BajaNomad - Santo Junipero Serra

Santo Junipero Serra

sargentodiaz - 3-2-2015 at 04:40 PM

HERE is what Sargento Diaz tried to post above:

David K - 3-3-2015 at 09:53 AM

Hola Sargento,
Nomad forum had issues for a few months not allowing some things to show here if they were pasted or had Spanish letters.

The source is your blog: http://msgdaleday.blogspot.com/2015/03/father-serra-controve...

Here the post (with quotation marks, at symbols, dashes, and apostrophes removed):

Father Serra A Controversial Canonization
Where is the controversy coming from? The Left, of course.

Yes, Serra was a zealous missionary and he took away ancient Indian cultures from the natives of California.

But, just what was that culture other than living like animals, day to day, with no future and never traveling more than one day from where they were born. Crouching in the rain or starving when there was none. Being fodder for the massive Grizzly Bears that freely roamed the area.

All they had to look forward to from the day of their birth was hardship leading to eventual death. Father Serra and his fellow missionaries gave them filled bellies, relief from harsh weather and the hope that there was something more to life than just dying and ending it all.

Anyhow, the story is at http://americamagazine.org/issue/controversial-canonization

[Edited on 4-25-2015 by David K]

diacritical marks don't post?

Jack Swords - 3-3-2015 at 10:18 AM

Mexitron - 3-3-2015 at 10:56 AM

Quote: Originally posted by David K

Hola Sargento,
New Nomad softwear doesn't allow Spanish letters (n with tilde over it, u with two dots over it, and accent marks) or copy and paste from other locations if there are any apostrophes, dashes, symbols, or quotation marks.

The source is your blog: http://msgdaleday.blogspot.com/2015/03/father-serra-controve...

Here the post (with quotation marks, at symbols, dashes, and apostrophes removed):

Father Serra A Controversial Canonization
Where is the controversy coming from? The Left, of course.

Yes, Serra was a zealous missionary and he took away ancient Indian cultures from the natives of California.

But, just what was that culture other than living like animals, day to day, with no future and never traveling more than one day from where they were born. Crouching in the rain or starving when there was none. Being fodder for the massive Grizzly Bears that freely roamed the area.

All they had to look forward to from the day of their birth was hardship leading to eventual death. Father Serra and his fellow missionaries gave them filled bellies, relief from harsh weather and the hope that there was something more to life than just dying and ending it all.

Anyhow, the story is at http://americamagazine.org/issue/controversial-canonization

That's one of the most one dimensional views of the native Americans I've ever seen. I have no problem if the religios want to make Serra a saint, times being what they were, but to portray all native Californians and Baja Californians as merely being fodder for grizzlies just shows a complete lack of knowledge of the hundreds of different tribes/civilizations that inhabited this complex region before the Europeans and United States ran it over.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Native_American_tribes...

sargentodiaz - 4-24-2015 at 12:00 PM

Ambiguities about Serra should not discount sainthood, panelists say

My first reaction: What “ambiguities?” The man spent almost every hour of his entire life dedicated to what he deeply felt – the spread of Christianity to disbelievers and helping Iron Age peoples advance into the 18th Century. He did not enslave anybody. Nor did he cruelly beat or torture a single one.

If he was evil, why did peoples who had never traveled more than one day's distance from their homes travel hundreds of miles to pass by the Blessed Father's grave?

Let's cut to the chase and celebrate Blessed Father Serra for what he was – the dedicated leader of men who devoted their life to their deepest beliefs.

Read more @ http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1501767.htm

Martyman - 4-24-2015 at 03:05 PM

Whenever I see that sun with sunglasses I slide on past. I think that is why people are switching over to facebook from nomads. It's a shame.

Bajahowodd - 4-24-2015 at 04:44 PM

How are fervent religious missionaries doing for you in the middle east? :?:

Same thing. Different company.

DianaT - 4-24-2015 at 05:35 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Bajahowodd

How are fervent religious missionaries doing for you in the middle east? :?:

Same thing. Different company.

