the Christians may issue out, and by strong hard [action] pursue their enemies, subdue them, take possession of their Townes, Cities, or Villages, and to use the Law of Arms..." Such action might be necessary to protect the property of the newly converted savages since after the departure of the Christians wicked rulers might return to idolatry [compare: contemporary political noises, about Democracy, in foreign countries].

Now in accomplishing all this Christians "shall in no whit" transgress "the bonds of equitie or civilitie..." Eusebius [c. 260 - c. 340] and other "Ecclesiastical Historiographers" are also called upon by Peckham as testimony to the justice of using arms to reduce pagans to Christianity. By this means it is "proved that we may....lawfully plant and inhabite their countries [this paragraph, one classic, of Christian heinousness]."11' [46-47].

'Ministers of the Church of England played no little part in spreading abroad the idea that Christianity was fair payment for the Indian land. Probably the first sermon published to stimulate the advancement of the Virginia Colony was that of William Symonds [1556 - 1616? "created D.D. [Doctor of Divinity] 1613" (Concise Dict. Nat. Bio.)], preached in 1609 at Saint Saviours in Southwardke.14 The published tract was entitled "Virginia Britannia;" passages of the "Epistle Dedicatorie" are quoted to preserve the author's continuity of thought:

Long since the Gospell of Christ did ride forth conquering that hee might over-come. And Now, the hostes that are in heaven doe follow him on white horses. For the Lord hath made bare his holy arme...and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of God...And now the wise and industrious Merchant, doth hold the riches of the Gentiles too base a fraight for his shippes. He tradeth for his wisdome, that saith: Surely the Isles wait for me (saith the Lord) and the shipes of the ocean most especially: namely to carry the Gospell abroad...who can with-draw himselfe from concurrance in so good an action....

PAGE 1417


In the body of his sermon Symonds builds upon Genesis 12:1. "For the Lord had said unto Abram, get thee out of thy country, and from thy Kindred, and from thy father's house, unto the land I will show thee." This Symonds interprets as a message to the English people. The Lord is instructing them to leave their homeland and remove to "the Isles [that] wait for me," i.e., that wait for the Word of the Lord. They have been called: "Let us be cheerfull to goe to the place that God will shew us to possesse in peace and plentie, and Land more like the Garden of Eden: which the Lord planted, than any part else of all the earth." Obviously the belief that it was the destiny of the English people to colonize the new-found land of America was by then firmly entrenched....

In a sermon preached at Paul's Cross on the 28th of May, 1609, the Reverend Daniel Price proclaimed that anyone who opposed the plantation of Virginia "and the saving of souls...is an adversary of Christ." There are great expectations from colonizing activities. The profits are both in the present and future: by turning the savages to the path of righteousness not only will their souls be saved but the bounds of the kingdom will be enlarged.

Do on as you have begun, and the Lord shall be with you; go, and possess the Land it is a good land, a land flowing with milk and honey, God shall bless you, and those ends of the World shall honor him.16' [49-51].



'one finds it difficult to conjure up a picture of an American-Indian welcoming the expropriators of his land with the words "How beautiful are the feet of them that bring glad tidings..." However, it is apparent most Englishmen were, by this time, convinced the Lord had chosen their nation for the task of converting the natives of North America and that by their conversion (always at the "great charge and expence" of the English) they were paid in full for loss of land.' [53].



'The predominant role of religion in the life of Jacobean England, and all of Europe for that matter, leaves no mystery surrounding the almost reflexive use of Christianity to establish theoretical justification for seizure of land from a primitive people. Historical methodology apart, it is the seventeenth-century dependence upon religious answers to any knotty problem that requires us to divide our intellectual sympathy, in however unequal portions, between the aboriginal inhabitants of North America and an expanding Europe.

PAGE 1418


Notes


1. Wright, Religion and Empire; Williamson, Voyages pp. 155-156. While Wright has admirably shown the influence of religion on the larger and more complex topic of early imperialism I have limited my study here to the specific question of the connection between Christianity and aboriginal land rights, or stated more directly,

THE RELIGIOUS JUSTIFICATION FOR SEIZURE OF LAND FROM THE NORTH AMERICAN INDIANS.

2. According to Vitoria [Francisco de Vitoria 1492 - 1546 (see 1416)] neither king nor pope had the right to parcel out the land of the Indians. See Wise, The Red Man, p. 59; also McNickle, North American Indians, vol. 12, p. 207.

3. Hanke, The Spanish Struggle, pp. 131-132. For a brief interpretation of the famous debate between Bartolomé de las Casas [1474 - 1566] and Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda [1490? - 1574] and an interesting reassessment of Sepúlveda's position see Quirk, Some Notes on a Controversial Controversy, [Hispanic American Historical Review] vol. 34 , pp. 357-364.

4. Grotius [Hugo Grotius 1583 - 1645] asserted "discovery" was not licence to seize the land if it was occupied. Rose, Cambridge History of the British Empire, vol. 1, p. 192.' [57-58].

PAGE 1419


from: Documents of United States Indian Policy, Second Edition Expanded, Edited by Francis Paul Prucha, University of Nebraska, 1990 (c1975).

"Preface


These documents illustrate the history of the relations between the United States government and the American Indians from the founding of the nation to the present time....

Francis Paul Prucha, S.J.

Marquette University

Milwaukee, Wisconsin" [xi].



"74. Indian Commissioner Taylor on Transfer of the Indian Bureau

Extract from the Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs

November 23, 1868


The proposal, advanced strongly in the late 1860's and again a decade later, to transfer the Bureau of Indian Affairs from civilian control under the Interior Department to military control under the War Department brought a spirited attack from Commissioner Nathaniel G. Taylor. He admitted, however, that affairs had not been well handled under the Interior Department, and he recommended the creation of a separate department of Indian affairs." [118].



'4. Military management of Indian affairs has been tried for seventeen years and has proved a failure, and must, in my judgment, in the very nature of things, always prove a failure.

Soldiers are educated and trained in the science of war and in the arts of arms. Civilians are taught in the sciences and arts of peaceful civilization. In lifting up races from the degradation of savage barbarism and leading them into the sunlight of a higher life, in unveiling to their benighted vision the benefits of civilization and the blessings of a peaceful Christianity, I cannot for the life of me perceive the propriety of the efficacy of employing the military instead of the civil departments, unless it is intended to adopt the Mohammedan motto, and proclaim to these people "Death or the Koran."' [119].

PAGE 1420


"79. Report of the Board of Indian Commissioners

November 23, 1869


The first report of the Board of Indian Commissioners shows how seriously they took their responsibilities. They presented a startling indictment of past dealings with the Indians and then offered recommendations for changes in Indian policy which foreshadowed most of the reforms proposed through the rest of the century." [131].

"While it cannot be denied that the government of the United States, in the general terms and temper of its legislation, has evinced a desire to deal generously with the Indians, it must be admitted that the actual treatment they have received has been unjust and iniquitous beyond the power of words to express." [131].

"The establishment of Christian missions should be encouraged, and their schools fostered. The pupils should at least receive the rations and clothing they would get if remaining with their families. The religion of our blessed Saviour is believed to be the most effective agent for the civilization of any people." [133-134].



'80. Indian Commissioner Parker on the Treaty System

Extract from the Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs

December 23, 1869


The treaty system of dealing with the Indians had long been under attack because of the inequality of the two contracting parties. After the Civil War such criticisms came to a head and contributed to the abolition of treaty making in 1871. One strong statement against negotiating treaties with the Indians was made by Commissioner Ely S. Parker, who was himself a Seneca Indian [unexpected! details?], in his annual report of 1869.

....Arrangements now, as heretofore, will doubtless be required with tribes desiring to be settled upon reservations for the relinquishment of their rights to the lands claimed by them and for assistance in sustaining themselves in a new position, but I am of the opinion that they should not be of a treaty nature. It has become a matter of serious import whether the treaty system in use ought longer to be continued. In my judgment it should not. A treaty involves the idea of a compact between two or more sovereign powers, each possessing sufficient authority and force to compel a compliance with the obligations incurred. The Indian tribes of the United States are not sovereign nations, capable of making treaties, as none of them have an organized government of such inherent strength as would secure a faithful obedience of its people in the observance of compacts of this character. They are held to be the wards of the government, and the only title the law concedes to them to the lands they occupy or claim is a mere possessory one. But, because treaties have been made with them, generally for the extinguishment of their supposed

PAGE 1421


absolute title to land inhabited by them, or over which they roam, they ["INDIAN TRIBES"] HAVE BECOME FALSELY IMPRESSED WITH THE NOTION OF NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE. It is time that this idea should be dispelled, and the government cease the cruel farce of thus dealing with its HELPLESS AND IGNORANT WARDS. Many good men, looking at this matter only from a Christian point of view, will perhaps say that the poor Indian has been greatly wronged and ill treated; that this whole country was once his, of which he has been despoiled, and that he has been driven from place to place until he has hardly left to him a spot where to lay his head.

This indeed may be philanthropic and humane, but the stern letter of the law admits of no such conclusion, and great injury has been done by the government in deluding this people into the belief of their being independent sovereignties, which they were at the same time recognized only as its dependents and wards....' [134-135].



"96. General Sherman on the End of the Indian Problem


October 27, 1883


In his final report as General of the Army, William T. Sherman noted the end of the Indian wars and the settlement of the Indian question." [159].

"7th. Resolved, That education is essential to civilization. The Indian must have a knowledge of the English language, that he may associate with his white neighbors and transact business as they do. He must have practical industrial training to fit him to compete with others in the struggle for life. He ["THE INDIAN"] MUST HAVE A CHRISTIAN EDUCATION TO ENABLE HIM TO PERFORM DUTIES OF THE FAMILY, THE STATE, AND THE CHURCH...." [164].

[Index] "Christianization of Indians, 63, 77, 92, 119, 124-25, 127, 133-34, 135, 157-58, 164, 166" [328].

PAGE 1422


from: American Quarterly, Volume 38, 1986, Number 3. ["461"-479, text; 479-480, Notes].

'Separate Confrontations:

Gender as a Factor in Indian

Adaptation to European

Colonization in New France


Carol Devens


Rhodes College


" 'It is you women,' " charged the men, " '...who are the cause of all our misfortunes,--it is you who keep the demons among us. You do not urge to be baptized; you must not be satisfied to ask this favor only once from the Fathers, you must importune them. You are lazy about going to prayers; when you pass before the cross, you never salute it; you wish to be independent. Now know that you will obey your husbands.'"1 With this angry accusation the Christian men of a Montagnais Indian band in New France, frustrated by the persistence of traditional religion in their community, identified women as the major obstacle to the group's conversion. The band had been under the direct influence of the French since a Jesuit priest convinced the survivors of the 1639-40 smallpox epidemic to accompany him from their small camp at Three Rivers to the St. Joseph mission at Sillery. There the French sheltered and provided for them, and resident Christian Indians demanded their conversion. Whether the women of the group eventually capitulated was not noted by the priest who recorded the incident. He did remark that at least one woman fled into the forest rather than submit. The men, believing that the women's independence and apparent lack of interest in Christianity had divided the group, resolved that should she be captured, they would chain and starve her as punishment.2 ....' ["461"].

"Conversion placed unaccustomed restrictions upon women. The French socioeconomic structure and belief system distinctly favored men. The Christian message of the priests stressed the authority of the male in society and the family. The trading system itself was one in which men dealt with men. Many women did not willingly accept the imposition of European-defined sex roles and their resistance was expressed in their reluctance to convert. This resistance--related to social and economic changes as well as religious factors--became a divisive force in many native communities...." [462].



["New France": "At its greatest extent it included much of southeast Canada, the Great Lakes region, and the Mississippi Valley." (www.dictionary.com)].

PAGE 1423


'The priests staffing the Jesuit missions in New France were educated and earnest men who worked tirelessly to promote European religious and cultural values in Indian communities. The disparities between their world-view and that of their prospective converts, however, constituted an ongoing source of discomfort and irritation. In a letter to Le Jeune [Paul Le Jeune: dates?] with suggestions for instructing new missionaries Father Jean de Brebeuf [1593 - 1649], of the Huron mission of Ste. Marie, explained the problems of life in the field: "...LEAVING A HIGHLY CIVILIZED COMMUNITY, YOU FALL INTO THE HANDS OF BARBAROUS PEOPLE WHO CARE BUT LITTLE FOR YOUR PHILOSOPHY OR YOUR THEOLOGY. ALL THE FINE QUALITIES WHICH MIGHT MAKE YOU LOVED AND RESPECTED IN FRANCE ARE LIKE PEARLS TRAMPLED UNDER THE FEET OF SWINE, OR RATHER OF MULES, WHICH UTTERLY DESPISE YOU WHEN THEY SEE THAT YOU ARE NOT AS GOOD AS PACK ANIMALS AS THEY ARE."16 The Indians, in turn, often were puzzled by the urgency with which the priest initially attempted to change native customs and beliefs. Pierre Biard [1576 - 1622], of the first Jesuit mission (1611-16), found that when he argued with Indians about some practice they responded accordingly: "That is the Savage way of doing it. You can have your way and we will have ours; every one values his own wares."17' [464].

"The confrontation between [Montagnais (see 1423)] men and women of St. Joseph's [mission] at Sillery was by no means an isolated incident. Indeed, the Jesuits recorded similar episodes of resistance throughout New France. The missionary effort became a divisive force in many native communities because women and men reacted to the Jesuit assault in very different ways. Men more often seemed receptive to European religion and customs. At first the Jesuits consciously chose to focus their proselytizing on men and boys, alternating attacks on male hunting and divination rituals with blandishments of the comforts and virtue of life as a Christian man." [465].

'The Fathers found the ease with which Indian couples obtained divorce equally distressing. "The stability of marriage is one of the most perplexing questions in the conversion and settlement of the Savages" wrote Vimont [Barthélemy Vimont], head of the missions after Le Jeune, "we have much difficulty in obtaining and maintaining it."45 And Pierre Boucher [1622 - 1717], several times governor of the Three Rivers settlement and a resident of New France from 1635 until 1717, observed that "divorce is not an odious thing among them [sic] Indians....for when a woman wishes to put away her husband, she has only to tell him to leave the house, and he goes out of it without another word...."46 In fact, most Indians found divorce quite acceptable if a couple had a hostile or unsatisfying relationship. Women felt free to leave spouses who were poor or lazy hunters or who were otherwise not adequate mates.47

PAGE 1424


To the Jesuits this situation was untenable. The priests clearly understood that if native Christian communities were to develop successfully sexual freedom, divorce, and polygamy had to be eliminated. By 1638 they [Jesuits] had decided that dispensing land and money might be the most effective inducement to marital fidelity, "for a husband will not so readily leave a wife who brings him a respectable dowry; and a woman, having her possessions near our French settlements, will not readily leave them, any more than her husband"--or so they hoped.48 The missionaries worked hard to get women to accept monogamy since they were convinced that "it was not honorable for a woman to love anyone else except her husband."49 They often had to rely on male converts to enforce observation of this alien practice, however. In one notable instance, zealous Christians at Sillery captured a woman who had left her husband and, with the French Governor's approval, imprisoned her without food, fire, or cover in early January.50 Women, particularly non-Christians, resisted the change because it was not to their advantage. They undoubtedly wanted to retain control over their sexual activities. Moreover, women objected to monogamy for more practical reasons. A Montagnais convert told Le Jeune that "since I have been preaching among them that a man should not have more than one wife, I have not been well received by the women; for, since they are more numerous than the men, if a man can only marry one of them, the others will have to suffer. Therefore this doctrine is not according to their liking."51

To be sure, some women apparently accepted the Jesuits' teachings. For most of them, however, conversion seems to have been a protective measure aimed at preserving social and religious autonomy when outright resistance proved dangerous. They may have converted for the sake of their families, striking a bargain with the Christian God to save a sick one's life. Some, such as the young woman whom Le Jeune recommended to the dungeon, decided that Catholicism was preferable to flogging or imprisonment--an understandable choice.52 It is likely that in many instances conversion decreased the pressures applied to a band by the French and alleviated tensions which arose in communities such as St. Joseph's from conflict over religious allegiances. Quite possibly, superficial observance of Christian practices enabled women to divert attention from themselves.53

If converted, women tended to interpret and manipulate Christianity to serve their own needs....' [468-469].

PAGE 1425


'The experiences of native women in New France were not unique but are part of uneven, gender-based social change which has been a trademark of Western colonization. This has been most frequently described in contemporary cases of "developing" Third World societies in Africa or South America, but it clearly has been a factor in historic situations as well.83 Women's resistance to Christianity--and all that faith represented--in seventeenth-century New France [see 1423] can be seen as a rational strategy designed to preserve a way of life which maximized female autonomy and authority. In the face of changes which threatened to deprive them of social, economic, and ritual significance women stressed customs which reinforced older beliefs dependent on reciprocity between the sexes. Their success in this effort cannot be measured by their often marginal positions in the colonized communities which developed around missions and trading posts. It must be considered internally, in the context of the very survival of Indian societies. It seems likely that women's adherence to "traditional" ways strengthened in the course of their confrontation with missionaries and converts. In effect, their efforts to protect their interests as women may have created a vehicle which ensured the persistence of native culture and ideology through women's identity.' [476] [End of text].

PAGE 1426


from: The Invasion Within, The Contest of Cultures in Colonial North America, James Axtell, Oxford, 1985.