Absolutely.

wilderone - 4-24-2015 at 06:02 PM

"...dedicated to what he deeply felt – the spread of Christianity to disbelievers"
What about what the original inhabitants of the land deeply felt? The original cultures had beliefs - not the same beliefs of the Spaniards and Fr. Serra. Did Fr. Serra respect their beliefs? No he did not. Instead of he made slaves of them. Not even respect of humanity did Fr. Serra have. The Spaniards brought disease that killed masses of original inhabitants. The Spaniards should be condemned in history, not made saints.

vandenberg - 4-24-2015 at 07:47 PM

Like all history,the so called facts are written by the victors.
No different for religious history.
Western countries subjugated peoples all over this world and claim all progress. Not good when you there saying "Yessuh"

bajabuddha - 4-24-2015 at 09:42 PM

"Disbelievers" = "Infidels" = "Libtards" = "Teabaggers" = ....NEXT? :?:

sargentodiaz - 4-25-2015 at 11:18 AM

The hatred and misunderstanding is expected,

What beliefs did the natives have before the arrival of the friars? Do you know? Have you ever researched their cultures? Do you even know if they believed in a Creator Spirit or Supreme Being? What did they believe about death?

So - here it is. Giving birth was as the animals did it - squat and drop the baby on the ground and cut or gnaw the umbilical. If the baby suckled, fine. If not, it was left to die.

Education was simply letting them imitate what their elders did. They had no medicine people except for a few gaining power over the group by mumbo jumbo. They did not know and seldom used herbal medicines.

They lived every day aware that death was coming and the huge majority never traveled more than one day from where they were born. They spent every waking hour searching for food and simply lay down where they were when the sun fell.

Their homes were temporary made of the crudest of structures, usually brush twined together.

Do you know what Father Serra and the friars offered them to live a better life?

Probably no. :?:

rts551 - 4-25-2015 at 11:38 AM

Annihilation and death of a culture is a better life?

MMc - 4-25-2015 at 01:42 PM

You all are looking at this from your point of view. From a Catholic point of view, Sierra was very successful. He came, he converted, wound up with a 1000 mile peninsula, and filled it full of Catholics. All good! Even if they died from western introduced sickness their souls died saved. Lets make him a saint.
I am not a believer but I understand their point of view.

Skipjack Joe - 4-25-2015 at 02:12 PM

Quote: Originally posted by sargentodiaz

The hatred and misunderstanding is expected,

What beliefs did the natives have before the arrival of the friars? Do you know? Have you ever researched their cultures? Do you even know if they believed in a Creator Spirit or Supreme Being? What did they believe about death?

So - here it is. Giving birth was as the animals did it - squat and drop the baby on the ground and cut or gnaw the umbilical. If the baby suckled, fine. If not, it was left to die.

Education was simply letting them imitate what their elders did. They had no medicine people except for a few gaining power over the group by mumbo jumbo. They did not know and seldom used herbal medicines.

They lived every day aware that death was coming and the huge majority never traveled more than one day from where they were born. They spent every waking hour searching for food and simply lay down where they were when the sun fell.

Their homes were temporary made of the crudest of structures, usually brush twined together.

Do you know what Father Serra and the friars offered them to live a better life?

Probably no. :?:

Sounds like an idyllic life to me.

And there's plenty of mumbo jumbo to go around. Visit the global warming threads.

grizzlyfsh95 - 4-25-2015 at 02:23 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Martyman

Whenever I see that sun with sunglasses I slide on past. I think that is why people are switching over to facebook from nomads. It's a shame.