'From Canada to the Carolinas, the anti-Christian "evil one" [Devil] held the benighted natives in thralldom, especially their shamans and conjurers, who were thought to be on speaking terms with him. By this token, of course, native religious customs could be seen by the Christian strangers as "only superstitions, which we hope by the grace of God to change into true Religion."24

But ONE MAN'S SUPERSTITION IS ANOTHER MAN'S RELIGION, as a glanced at any dictionary will quickly reveal. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word superstition derives from the Latin superstitio, "soothsaying," by way of Old French and Middle English. By the early decades of the sixteenth century it had come to mean "irrational religious belief or practice...founded on fear or ignorance," with the connotation that the religion was "false, pagan, or idolatrous." Webster's first (and unchanging) American definition merely augmented the word's pejorative character by speaking of "an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God, proceeding from ignorance, unreasoning fear of the unknown or mysterious." Religion, on the other hand, was seen by the European wordsmiths as the "service and adoration of God or a god as expressed in forms of worship." Many skeptics have seen through the illusion of difference, but none more clearly than Thomas Hobbes [1588 - 1679]. The "fear of things invisible," he wrote in Leviathan, "is the natural seed of that, which every one in himself calleth religion; and in them that worship, or fear that power otherwise than they do, superstition."25 In short, SUPERSTITION HAS NO OBJECTIVE REALITY; IT IS MERELY AN ASPERSION USED BY ONE GROUP TO DENIGRATE THE RELIGION OF ANOTHER. Accordingly, it is best dropped from the historian's descriptive vocabulary.' [13].

'The Jesuits also departed from Recollect [black robes = Jesuits; gray robes = Recollects ["Friars Minor" (387)] (78)] thinking on the capacity of the Indians for social and intellectual improvement. While the friars though them barely above the level of brutes, the Jesuits "intitle[d] them to good sense, to a tenacious Memory, and to a quick Apprehension season'd with a solid Judgment," whereby they "readily apprehend the meaning of the Scriptures." As early as 1632, the missionaries who worked with the Algonquins and Montagnais were convinced that they were "not so barbarous that they cannot be made children of God....Education and instruction alone are lacking." Le Jeune [Paul Le Jeune] compared the natives he knew to the uneducated villagers of France and concluded that, man for man, "the Indians are more intelligent than our ordinary peasants."61' [60].

'....And to prop up the whole Christian community as it strove for complete hegemony over native life, the Jesuits sought to recreate in the North American wilderness the major institutions of Roman Catholicism--chapels and churches, sodalities ["sodality, an association of Catholics to promote the spiritual life of its members, apostolic works of evangelization, and aid to those in need (see can. [canon] 298). Jesuit John Leunis organized the first sodality in Rome (1563)." (HarperCollins Encyc. of Catholicism, c1995)] and sacraments, calendars and choirs, ceremonies and services.

PAGE 1427


Though armed with a formidable array of personal and institutional weapons and fired by an uncommon zeal, the Black Robes [Jesuits] did not conquer the lands of the Canadian infidels with anything like celerity. A MAJOR IMPEDIMENT WAS THE DISCONCERTING BELIEF OF THE NATIVES IN THEIR OWN SUPERIORITY, to which many stubbornly held even after the French fathers had done their best to disabuse them. Indeed, they were convinced that the priests' very attempts to do so were further evidence of the priests' general imperfection.

To form a low opinion of the strangers the Indians had but to look them over and to observe their behavior for a short time. The long black and gray robes of the Jesuits and Recollects were not only effeminate but a positive liability in woods or on water. When wet they dried slowly and dragged sand into the canoe; when dry they caught on underbrush, attracted stinging insects, and absorbed the summer sun--along with the Frenchmen's distinctive scent of onions, salt, and garlic. Equally repulsive were the Jesuits' breeches, which would have slowed the hunter-warrior in pursuit of his prey and prevented him from squatting to urinate, as he [Indian] was wont to do.23

Worse yet were the priests' beards and haircuts. The native idea of crowning beauty was long, stiff, black hair, "all lustrous with grease." To them, short-cropped hair on any part of the body was so repulsive that whenever a missionary fell into the hands of an Indian enemy his beard and tonsure were among the first objects of the torturer's rage. In the 1660s the Outagamis (Fox) killed any Frenchmen they found alone because they could not endure the sight of their beards....' [78].

'Another priestly oddity was their pointed disinterest in women. Although most of the northeastern tribes knew short-term continence among warriors before and during a war party, they did not immediately appreciate the missionary's view of perpetual celibacy. Like most Europeans, they could not imagine a man without a woman; ignorant of the monastic tradition, they could imagine still less a life without sex. When the Recollects worked among the Hurons in the 1620s, they were bombarded with requests to marry. "In these importunities," wrote Brother Sagard [Gabriel Sagard (Recollect (see 1427))] with some embarrassment, "the women and girls were beyond comparison more insistent and plagued us more than the men themselves who came to petition us on their behalf." For reasons such as this, the missionaries who lived among the sexually liberated natives felt in need of truly "angelic chastity," for as Father Le Jeune [Paul Le Jeune] put it, "one needs only to extend the hand to gather the apple of sin." When religious eyes could no longer support the sight of so much "lewdness, carried on openly," the priests moved to separate quarters, thereby earning even lower marks for sociability. Only with the advent of lonely French traders and soldiers did the fathers' lack of interest in Indian wives and daughters begin to win favor.25' [79].

'The Indians' intellectual capacity was never at issue; according to the Jesuits, who were old hands at evaluating brainpower, they compared favorably with peasants, rural villagers, and even "the shrewdest citizens and merchants" in France.41 Only the novelty and complexity of the Christian credo imposed barriers to native understanding [more confirmation, for the intelligence of the Indians].

PAGE 1428


THE NOVELTY OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF STEMMED LARGELY FROM THE HISTORICAL ORIGINS OF THE RELIGION IN A COURSE OF EVENTS SURROUNDING THE LIFE OF JESUS CHRIST [NOT "HISTORICAL"!] (a man the Indians had never heard of) in the Near East (a part of the world they did not know existed) more than sixteen hundred years before (an inconceivable length of time for oral peoples). It was all news to the natives that the Great Spirit (God), after creating the universe from nothing, made the first man and woman on earth and promised them eternal life in Paradise for their faith and obedience (many of the northeastern Indians, particularly the Iroquoians, believed that a water-covered earth existed before a Sky-Woman fell from heaven to people a gigantic island, formed on the back of a turtle from mud gathered by a diving animal); that the first couple disobeyed God, thereby staining their progeny with original sin and condemning them to eternal punishment in a fiery Hell (the Indians knew only a beneficent afterlife and nothing of sin); that in His mercy God breathed the holy spirit into the womb of a virgin, who bore His Son, Jesus (the Sky-Woman, too, became miraculously pregnant by "the wind," but bore twins, one good, the other evil); and that after a blameless life of teaching God's commandments, Jesus took upon himself the sins of the whole world and sacrificed his life upon a cross so that man might live again in purity and merit the joys of Heaven.42 Perhaps equally stunning was the news that the Indian peoples of America, a continent unknown to the Old World when and long after Jesus lived, were included in this divine plan, and that the Black Robes [Jesuits] had been sent by Christ's captain [the Pope] on earth to convey the good news written in God's Book.' [105].

'....Even the missionaries promise that converts would go eventually to the Christian heaven carried the implicit threat of separation from loved ones and relatives in the traditional land of the dead. "We are well as we are," protested a Massachusetts woman, "and desire not to be troubled with these new wise [is that the word she used?] sayings."37

The sharp exclusivity of Christianity in all things--rituals, morality, afterlife--was to Indian thinking not only divisive but foolish. When new Christian gods and spirits could be added to the traditional pantheon without cultural dissonance, it made little sense to put one's whole trust in such novelties until they could be tested by time. The limber pragmatism of native religion was especially attractive when missionaries from many denominations hawked their spiritual wares while proclaiming the one true faith.

For traditional Indians, conversion to Christianity had three other serious drawbacks. First, it diminished their intellectual independence by imposing upon them spiritual directors and culture brokers from an alien, often hostile world. If the natives were forced to swallow greater dependence on European trade goods and military allies, they could at least choose to remain at ideological liberty. Secondly, most of their tribesmen who received a Black Robe's moist benediction upon their foreheads died shortly after, apparently the victims of the white man's sorcery.

NOT WITHOUT REASON, MANY NATIVES THOUGHT THAT "BELIEVING [IN CHRISTIANITY] AND DYING WERE ONE AND THE SAME THING."38

PAGE 1429


Finally [Third], it took little time for the Indians to discover that the Christian preoccupation with the future cast a pall on the traditional pleasures of the present. To enter the "narrow way" of scriptural conformity was to submit to a weekly Sabbath and daily abnegation that frowned on familiar feasts, songs, dances, games, and cures, on sexual relations and even economic necessities such as hunting and fishing. WHY SHOULD WE PRAY TO GOD AND BELIEVE IN JESUS CHRIST, ASKED SOME OF ELIOT'S [John Eliot 1604 - 1690] FIRST AUDITORS, WHEN, "OUR CORNE IS AS GOOD AS YOURS, AND WEE TAKE MORE PLEASURE THAN YOU?"39

Strengthened by arguments such as these, the Indians' "hereditary prejudices" toward their own religious culture greatly frustrated the missionaries who labored to wean them from it. But when traditionalist arguments were illustrated with examples from "the Contemptible State of the domesticated Tribes" (as Sir William Johnson described them), potential converts dug in their heels even deeper.40 Those Senecas who listened to a war chief declaim against the foreign presence of Samuel Kirkland and his Holy Book would have thought long and hard before opening their ears to the stranger.

"Brethren attend!" intoned Onoongwandikha. "You may be assured, that if we Senecas...receive this white man and attend to the Book which was made solely for white people, we shall become a miserable abject people....How many remnants of tribes at the East are so reduced, that they pound sticks to make brooms to buy a loaf of bread or it may be a shirt...Why, their grandsons are all become mere women!...

[I]f we change or renounce our religion for that of the white people, we shall soon lose the spirit of true men....We shall be sunk so low as to hoe corn and squashes in the field, chop wood, stoop down and milk cows like negroes among the Dutch people."41

Behind the worried words of the Seneca warrior lay more than two hundred years of cultural resistance by eastern natives who thought their own ways at least equal, if not superior, to those proffered by the missionaries. When the missionaries overstepped the native bounds of courtesy and pressed them to change their thinking, the Indians time and again made a characteristic response. If during a theological debate with the missionary a native leader was not convinced of the wisdom of the Christian position, he would close with a subtle plea toward toleration. "All your arguments," warned Pierre Biard from experience with the Micmacs, "and you can bring on a thousand of them if you wish, are annihilated by this single shaft which they always have at hand, Aoti Chabaya (they say), 'That is the Indian way of doing it. You can have your way and we will have ours; every one values his own wares.'"42 By a similar tactic the Hurons tried to dampen Father Brébeuf's ardor for their conversion. "Do you not see that," they asked him, "as we inhabit a world so different from yours, there must be another heaven for us, and another road to reach it?"43 Sometimes the rejection could be even more pointed. The Iroquois at Shamokin minced no words in spurning the offer of David Brainerd in 1745 to settle among them for two years, build a church, and call them together every Sunday "as the whites do." "We are Indians," they announced, "and don't wish to be transformed into white men. The English are our Brethren, but we never promised to become what they are. As little as we desire the preacher to become Indian, so little ought he to desire the Indians to become preachers."44 The preacher left the next day.

PAGE 1430


In the face of so many compelling reasons for standing pat, it might seem strange that Indians even considered changing their religious ways. Yet, to judge from the number of native converts in the colonial period, many obviously entertained the possibility long enough at least to reject it. What impelled them to give a hearing to the missionaries? What was capable of penetrating their cultural complacency and glacial indifference to normative novelty?

Contemporary critics of the missions and historians of a similar disposition have insinuated that many--even most--of the Indians who listened to the missionaries were "wheat and eel" Christians, beggarly hypocrites who grunted assent to the missionaries' preachments only as long as they were offered a pipe of tobacco, a nip of brandy, or a handful of biscuits. Understandably, the critics' suspicions increase when the missionaries or their political benefactors raise the material ante. When converts are given military garrisons in besieged villages, discounts at the company store, elaborate gifts, and exclusive rights to purchase firearms, as they were in Huronia, skeptics' eyebrows fairly soar. The difficulty [?] with such wholesale incredulity [?] is that gifts were the lubricant of all native social interaction, and a missionary who tried to gain an audience without them would have preached to the trees....' [281-282].



'Chapter Thirteen


The White Indians


It is very easy to make an Indian out of a white man....

Frances Slocum (Weletawash) [1773 - 1847]

The contest of cultures in colonial North America was far from one-sided. Despite superior technologies, aggressive religions, prolific populations, and well-articulated ideologies of imperialism, the French and English invaders enjoyed no monopoly of success in converting enemies to their way of life. In fact, the Indian defenders of the continent were more successful, psychologically if not numerically, than either of their European rivals. Partly because of their unrealistic goals, the English had little success in converting Indians to Christian civility and virtually no success in persuading French Catholics to become anglicized Protestants. The French, on the other hand, hit upon a winning combination of methods for drawing large numbers of natives to at least minimal adherence to Catholic Christianity and substantial numbers of English prisoners to both Catholicism and loyalty to French colonial culture. But the Indians, despite all odds, succeeded in seducing French and English colonists in numbers so alarming to European sensibilities that the natives were conceded to be, in effect, the best cultural missionaries and educators on the continent.

PAGE 1431


An indispensable article in the European faith in the superiority of their own civility was that no civilized person in possession of his faculties or free from undue restraint would choose to become an Indian. "For, easy and unconstrained as the savage life is," wrote the Reverend William Smith of Philadelphia, "certainly it could never be put in competition with the blessings of improved life and the light of religion, by any persons who have had the happiness of enjoying, and the capacity of discerning, them."1

And yet by the close of the colonial period large numbers of French and English settlers had chosen to become Indians--by walking or running away from colonial society to join Indian society, by not trying to escape after being captured, or by electing to remain with their Indian captors when treaties of peace periodically afforded them the opportunity to return home....

Benjamin Franklin [1706 - 1790] wondered how it was that

When an Indian Chief has been brought up among us, taught our language and habituated to our Customs, yet if he goes to see his relations and make one Indian Ramble with them, there is no persuading him even to return. [But] when white persons of either sex have been taken prisoners young by the Indians, and lived a while among them, tho' ransomed by their Friends, and treated with all imaginable tenderness to prevail with them to stay among the English, yet in a Short time they become disgusted with our manner of life, and the care and pains that are necessary to support it, and take the first good Opportunity of escaping again into the Woods, from whence there is no reclaiming them.3

In short, "thousands of Europeans are Indians," as Hector de Crèvecoeur [1735 - 1813] put it, "and we have no examples of even one of those Aborigines having from choice become Europeans!"4' [302-303].



'"By what power does it come to pass," asked Crèvecoeur, "that children who have been adopted when young among these people,...and even grown persons...can never be prevailed on to re-adopt European manners?"74 Given the malleability of youth, we should not be surprised that children underwent a rather sudden and permanent transition from European to Indian--although we might be pressed to explain why so few Indian children [and the "few Indian children", were probably subject to the duress of "accommodation or annihilation", and/or, material inducements (see 1431)] made the transition in the opposite direction., But the adult colonists who became Indians cannot be explained as easily, for the simple reason that they, unlike many of the children, were fully conscious of their cultural identities while they were being subjected to the Indians' assiduous attempts to convert them. Consequently, their cultural metamorphosis involved a large degree of personal choice.

PAGE 1432


The great majority of white Indians left no explanations for their choice. Forgetting their original language and their past, they simply disappeared into their adopted society. But those captives who returned to write narratives of their experiences left several clues to the motives of those who chose to stay behind. They stayed because they found Indian life to possess a strong sense of community, abundant love, and uncommon integrity--values that the European colonists also honored, if less successfully. But Indian life was attractive for other values--for social equality, mobility, adventure, and, as two adult converts acknowledged, "the most perfect freedom, the ease of living, [and] the absence of those cares and corroding solicitudes which so often prevail with us." As we have learned recently, these were values that were not being realized in the older, increasingly crowded, fragmented, and contentious communities of the Atlantic seaboard, or even in the newer frontier settlements.75 By contrast, as Crèvecoeur said, there must have been in the Indians' "social bond something singularly captivating."76 Whatever it was, its power had no better measure than the large number of French and English colonists who became, contrary to the civilized assumptions of their countrymen, white Indians.'

[326-327] [End of Chapter].



'Epilogue:


Education and Empire


Soap and education are not as sudden as a massacre,

but they are more deadly in the long run.

Mark Twain [Samuel Langhorne Clemens 1835 - 1910]

Christianity is and always has been an evangelical, a proselytizing religion; missionaries are essential to its nature. CHRIST AIMED AT THE SPIRITUAL CONQUEST OF THE WHOLE WORLD, not just the Near or Middle East. THE EARTHLY REALIZATION OF THE CHRISTIAN VISION ENTAILS THE CONVERSION OF THE ADHERENTS OF ALL OTHER RELIGIONS--MUSLIM, BUDDHIST, TAOIST, POLYTHEIST, MONOTHEIST.

BY ITS VERY NATURE, CHRISTIANITY IS EXCLUSIVE AND INTOLERANT;

one cannot be a Hindu and a Christian at the same time. In the shadow of the Cross, all other beliefs and practices pale into insignificance.

Christianity is also a historical religion, a faith more of time than place. In the birth, life, and death of Christ it ["Christianity"] found its origins, vision, and driving purpose. Time for Christians pivots on Christ's axis--B.C. and A.D.--and the Bible, divided into Old and New Testaments, is the telling of that epic story. Historical time is merely the premonition and fulfillment of God's prophecies, which will culminate definitively, if figuratively, on the Last Day of Judgment. The meantime, the here and now, is dedicated to the endless and usually thankless task of saving pagans and heretics from eternal perdition.

PAGE 1433


It was fitting, if also paradoxical, that Christopher Columbus, who witnessed the final reconquista of Spain from the Moors, discovered a New World while seeking in one corner of the Old World (China) the wealth to mount an anachronistic crusade to liberate Jerusalem in another and restore it as the seat of Christendom.1 Wishing to expand the empire of Christianity by conquering ancient and obdurate enemies, he [Columbus] discovered a whole continent of new, seemingly docile souls perishing without benefit of clergy. By pulling America into the relentless stream of Christian time, Columbus inadvertently redirected the evangelical energies of European Christianity toward the Occident and introduced the American natives to the civilized notion of conquest as conversion. In that deceptive guise, much harm was--and still is--done in the name of philanthropy....' [329].