So much for enlightened discussion. If you don't parrot what I think,I'm taking my ball and going home. NaNaNa.

grizzlyfsh95 - 4-25-2015 at 02:26 PM

Quote: Originally posted by bajabuddha

"Disbelievers" = "Infidels" = "Libtar
ds" = "Teabaggers" = ....NEXT? :?:

You are equating homosexual men's activity to infidels? Really? Teabaggers?

luv2fish - 4-25-2015 at 03:50 PM

Quote: Originally posted by sargentodiaz

Ambiguities about Serra should not discount sainthood, panelists say

My first reaction: What “ambiguities?” The man spent almost every hour of his entire life dedicated to what he deeply felt – the spread of Christianity to disbelievers and helping Iron Age peoples advance into the 18th Century. He did not enslave anybody. Nor did he cruelly beat or torture a single one.

If he was evil, why did peoples who had never traveled more than one day's distance from their homes travel hundreds of miles to pass by the Blessed Father's grave?

Let's cut to the chase and celebrate Blessed Father Serra for what he was – the dedicated leader of men who devoted their life to their deepest beliefs.

Read more @ http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1501767.htm

VIVA PADRE SERRA Y LA SANTA VIRGENCITA.....

Oh its so nice that tolerance is also extended to my people of Christian belief. Life is good.

mtgoat666 - 4-25-2015 at 04:10 PM

What happened to the natives was genocide. Whether it was purposeful or not is still a matter of debate. We do know that the record keepers were the church, and the church has a habit of hiding facts and spinning the facts to fit it's own purposes.

Was junipers Serra a saint? Who knows? Did a culture get wiped out under his watch? Yes.

Ateo - 4-25-2015 at 04:52 PM

Before you start spreading your ideas, make sure they are based in reality and that the evidence supports your beliefs!

We are still digging out from the bad ideas in the bible, and other "holy" books.

Thank the Enlightenment for neutering some of the gnarly stuff we used to do to each other in the name of religion.

You knew I couldn't hold back for too long! :biggrin:

rts551 - 4-25-2015 at 05:01 PM

Quote: Originally posted by David K

It's funny how "tolerant" and "open minded" the "elites" are UNTIL they disagree with you!

When Marco Polo returned to Venice from China, brand new plagues were introduced that killed millions.

The Spanish carried diseases to the Americas that were unknown there (here)... it was not intentional, but is normal when humans move into new lands where the locals have no resistance.

The missionaries were doing 'normal' conversion activities the Europeans believed would improve life (right or wrong by today's standards), and not committing intentional genocide.

The N-zis did, and ISIS is now committing genocide. There is no equating the missionaries activities to them. Bad stuff happens, but it was a by-product of the occupation of California, and not the purpose.

Just how long could California remain isolated from diseases? If not the Spanish, then it would be another world power of that period.

Let's study history, but condemning a hard working priest, 250 years later, serves what purpose? There are no more unexplored lands or undiscovered races of people to 'save'.

If we "occupied" a land today and our hard work resulted in the genocide of that culture, I wonder how many would recommend us for sainthood? or would we be taken to the world court? Too bad we can not write our own history as some did...our write their own manufactured facts as some do today.

David K - 4-25-2015 at 05:17 PM

If donkeys had wings then they could fly... is that what you are saying?

if if if

That leaves way too many dreamy possibilities.

Let's just deal with facts that are known.

1) Faith is extremely important to many people and has saved many people.

2) Faith has led to millions of deaths because many of faith are not tolerant of others.

3) Serra (and the other missionaries in California) were given the job (by their superiors) to convert the native people into good Spanish subjects of the king. No orders were given to kill any friendly natives. They needed the Indians, so killing them was not productive or desired.

What did Serra personally do that was counter to his instructions or goals? Remember, diseases were already introduced long before Serra was even born... even if you argue that was intentional.

rts551 - 4-25-2015 at 05:25 PM

You want facts. Then it is time we recognized the occupation for what it was. Imperialism at all cost, with conversion of heathens in mind, and looking for riches. Geeze talk about donkeys.

[Edited on 4-26-2015 by rts551]

David K - 4-25-2015 at 05:27 PM

Yes, imperialism... expanding the Spanish Empire... so what else was new, back then?