'The conversion of the natives entailed such a cultural metamorphosis that they became trusted scouts, sentries, and soldiers for the European colony whose churches they attended. The fiercest defenders of colonial borders were the reserve and "praying" Indians, who now scalped under the sign of the Cross. Having fomented civil strife in native villages by their proselytizing, the missionaries often instigated civil war by pitting tribesmen, even kinsmen, against each other to honor the Prince of Peace. Having divided Satan's minions, the black robes [black robes = Jesuits; gray robes = Recollects ["Friars Minor" (387)] (78)] helped to conquer them all, some by faith, others by fire.' [330].

"Though the Indians eventually lost and usually lost badly, the Christian missions also softened the blow. Conversion was, as many natives found, one way of adapting to [, and, surviving,] the invasion of America. For those worst hit by the invaders and their microbes, Natick and Sillery served as halfway houses on the road to recovery. The full civilizing remedy was the colonial equivalent of the Marshall Plan, which offered the hapless natives a complete program of moral rearmament, social reconstruction, and religious revitalization. If racism, disease, lawlessness, and hypocrisy eventually spelled the demise of many Christian Indian groups--as they certainly did--the initial effectiveness of the mission program cannot be denied for those Indians faced with

ACCOMMODATION OR ANNIHILATION." [332].



'In the end the European conquest of America was nearly total, but it was not obtained without a share of deep ironies. One is that the vast majority of Indians in the colonial period, for whom "Example [was] before precept," were not seduced by Christianity because the Christians with whom they were most conversant taught them the vices of Europe and few, if any, virtues. "What great offence hath been given by many profane men," lamented Edward Winslow [1595 - 1655], "who, being but seeming Christians, have made Christ and Christianity stink in the nostrils of the poor infidels and so laid a stumbling-block before them."7

PAGE 1434


One ironic consequence of the disparity between Christian preaching and practice was, in the words of Sir William Johnson, that "THOSE INDIANS WHO HAVE THE LEAST INTERCOURSE WITH US, HAVE THE MOST INTEGRITY, & POSSESS THE BEST MORAL QUALITIES." Another was the embarrassing opinion of European captives and other persons who knew both cultures well that the natives who were uncontaminated by European vice inadvertently, naturally, lived a purer Christian text than the colonial Christians. A final irony was that the standard native technique for frustrating aggressive missionaries and other reformers, their "secret weapon" of outer complaisance and inner disagreement, was considered "a form of politeness" in native society. Thus, with a happy brand of poetic justice, a piece of savage civility was used to stymie the civilized savagery of men who intruded themselves upon native life and ran roughshod over the bounds of native courtesy.8

But the final stage of the Indians in the uneven contest of culture was the psychological and moral equivalent of the definitive fencer's move in which he wraps his sword around his opponent's and lets both weapons fly out of their hands to the ground. The Indians' conversion of hundreds of "civilized" captives to "savage" life tore from the hands of the colonists, however briefly, their sharp conceit as the "chosen people" of God and their unexamined faith in the superiority of their own customs and opinions. With Montaigne [331 (not presented)] we can only regret that the invaders, stripped bare and defenseless, did not seize the moment for self-understanding, tolerance, and true humiliation.' [332-333] [End of text].

"Notes"

'146. Mass. Col. Recs. 2:56; Winthrop's Journal 2:124. See also Shepard, Clear Sun-shine, 40, no. 19: "If any man lie with a beast he shall die [Leviticus 20:15 (see also: 20:16)]." This was hardly applicable to the Indians before the English introduced domesticated animals. Moreover, it seems to reflect a concern for English rather than Indian morality. In 1642 the Plymouth Colony experienced an epidemic of "notorious sins," especially of the sexual sort. Fornication and adultery were rampant, as were sodomy, buggery, and bestiality. A teenage servant was executed for unnatural relations with "a mare, a cow, two goats, five sheep, two calves, and a turkey," wickedness which "he had long [? ("teenage servant")] used...in old England" (Bradford, Plymouth Plantation, 316-21). John Lawson noted that the Carolina Indians had no name for sodomy in their language (New Voyage to Carolina, 193).' [359].

"149....An important reason for the southern resistance to fitted breeches was that Indian men squatted to urinate...." [359].

'Colonial North America was not only a battleground for furs and land, but also for allegiances and even souls. In the three-sided [Indigenous peoples (Indians), English, French] struggle for empire, the English and French colonists were locked in heated competition for native allies and religious converts. The Invasion Within sharply contrasts the English efforts to "civilize" the Indians with the French willingness to accept native lifestyles, and reveals why the struggle for control over the continent became a fascinating contest of cultures between three shrewd opponents lasting nearly 150 years.' [back cover].

PAGE 1435


from: What Our Historic Sites Get Wrong Lies Across America, James W. Loewen, The New Press, 1999.

[this reference, thanks to the encouragement of Neil Nissenbaum ("Onslow Free Thought Society--Newsletter--"(neilniss@onslowonline.net))].



"4. Exploring vs. Exterminating the Natives"


'At least twenty [California] state historical markers treat missions without mentioning Native Americans--although mission communities were Indian communities typically comprising 200 to 2000 natives, a handful of Spanish or Mexican soldiers and their family members, and two priests. Half a dozen other markers mention Indians only as recipients of Spanish services--the most insulting is at San Juan Capistrano, which the marker describes as "seventh in the chain of 21 missions established in Alta California to christianize and civilize the Indians." In San Luis Obispo County, a marker tells that Mission San Luis Obispo was "built by the Chumash Indians living in the area"; another marker for its outpost, Santa Margarita Asistencia, states "Here the mission padres and the Indians carried on extensive grain cultivation." No marker in any other county lets on that Indians made and laid virtually every brick in every mission in California. Instead, like the slave plantations we will visit later (72), the head man did all the work himself, as in this marker in Santa Clara County:

Old Adobe Woman's Club


This adobe, among the oldest in Santa Clara Valley, was one


of several continuous rows of homes built in 1792-1800


as dwellings for the Indian families of Mission Santa Clara. It links


the Franciscan padres' labors with California of today.


When interpretation does mention Indians at missions maintained as museums--particularly at those still owned by the Catholic Church--it presents the missions as harbors of shelter and well-being built by the Spanish for the Natives, echoing the state markers. Guides and labels do not tell how overseers forced Indians to farm, build, and even worship under threat of lash and chain.' [63-64].



[See: Addition 11, 908-909 (California (31st state, 1850) Mission converts)].

[See: Strangers in a Stolen Land: American Indians in San Diego 1850-1880,

Richard L. Carrico, Sierra Oaks, 1987].

PAGE 1436


[an aside]


"75. George Washington's Desperate Prayer


Pennsylvania Valley Forge"


'The first fabrication Valley Forge inflicts on visitors concerns the extraordinary suffering the men endured as they encamped there. "Valley Forge is the story of an army's epic struggle to survive against terrible odds, against hunger, disease, and the unrelenting forces of nature," says the brochure the National Park Service (NPS) still gives to visitors. THIS HYPERBOLE ORIGINATED WITH GEORGE WASHINGTON [1732 - 1799] HIMSELF, who wrote to the Continental Congress on February 16, 1776, "Naked and starving as they are we cannot enough admire the incomparable patience and fidelity of the soldiery." The brochure for the Valley Forge Historical Society reproduces this sentence on its cover, even though the army never got to Valley Forge until December, 1777, eighteen months after Washington wrote it!' [362-363].

'When tourists leave the Valley Forge visitors' center and drive around the park, the largest building they encounter is the beautiful Washington Memorial Chapel, begun in 1903. Its dominant characteristic is its matched sets of dazzling stained glass windows, one depicting the life of Jesus Christ, the other the life of George Washington. "Washington in prayer at Valley Forge is seen in the central opening over the door," explains the chapel's handout. The general kneels in prayer to Almighty God, seeking God's assistance when it seemed only He could aid the American cause, so desperate were its circumstances. The same kneeling general is on display in bronze at the nearby Freedoms Foundation and in a painting in the museum of the Valley Forge Historical Society.

The image and the inspiration for the chapel came from none other than Parson Weems, the Episcopal minister who published the first biography of Washington in 1800. WEEMS MADE UP BOTH THE CHERRY TREE STORY AND THE PRAYER INCIDENT, the latter in 1804 for a magazine article. Here is the Valley Forge tale in Weem's vivid prose: ....' [363].

'The two parsons, Weems [Mason Locke Weems 1759 - 1825] and Burk [Herbert Burk], doubtless felt that for Americans to believe that George Washington was a pious Christian would do no harm. But Washington wasn't. Like many other leaders of the Revolution he was a Deist. A member of the Episcopal Church, he believed that religion was "an indispensable basis for morality," in Boller's [Paul F. Boller, Jr.] phrase, but did not believe in conventional Christianity. "He was not given to praying on his knees nor to referring to Jesus in public or in private," Boller emphasizes. Nor did he take communion. Freemasonry was more important to Washington than Episcopalianism according to Gordon Wood, an authority on the Revolution. Indeed, for many leaders of that time, Wood notes, Masonry offered something of a surrogate religion complete with ritual, mystery, and fellowship but "without the enthusiasm and sectarian bigotry of organized religion."' [365].

PAGE 1437


'Other important founders were even less Christian than Washington [George Washington 1732 - 1799]. Thomas Jefferson [1743 - 1826] called himself "an Unitarian," while Ben Franklin [1706 - 1790] said, "I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies."

THE UNITED STATES WAS SIMPLY NOT FOUNDED AS A CHRISTIAN NATION, EVEN THOUGH A MAJORITY OF ITS CITIZENS HAVE BEEN CHRISTIANS.

People who don't know this, who think the United States is legally Christian, may be less tolerant of agnostics and atheists. Also, since most fundamentalists do not view the United States as a Christian nation today, misrepresenting Washington and other founders as devout Christians prompts some to blame the Supreme Court, the media, "liberals," our entire political leadership, or the devil for causing America's "fall from grace."1 Notwithstanding the two parsons ["Weems and Burk" (see 1437)] then, to believe that George Washington was a pious Christian may harm America.

Even if Washington never prayed here, even if that writer wasn't particularly severe, even if not much happened here, Valley Forge is still a beautiful park. Indeed the absence of events there may be its most interesting story. The colonies were at war with the mother country, but no battles were fought from December 1777, through June 1778. Winter does not last until June in Pennsylvania. Nevertheless the colonials stayed in their winter encampment at Valley Forge and the British stayed put in Philadelphia, and life went on without much fighting for six months. War was very different then.2' [366] [End of entry].

PAGE 1438


from: As Long As The Grass Shall Grow and Rivers Flow, A History of Native Americans, Clifford E. Trafzer, University of California Riverside, Harcourt College Publishers, c2000. [Note: "Selected Readings and Bibliography", at the end of each chapter].

"Chapter 2


Invasion


SINCE THEIR FIRST CONTRACT WITH EUROPEANS, NATIVE AMERICANS HAVE CONSIDERED THE COLONIZATION OF THEIR HOMELANDS TO BE AN INVASION AND CONQUEST. Oral histories today abound with stories of first contact between native nations and various Europeans. At times, first contact was benign, even positive, with a good deal of trading. At other times, first contact between peoples was hostile and dangerous, leading to deaths and enslavement that set the tone for poor relations in the future. Although the Norse invaded America long before the Spanish, their significance to Native American history is minor because of the great impact the Spanish had on American Indians over a huge area from the tip of Tierra del Fuego in South America to the Nootka villages of western Canada. The Age of Discovery and European colonization of Native American lands and peoples initiated a holocaust that lasted for centuries and continues in some parts of the Americas. The invasion of America also gave rise to native resistance movements that have lasted for centuries and are alive today. Native Americans have survived and live in nearly every parts of the hemisphere in spite of a conquest that began inauspiciously on October 12, 1492.

From their homes, Taino (Island Arawak) men, women, and children watched three ships approach their island in the Bahamas. According to Taino scholar José Barriero, the people questioned the meaning of these creatures that flew over the waters with white sails and large wooden hulls. The three caravels were the Niña, Pinta, and Santa Maria. Admiral, Viceroy, and Governor Christopher Columbus [1451 - 1506] landed on the island of San Salvador (modern Watlings Island). Columbus had traveled about three thousand miles, but the distance between the two lands was small in comparison to the cultural and social distance between Europeans and Native Americans. Columbus and his men brought biases and assumptions from Europe that would forever change the lives of millions of tribal people, whom the foreigners labeled Indios or Indians. Like other Christians of his time, Columbus was significantly influenced by a wellspring of racial hatred and pitted white Christians against non-Christian people of color. Columbus and Spanish conquistadors were influenced by nearly eight hundred years of bloody warfare, religious bigotry, and cultural intolerance between Christian people of the Iberian Peninsula and African Moslems. Racial and religious intolerance traveled with the Spaniards to America and contributed significantly to the genocide of thousands of Native Americans." [20-21].

PAGE 1439


'Reconquista, Resettlement,

and Slavery


In 711, African soldiers had invaded the Iberian Peninsula, sweeping into southern France until Charles Martel defeated them. Moslem soldiers retreated over the Pyrenees Mountains but controlled portions of the Iberian Peninsula for centuries until 1492, when King Fernando and Queen Isabella's armies defeated the Moors at the Battle of Granada. It is no coincidence that when the Reconquista ended, the conquest of America began. During the Reconquista and Crusades, Christians developed deep racial hatreds for dark-skinned non-Christians, whom they characterized as evil, primitive, and savage. Christians portrayed Moslems as Satan's children, licentious subhuman counterimages [sic] whom God intended for Christians to exterminate. While Christians from the Iberian Peninsula fought and killed Moslems, other European Christians launched the Crusades into the Middle East to kill Moslems in the name of Christ and recapture the Holy Lands. Racial and religious hatred, born during the Middle Ages, was transferred to Africa and Asia by Portuguese expeditions and to the Americas by the Spanish and Portuguese.

AMERICA WAS NOT A VIRGIN LAND IN 1492, AND IT WAS NOT A WILDERNESS TO NATIVE POPULATIONS.

The research of Lakota scholar Vine Deloria, Francis Jennings, and Gary Nash has aptly demonstrated this fact. Approximately ten million Native Americans lived in present-day Canada and the United States, whereas between twenty and thirty million American Indians lived in Mexico. And between sixty-five million and one hundred million native people lived in Central and South America. Yet, by "right of discovery" and "right of conquest," Spaniards claimed the right to control the lands and people of any regions they were colonizing, demanding that other European nations not intervene. Nevertheless, the Spaniards overran lands long settled by American Indians, refusing to recognize native sovereignty, land rights or resources, or freedom of religion. SPANIARDS EXPLOITED NATIVE LABOR AND LAND IN ORDER TO BENEFIT THEMSELVES AND SPAIN, STEALING GOLD, SILVER, AND OTHER RAW MATERIALS WHILE ENSLAVING PEOPLES BY THE THOUSANDS AND KILLING THEM THROUGH PUNISHMENTS AND EXCESSIVE WORK. Most conquistadors cared nothing about permanently resettling America but wanted only to accumulate wealth and return to Spain. Conquistadors were ruthless individuals who believed themselves superior in every way to American Indians. They reflected the arrogance of Queen Isabella, King Fernando, and Pope Alexander VI, who divided the "heathen world" between Spain and Portugal through the Treaty of Tordesillas (1494), permitting Portugal to resettle Brazil and Spain to claim the rest of America....' [21-22].

"....Slavery became an early institution used by the Spanish to control and exploit native labor, and when Indians fought as patriots against exploitation, forced labor, sexual abuses, and oppression, presidio soldiers ruthlessly destroyed native opposition by hanging prisoners, burning people alive, and flaying the skin of their victims. Between 1493 and 1500, approximately five hundred thousand Native Americans--perhaps more--died in the Caribbean Islands.

PAGE 1440


Spaniards murdered and tortured men, women, and children if they did not produce their quota of one small bell full of gold dust every three months. Soldiers cut off fingers, hands, feet, legs, noses, and genitals of recalcitrant men, women and children who would not pay homage and tribute, and they set their war dogs on native people to tear them to shreds [see #3, 91 (Dogs of the Conquest)].

SPANIARDS BURNED CACIQUES (LEADERS) AND THEIR FOLLOWERS TO DEATH IN ROWS OF THIRTEEN IN HONOR OF CHRIST AND THE TWELVE APOSTLES.

Spaniards enslaved and sold thousands of native people after 1503, particularly those Indians living under the rule of a Spaniard who was given an encomienda or a specific number of Indians who were entrusted to an encomendero for labor and in return were supposed to receive Spanish civilization and Christianization. After 1550, Spaniards enslaved Indians through repartimiento, whereby the Spanish uprooted Indians and forced them to work in mines, plantations, and public works. Many Indians died from forced labor, brutal punishments, lack of food, and poor housing. Throughout the conquest, soldiers and officials indiscriminately raped mothers, wives, and daughters, creating a reign of terror in Native America...." [22].

'....the Requerimiento...was a document--written in Spanish--outlining Christian creation, God's law, crown authority, papal rule, and the requirement of natives to surrender or face utter devastation. The document demanded that Native Americans accept Spanish rule so they would do well:

["Requerimiento"] But if you do not do this, and wickedly and intentionally delay to do so, I certify to you that, with the help of God, we shall forcibly enter into your country and shall make war against you in all ways and manners that we can, and shall subject you to the yoke and obedience of the Church and of their Highnesses; we shall take you and your wives and your children, and shall make slaves of them, and as such shall sell and dispose of them as their Highnesses may command; and we shall take away your goods, and shall do all the harm and damage that we can, as to vassals who do not obey, and refuse to receive their lord, and resist and contradict him....

Often Spaniards read the Requerimiento aboard ships, to mountains, or to sleepy villages before engagements. Like so many laws designed to protect Indians, the Requerimiento was a farce. In reality, the document meant nothing and was not truly a reform, because the excesses of the early Spanish colonial period continued unabated in spite of the requirement to give native people a chance to surrender before being annihilated by soldiers and war dogs. Slavery of Native Americans continued in one form or another throughout the colonial period and expanded to the enslavement of Africans as well.

FREED AFRICANS WERE LIKELY PART OF COLUMBUS'S FIRST VOYAGE BUT WERE BROUGHT TO AMERICA AS SLAVES AS EARLY AS 1512.