What does that have to do with Father Serra's job performance, and sainthood?

rts551 - 4-25-2015 at 06:07 PM

Quote: Originally posted by David K

Yes, imperialism... expanding the Spanish Empire... so what else was new, back then?

What does that have to do with Father Serra's job performance, and sainthood?

another fact. they furthered the annihilation of a culture and never really careed about it. Father Serra was a part of that process. Would we honor him any more than we honor the people that burned witches at the stake in the name of religion?

David K - 4-26-2015 at 09:06 AM

Ok Ralph, that is a fair personal opinion on the subject and ending with a question. Let's see if Sargento Diaz has some response, as this is his thread.

As for my reply:

I don't know the Franciscan theology as well as the Jesuit for their caring of the native culture, but the Jesuits did. In reading about the Jesuits in California (Baja today), one learns that they respected the languages, place names, and incorporated them into the missions. They did not tolerate native religion, however. That is understandable because their primary motive was to convert the natives to Catholicism.

I have not found that the Dominicans or Franciscans tried to learn the native languages as the Jesuits all had or use local names, north of El Rosario.

However, it was during the Jesuit period that the soldiers (most likely) brought the diseases... some could have been introduced earlier (pearl traders, pirates). Again, that is hardly the Jesuits fault. It sure isn't Serra's, who arrived after the Jesuits were removed, and well after so many natives were dead from disease.

sargentodiaz - 4-26-2015 at 11:39 AM

All of the Catholic missionaries sent to the New World attended local seminaries (colleges) where they were taught the skills necessary to be a missionary.

One of those skills was in language. Almost every single missionary made it an immediate goal to learn the local language - often compiling dictionaries so they could conduct the religious rites in the local language. The struggle to take Christian concepts and turn them into something the locals could understand was as difficult as anything they would encounter.

As for killing natives - why on earth would any sane missionary even think of such a thing? Their goal was to bring as many as possible to the church and give them a European style of living - lifting them out of their Stone Age ways.

It is estimated that most New World natives died of disease before the arrival of Europeans as those who did afterward. The biggest killer was Smallpox - just as it was for Europeans who contacted it. It just seems the Europeans had more of an immunity to it.

I will pose the same question as before -- if Serra and the other missionaries were so cruel, why did converts voluntary drop to their knees and kiss the hand of Serra whenever he appeared where they lived? Why did they voluntarily travel far just to pass his grave?

And, why did so many clans beg for missionaries to found missions in their area?

LancairDriver - 4-26-2015 at 12:12 PM

If you want to take the time to read some excellently researched material related to this subject, read Charles G. Manns books 1491, and then 1493. 1491 is the Americas prior to Columbus, and makes the case that the Americas were far more populated than Europe and in many ways more advanced. The follow up book, 1493, covered the incredible way the discovery of the Americas changed the world in ways that are still evolving in agriculture, finance, and virtually every aspect of life. Worldwide civilizations that would not exist today owe their existence to the discovery and spread of agricultural knowledge, and of course gold and silver deciding the dominant nations of the era.
It is far more complex than simply focusing on Religion or Imperialism in understanding how and why things evolved as they did.

rts551 - 4-26-2015 at 12:25 PM

Quote: Originally posted by sargentodiaz

All of the Catholic missionaries sent to the New World attended local seminaries (colleges) where they were taught the skills necessary to be a missionary.

One of those skills was in language. Almost every single missionary made it an immediate goal to learn the local language - often compiling dictionaries so they could conduct the religious rites in the local language. The struggle to take Christian concepts and turn them into something the locals could understand was as difficult as anything they would encounter.

As for killing natives - why on earth would any sane missionary even think of such a thing? Their goal was to bring as many as possible to the church and give them a European style of living - lifting them out of their Stone Age ways. TO MAKE THEM SLAVES AS THEY BUILT THEIR EMPIRES.

It is estimated that most New World natives died of disease before the arrival of Europeans as those who did afterward. The biggest killer was Smallpox - just as it was for Europeans who contacted it. It just seems the Europeans had more of an immunity to it. AND THE SMALLPOX CAME FROM WHERE? ALONG WITH SYPHILIS.

I will pose the same question as before -- if Serra and the other missionaries were so cruel, why did converts voluntary drop to their knees and kiss the hand of Serra whenever he appeared where they lived? Why did they voluntarily travel far just to pass his grave? THIS IS HISTORY AS WRITTEN BY SERRA AND OTHER MISSIONARIES. MANY RELIGIOUS LEADERS CAST THEMSELVES THIS WAY STARTING WITH THE BIBLE. AND UNFORTUNATELY, FOR MANY NATIVES IT WAS OBEY OR BE BEATEN.

And, why did so many clans beg for missionaries to found missions in their area?

As some on this forum do, the accounts that were written were done so to shed , the best light possible on themselves and their deeds, even if it meant bending the truth.

Bajahowodd - 4-26-2015 at 04:43 PM

This whole discussion reminds me of what the Mormons did to Hawaii.

Skipjack Joe - 4-26-2015 at 04:54 PM

Most people mistakenly believe that the Old World introduced syphilus to the Americas. In fact, the opposite is true. Columbus' men introduced it to the Old World.

bezzell - 4-27-2015 at 07:59 AM

Quote: Originally posted by David K

1) Faith is extremely important

Speaking of faith-based f'g idiocy ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rp4qt3rgepQ

:lol:

sargentodiaz - 4-27-2015 at 12:39 PM

Along this line, I was asking myself - did the Upper and Lower California Indians have tribes before the arrival of the Spanish?

Think upon it. These Iron Age peoples never traveled more than one day from where they were born. Their only interaction with other families/clans was to get fresh blood in the form of young boys and girls.

They had no tribal councils or chiefs beyond the head of clans or families.

Check out my thoughts on this @ Father Serra's Legacy, http://msgdaleday,.blogspot.com

Osprey - 4-27-2015 at 01:08 PM

Hundreds of tribes of Indians lived in and traveled to the area south of what is now the border many moons before the missionaries arrived. Usually nomadic bands of Coastal and Great Basin Indians traveled about 100 miles per generation. Whoever painted the mid-drift cave paintings began 7800 hundred ago and the painting, occupation was continued over the millennia -- one shallow cave near Lake Chapala has been used by hunting groups as they traveled the length of the peninsula beginning 10,000 years ago.

bezzell - 4-27-2015 at 02:13 PM

Quote: Originally posted by David K

Only posting part of my quote here. Please include the entire sentence if not the whole reply.

If I'd wanted to reference you, I would have included your quote, or whole reply ... but was obviously referencing the subject. It's not all about YOU.
wake up

Bajahowodd - 4-27-2015 at 03:47 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Skipjack Joe

Most people mistakenly believe that the Old World introduced syphilus to the Americas. In fact, the opposite is true. Columbus' men introduced it to the Old World.

I'll bite. Where did Colombus's men get syphilis?

Bajahowodd - 4-27-2015 at 03:50 PM

Quote: Originally posted by bezzell

Quote: Originally posted by David K

1) Faith is extremely important

Speaking of faith-based f'g idiocy ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rp4qt3rgepQ

:lol:

Yup! But how do we deal with the American Taliban?? :?:

bezzell - 4-27-2015 at 06:20 PM

Quote: Originally posted by David K

wake up[/rquote]
You did reference me when you quoted from my reply... but you cut off the sentence midway through. Stop using me if you are too tired to type the words you want.

(sigh) no wonder science presents such a problem for you.
Ni modo

monoloco - 4-27-2015 at 06:22 PM

Quote: Originally posted by sargentodiaz

Yet they managed to survive as a culture for thousands of years. How long did they survive after the friars offered a "better life?"

sargentodiaz - 5-2-2015 at 12:48 PM

Over the past two days, I've posted to articles about Blessed Father Serra to my blog http://msgdaleday.blogspot.com

One was from a panel of historians indicating that he didn't need to be an angel to be canonized. They also discussed how he was a man of his times.