[see Addition 24, 1130-1166 (Slavery)]

PAGE 1441


Five years later, Las Casas [Bartolomé de las Casas 1474 - 1566] encouraged the crown to use African slaves over Native American slaves because AFRICAN MOSLEMS HAD HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO BECOME CHRISTIANS AND HAD REJECTED CHRIST. Las Casas later renounced his stand on African slaves, but trafficking in millions of African slaves to work in mines, sugar, cotton, and coffee fields accelerated....' [25].



"Conquest of Mexico


From the islands of the Caribbean Sea, Spanish entradas traveled to the mainland of South, Central, and North America. Wherever they traveled, Spaniards claimed native lands and proclaimed native peoples to be subjects of the crown. Adelantado Hernán Cortes [1485 - 1547] led a significant expedition in 1519, when he commanded 550 men, sixteen horses, and eleven ships, which weighed anchor in Yucatan and Tobasco before arriving in Veracruz. In Yucatan he picked up a shipwrecked Spaniard named Aguilar who spoke Maya, and in Tobasco he was given la Malinche (Marina), an Aztec who spoke Maya and Aztec. Through them, Cortes had interpreters and an Aztec mistress who understood the cultural beliefs of Aztecs. She knew that Moctezuma [1480? - 1520] was a god-king leader who ruled a vast empire, rich beyond belief. Moctezuma was at war with surrounding native people who would welcome the conquest of Aztecs. She knew that Aztecs feared that one day the sun would no longer appear and life on earth would end. In order to keep the sun alive, Aztec priests offered human sacrifices, generally taking victims from surrounding tribes. Moctezuma feared that recent thunderstorms, earthquakes, and volcanic activities as well as a comet and frightening prophecies foretold doom for the Aztecs. Moctezuma also worried about the return of a legendary and powerful Toltec king-god named Quetzalcoatl, the Feathered Serpent.

When Moctezuma learned of Cortes, he was convinced that the Spaniard was Quetzalcoatl, a god that Huitzilopochtli, the Toltec god of war, had banished from Mexico long before the time of the Aztecs..." [26].

"Spanish rule within the present boundaries of the United States extended from Florida to California. San Juan Pueblo scholar Alfonso Ortiz and Jemez Pueblo historian Joe Sando have shown in their works that Pueblo peoples resisted Spanish occupation, laws, and institutions, and they continued to stand against the invasion by foreign powers throughout the colonial period. Native Americans who resisted Spanish rule often faced treatment as harsh as that faced by the people of Acoma. Spanish soldiers, missionaries, and settlers often removed Indians from lands that the newcomers desired. Spaniards demanded tribute in the form of food and regulated native access to water, timber, foods, and other resources that belonged to Indian groups. Spaniards actively sought to destroy native religions and supplant them with Christianity...." [30].

PAGE 1442


'Spaniards and mission fathers raped native women and children, and native women strangled babies born of forced intercourse. Spanish concentration of Native Californians into missions created catastrophic declines in native populations, and if Indians tried to leave the missions, soldiers rounded them up and punished them for this and other infractions of Catholic moral codes. Most missionaries would have agreed with Father Fermin Francisco de Lasuen, who viewed California's Indians as "barbarous, ferocious and ignorant" people who required "more frequent punishment." As Castillo points out, "the California missions were coercive authoritarian institutions" where Serra [(Miguel José) Junípero Serra 1713 - 1784 ("Apostle of California")] and his missionaries punished Indian men, women, and children with barbed whips, branding irons, shackles, mutilations, stocks, work teams, and jails. Missionaries also executed native men and women. Unfortunately, the Catholic Church has closed its punishment books in its archives in Santa Barbara and will not permit scholars open access to documents that might further tarnish the Church or Serra's rise toward sainthood. A former tribal chairman of the Cuyapaipe Reservation in eastern San Diego County summed up the missions: "The Indians were slaves. They did all the work and after a day's work, the priests locked them up....They fed them actually as little as possible. They beat them and killed them if they were sick, or couldn't work, or didn't agree to do certain work." This is a contemporary view of the mission system shared by many Indians in California.' [34].

"Everywhere the Spanish traveled, Native Americans resisted conquest aggressively and passively. Many Indians continued to practice aspects of their old religion while also participating in Christian ceremony and ritual. They slowed their work and refused to help Spaniards locate other Indians to be forced into the mission system. Native Californians escaped the missions when they could, including over two hundred Ohlones who fled Mission Dolores in 1795. Indians incarcerated at Missions San Miguel and San Antonio poisoned priests, and in 1812, Ohlones at Mission Santa Cruz assassinated Father Antonio Quintana. In February 1842, Chumash and other natives living at Missions La Purisima and Santa Barbara rose in a major revolt. Fighting broke out initially when Spaniards whipped a neophyte at Mission Santa Ynez, and the Indians there burned several mission buildings. The same day, two thousand natives captured Mission La Purísima and were soon joined by Indians from Santa Ynez and San Fernando. Native American soldiers fortified the mission, cutting gun ports in the adobe walls and setting up cannons and swivel guns.

Other Indians in the area responded to the call, including Chumash at Mission Santa Barbara who armed themselves and prepared to die for their freedom. For several hours the Indians at Mission Santa Barbara fought Spanish soldiers but eventually gave up and retreated to the presidio of Santa Barbara. The Chumash sacked Mission Santa Barbara and moved into the mountains. In March 1824, hundreds of Spanish cavalry and infantry attacked the four hundred native defenders at Mission La Purisima, who fought with cannons, guns, bows, and arrows. After fighting several hours, a priest negotiated an armistice. California Indians from other missions joined the Chumash, but by May and June the revolt slowed, especially after some neophytes agreed to return to the missions--although four hundred refused to return. Spanish officials negotiated an end to the rebellion and then launched a criminal investigation that resulted in the execution of seven leaders and a sentence of ten-years, chain-gang labor, for four other leaders." [35-36].

PAGE 1443


"While France and England expanded their empires, Spain also moved defensively into Texas. Spanish priests established two missions along the Nueces River among the Hasinai Indians but abandoned these institutions after the native people revolted in 1702. However, Spanish missionaries returned in 1715 after French traders expanded their holdings in Louisiana. In addition to mission work with the Hasinai, Catholic missionaries moved among the Oamayas, Tawakonis, Tonkawas, Karankahuas, and others, attempting to convert these people to Christianity. At the same time, Spanish officials established presidios along the Texas-Louisiana border. Their largest settlement was at San Antonio de Valero, a pueblo that boasted a presidio and mission called the Alamo. As was true in all Indian missions, Spanish priests demanded that the Indians of Texas surrender much of their culture and way of life. Priests at the Alamo and other missions ordered native families to end their lives as hunters, gatherers, and independent farmers. They were to leave their villages and move into the mission compound, where they could live an orderly, systematic, sedentary life controlled by Spaniards who wanted them to work without compensation for the Church, presidio, and pueblo. SOME INDIANS RESISTED, BUT ALL WERE INFLUENCED BY FOREIGN ANIMALS, PLANTS, POLICIES, AND PATHOGENS." [37].

"Spain had claimed native lands by right of discovery and war, fighting any tribe or band that resisted Spanish rule. Native Americans often resisted Spanish rule overtly and passively, and although they could accommodate many aspects of Spanish rule, European diseases killed thousands of men, women, and children who had no immunities to foreign sicknesses such as smallpox, measles, colds, influenza, diphtheria, typhoid, and cholera. In order to survive, some Native Americans acculturated into Spanish society by eventually becoming Christians and speaking Spanish as their second or third language. Some wore European dress and worked as vaqueros (cowboys), farmers, cooks, and maids. However, they did not surrender that which was truly native, including their languages, religions, laws, kinships, and foods. Through radical change, most Native Americans did not assimilate into Spanish culture or lose all elements of their native cultures. They did not adopt everything that was Spanish. In the larger sense, Native Americans survived missions, presidios, pueblos, slavery, disease, and malnutrition, living through and with a myriad of radical changes that came with the Spanish invasion." [39]

[End of Chapter 2].

'In addition to disease and firearms, Wyandots suffered from the mission system. Jesuits were particularly adept at establishing missions and spreading the Christian gospel among the tribes. The introduction of Christianity split native communities into Christians and non-Christians, creating divisions that often pitted individuals against individuals, families against families, and elders against young people. Missionaries encouraged Indians to give up their "heathen" and "pagan" practices so that they could be saved in this world and the next. Native American spiritual beliefs, songs, stories, ceremonies, and rituals declined over time, in part the result of Christianity....' [47].

PAGE 1444


"Whites particularly loathed native medicine men and women, holy people who called on spiritual and medicinal means to direct their positive and negative powers. Christian Europeans denigrated Native American religion, art, music, dance, ritual, and ceremony, stereotyping them as savage. WHITES PORTRAYED AMERICAN INDIANS AS ANIMALS, NOT HUMANS. Such negative perceptions created a dangerous climate for native peoples, because the English newcomers determined from the outset that they were superior lords and masters, the children of Christ, and that they had an obligation to destroy that which was evil and primitive. It was also to their economic advantage to kill Indians and displace them. Early on the English determined that Native Americans were obstacles to God's plan and Christ's gospel. And in such a climate as this, it was easier for English colonists to justify killing Native American men, women, and children while destroying native cultures. American Indians lived in jeopardy not only because they controlled land and resources desired by whites, but also because Europeans viewed them as dispensable beings who stood in the way of Christ, civilization, and economic progress." [64].