The second was about Pope Francis conducting Mass at Rome's North American College with a homily that explains the decision to make Blessed Father Serra a saint.

And, to all you non-Catholics - what difference does it make? It doesn't affect you one little bit.

DianaT - 5-3-2015 at 08:28 AM

Quote: Originally posted by sargentodiaz

And, to all you non-Catholics - what difference does it make? It doesn't affect you one little bit.

luv2fish - 5-3-2015 at 02:04 PM

Quote: Originally posted by DianaT

Quote: Originally posted by sargentodiaz

And, to all you non-Catholics - what difference does it make? It doesn't affect you one little bit.

You are correct. It is just a bunch of meaningless hocus pocus; just disappointed that this pope, who seemed better than most as a leader, chose to do this. Even though he is no more than an ordinary person, he does influence a lot of people.

Even this 10 year old knows how destructive the mission system was and they are still teaching this garbage in the 4th

http://nativenewsonline.net/currents/ten-year-old-wukchumni-...

Bravo to this young boy[/

Your comments are very offensive mrs trotter. If you don't believe simply refrain from posting such hurtful and evil comments. This is the main reason I will not donate to you friends elderly home in camalu, I figure friends of a feather..... Enjoy independence..

DianaT - 5-3-2015 at 02:39 PM

Oh gosh, let me go eat some worms.

You have the right to any religious belief you choose. I find nothing positive in the history of the Catholic Religion and Church ---- even though I know a number of Catholics that I like and respect very much. They have the right to their spiritual beliefs as do I and we co-exist in mutual respect as humans beings, not as religious beings.

So if that makes me evil in your mind, well so be it. And what you chose to do with any help you might offer anyone is surely your business and decision and you have the right to base it on anything you chose.

And frankly, IMHO, it is silly to think that any human being is closer to any god or gods than any other person. It is like thinking royalty is somehow better than other people, of course most of them at one time or another grabbed this status as it was granted by the Catholic Church.

Hurtful? I am sure glad my Christian, Catholic or other wise, prefer to discuss why they believe instead of feeling hurt. I certainly don't feel hurt when they don't agree with my spiritual beliefs. But of course, you are totally entitled to your own feelings and emotions. They belong to you.

rts551 - 5-3-2015 at 03:08 PM

Quote: Originally posted by luv2fish

Quote: Originally posted by DianaT

Quote: Originally posted by sargentodiaz

And, to all you non-Catholics - what difference does it make? It doesn't affect you one little bit.

Well you certainly are getting back at Ms trotter aren't you. If this is the kindness your religion promotes, I want nothing to do with it.

sargentodiaz - 5-3-2015 at 05:49 PM

Quote: Originally posted by David K

Why is there no tolerance of other ideas or beliefs, or any open minds from the elites here?

Catholic-phobic are we? Read, learn, think, discuss... but to harass anyone who brings up the past because it upsets you, is selfish, rude, and ignorant of reality.

It happened, it is history, and we are supposed to study history and if it was bad to not repeat it.

If the elites had their way, history would be changed and made PC, as if not talking about the past somehow makes it never have happened?

Thank you so very much, David. Knew I could count on you. :cool:

monoloco - 5-3-2015 at 07:13 PM

Quote: Originally posted by David K

Just curious, what exactly is your definition of an "elite"? Anyone who disagrees with you? Are the native people who object to the canonization of Fr. Sera "elites?"