'Although Puritans professed that a primary goal of their colony was to Christianize Indians and destroy Satan among them, they made little effort to include Indians in their world, because natives were positioned outside the body of God and squarely within that of the devil. Although most Puritans conceded that Indians could achieve salvation, they could do so only after years of training in Christian beliefs, the Bible, and English civilization.

Most Puritans believed that it was not likely that many Indians would ever be considered part of the "elect," that select group of people who would receive God's grace in this world and the next. The vast majority of Indians were outside the covenant and always would be. In the Puritan mind, evidence that Indians were Satan's children abounded, because native people knew nothing of Christ or the Christian religion, and Puritans said natives worshipped in a manner similar to that of witches and warlocks. Indian medicine people claimed to communicate with plants, animals, and invisible spirits. They met around fires in all-night ceremonies with dancing, singing, and offerings of tobacco that seemed satanic to Christians. Puritans claimed superiority over Indians, including their leaders, offering as proof the fact that whites died from disease far less frequently than did native peoples. In 1633-1634, smallpox ravaged New England, killing thousands of Indians but few French, English, or Dutch. One writer stated "without this remarkable and terrible stroke of God upon the natives, [we] would with much more difficulty have found room, and at far greater charge have obtained and purchased land." According to Winthrop [John Winthrop 1587 or 1588 - 1649], the Indians were also inferior because "they inclose no Land, neither have any setled habytation, nor any tame Cattle to improve the Land by, and soe have no other but a Naturall Right to those Countries, soe as if we leave them sufficient for their use, we may lawfully take the rest." Winthrop's statements ignored the fact that Indians farmed, lived in towns, and improved the land. Winthrop lied to justify theft.

WINTHROP AND THE PURITAN OLIGARCHY BELIEVED THAT GOD HAD A RIGHT TO ALL LANDS, AND BECAUSE PURITANS WERE GOD'S OWN AGENTS ON EARTH, THEY HAD A RIGHT TO ALL NATIVE LANDS....' [72].

PAGE 1445


Forced Removal and Puritan

Reservations


Native Americans throughout the region watched as Puritans consolidated their power in the years following the Pequot War. In 1638, the Puritans began a vigorous campaign to consolidate Indians onto "reservations" where they could be controlled, Christianized, and "civilized." Native leaders resisted white attempts to control their people, but among them, they had no unified policy to match that of the Puritans....' [75].

"THE GOVERNMENT ENCOURAGED AND PROVIDED FUNDS TO CHRISTIAN ORGANIZATIONS like the Society for the United Brethren for Propagating the Gospel among the Heathen, the Missionary and Bible Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church in America, and the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions to conduct mission work among Indians. Methodists, Moravians, Quakers, Baptists, Episcopalians, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, and others also established missions, but their views of native people and those of enlightened government officials, did not represent those of most whites in the western settlements.

The vast majority of white settlers wished to develop commercial agriculture, transportation systems, and urban areas. They viewed American Indians as impediments to white progress, civilization, and nation building...." [109-110].



"Missionaries, Oregon Trail,

and Killings


The Nez Perces and Flatheads became interested in knowing more about the spiritual power of white men, so in 1831, they sent a delegation to St. Louis to inquire about the source of this power and about the book of knowledge used by Christians...." [179].

'Young Chief Joseph [Heinmot Tooyalakekt 1841 - 1904] reflected the position of most Nez Perce leaders in this parable that appeared in the North American Review in 1879:

Suppose a whiteman should come to me and say, "Joseph, I like your horses, and I want to buy them." Joseph would respond, "my horses suit me, I will not sell them." When Joseph responded that he was not interested in selling his horses, the white man goes to my neighbor, and says to him: "Joseph has some good horses. I want to buy them, but he refuses to sell." My neighbor answers, "Pay me the money, and I will sell you Joseph's horses." The white man returns to me and says, "Joseph, I have bought your horses, and you must let me have them." If we sold our lands to the Government, this is the way they were bought.

Nez Perce leaders who refused to sign the Thief Treaty became known as the nontreaty bands, and most of them renounced Christianity, returning to their native faith....' [260].

PAGE 1446


"Chapter 13


Reservations,

Civilizations,

and Allotment


The concept of forcing Native Americans to live on reservations was not new in the nineteenth century.

HUMAN BEINGS HAD HERDED OTHER HUMAN BEINGS ONTO SPECIFIED LANDS WITH FORCED BOUNDARIES AND RULES OF BEHAVIOR FOR CENTURIES.

The reservation system that emerged in the United States during the second half of the nineteenth century was built on past experiences, drawing on two models of colonial policies of the French, Spanish, and English. Although the reservation system owed some of its origin to the Catholic mission systems of the Spanish and French, it owed far more to that of the Puritans of the seventeenth century.



The Reservation System


After the Pequot Indian War, PURITANS removed Native Americans from their homelands and relocated them onto confined reservations where whites controlled them. Puritan fathers argued that they created towns of praying Indians for the benefit of Native Americans, who would be uplifted in this life and the next by God's earthly agents. Puritan reservations were institutions designed to regulate many aspects of Native American life, including work, recreation, law, trade, hunting, farming, family, education, and religion...." [280].

"Instead of exterminating Indians or simply pushing them west, the government determined to follow the advice of humanitarian reformers and create reservations where Indians could be colonized, civilized, and Christianized. Reservations became the purgatorial mechanisms by which whites could begin to assimilate Indians." [281].

'THE RESERVATION SYSTEM WAS A SECULAR PURGATORY FOR NATIVE AMERICANS, a place where strict and zealous humanitarians often began the process that would lead Indian people--they believed--to higher levels of existence. In Indian purgatory, Native Americans would die and be reborn after they had atoned for their "sins" against whites. White agents used the RESERVATION as a place to kill "savage" Indian cultures and replace them with those of a superior civilization WHERE INDIANS LEARNED ABOUT THE ONE TRUE GOD AND CHRIST'S TEACHINGS. Christians had long held that Native Americans were "Red Devils" and "Satan's Children," and the reservation experience offered native people an opportunity to expiate Satan and follow the Jesus Road.' [282].

PAGE 1447


"WITH INDIANS CONFINED TO THE RESERVATION, CHRISTIAN MISSIONARIES COULD CONTROL THEIR FLOCKS AND REDIRECT THE LIVES OF INDIANS TOWARD CHRISTIANITY." [282].



'Education and Christianization


Native Americans had their own systems of education long before whites came to the Americas. They had their own intellectuals and scholars who instructed people with enlightenment and wisdom. Families, clans, and tribes had their own educators who taught children each day. Clan mothers, grandfathers, grandmothers, uncles, fathers, and others taught native literature, history, geography, religious studies, medicine, botany, zoology, soil science, astronomy, political science, law, and manual skills such as making dresses, lodges, bows, and arrows. Professional storytellers shared ancient histories with children and adults alike, reconstructing the world through words and providing sacred oral texts that held the body of law that guided tribes in secular and spiritual matters. All Native Americans had educational systems before Columbus [1451 - 1506], and all native societies valued learning and wisdom....' [286].

"The U.S. government supported Indian boarding schools as institutions through which to destroy Native American cultures, languages, arts, and identities. Indian agents, soldiers, and Indian policemen rounded up children age five and above on reservations, forcing parents to give up their children or face prison terms at Alcatraz or other federal penitentiaries. In 1907, several Hopi Indian families hid their children and refused to allow whites to take their children to boarding school. Agents ordered fathers to be arrested and sent them to Alcatraz. Native American parents hated to lose their children, fearing whites would pollute them, destroying their minds, bodies, and spirits. Several [? (apparently, many!)] children died at Indian schools, from smallpox, measles, cholera, tuberculosis, and pneumonia. Others died of sickness brought on by severe depression, loneliness, and abuse.

When children became ill at a boarding school, white doctors and nurses treated them in the school infirmary or sent them home to die. When the children of Navajo leader Manuelito [Hastiin Ch'ilhaajinii 1818 - 1893] contracted measles at Carlisle [Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania (288)], officials sent them home, where they infected their father, who died of the disease. In his classic autobiography, Don Talayesva (Hopi) details his own case of pneumonia while he attended Sherman Indian Institute in Riverside, California...." [289].

'William Jennings Bryan [1860 - 1925], the loser of presidential campaigns and always the liberal Christian [prosecutor, 1925, Scopes "Monkey Trial"], described Indians as "a race of primitive, untutored, nature-worshippers." He proposed to "shove the Christian religion down the throat of every Indian." But other reformers were more interested in issues important to the welfare of native people....' [344].

[See: "In Memoriam: W.J.B." [William Jennings Bryan], in: A Mencken Chrestomathy, H.L. Mencken, 1956 (1949), 243-248. Devastating! Must See!].

PAGE 1448



HOME