[Edited on 5-4-2015 by monoloco]

elgatoloco - 5-3-2015 at 07:14 PM

Elite = intelligent :saint:

mtgoat666 - 5-3-2015 at 07:18 PM

Quote: Originally posted by monoloco

Quote: Originally posted by David K

Dk is a martyr with an inferiority complex. Anyone that disagrees with him is an elite. The boy really needs some self esteem.

bajacamper - 5-3-2015 at 07:40 PM

Believe whatever you want, "just don't scare the horses".

bajabuddha - 5-4-2015 at 02:59 AM

Quote: Originally posted by luv2fish

Your comments are very offensive mrs trotter. If you don't believe simply refrain from posting such hurtful and evil comments. This is the main reason I will not donate to you friends elderly home in camalu, I figure friends of a feather..... Enjoy independence..

Wow.

This has to be the most hypocritical Christianly fueled b.s. I've heard since Rev. Terry Jones in Florida gained his spotlight. I guess Sundee Skool was the hardest two weeks of your life.

Enjoy your dependence...

[Edited on 5-4-2015 by bajabuddha]

[Edited on 5-4-2015 by bajabuddha]

mtgoat666 - 5-4-2015 at 08:11 AM

Quote: Originally posted by David K

'Elites' here are those who think or act mightier than the rest... as if their beliefs are the only ones that matter

hey, that description sounds like the catholic church!

:lol:

bajabuddha - 5-4-2015 at 08:12 AM

Good thing you don't do any name-calling, Sunny Boy.

monoloco - 5-4-2015 at 08:32 AM

Quote: Originally posted by David K

'Elites' here are those who think or act mightier than the rest... as if their beliefs are the only ones that matter and all others must be eliminated. Liberals tout themselves as all tolerant and open to other's belief's... As we see in this thread, the opposite is the case. I am not religious, but I respect and am fascinated by religions. To not just enjoy the Catholics honoring one of their miracle makers (rather you believe or not in miracles) as a cultural event is just very sad. For those 'elite' Nomads who do all they can to distract, spoil an educational thread, and cause others to not participate (for not wanting the drama), is shameful.

Is it not educational to have a discussion that deviates from the official Catholic version of the mission period and explore the history from the view point of the native people? The historical fact is that the Catholic church was responsible for much misery in the world and to gloss over that fact, and try to portray the Jesuits and the Roman church as all sweetness and light, in any discussion of the mission period would be a disservice and constitute a white washing of history. In order to understand history it needs to be analyzed from every angle and not limited simply to the "official" point of view, which most often written by the victors and not the victims.

DianaT - 5-4-2015 at 09:22 AM

Quote: Originally posted by David K

'........To not just enjoy the Catholics honoring one of their miracle makers (rather you believe or not in miracles) as a cultural event is just very sad. .......

I guess the Inquisition was also just a cultural event??

The Catholic Church is not a culture. Any religion is not a culture, it is a PART of a culture. In various and different forms, the Catholic Church has become a part of the culture in many places --- it is different everywhere.

DK there are a lot of really good people who are Catholics who really enjoy their religion and even in their darkest hours, there have been good people who were believers.

However, the history of the official church is a quite dark history that includes the destruction of cultures and the historical records, murder, torture, persecutions, enslavement, on and on. For the most part it has been about power and money. Religions are interesting to study. And the believers and the hierarchy are often very different.

And I do believe that Alex, the 10 year old who stood up against his people being demeaned is a real hero.

[Edited on 5-4-2015 by DianaT]

mtgoat666 - 5-5-2015 at 11:16 AM

the catholic church has canonized many bad or controversial people. is suppose one more won't hurt.

Santo Junipero Serra

tortuga - 5-8-2015 at 09:57 AM

I am offended by the lack of knowledge the original poster has about the indigenous people of California . The following that I am going to post here is from Wikipedia on the subject of the Chumash Indians . I have studied this culture myself and agree with the facts stated below . Surely the many groups that occupied California before European contact have diverse lifestyles, HOWEVER THEY WERE NOT living meaningless lives .

Chumash environment before contact (1400 AD)[edit]

The Chumash resided between the Santa Ynez Mountains and the California coasts where numerous rivers and tributaries abound. Situated inside and around the modern-day Santa Barbara region, the Chumash found themselves in a veritable bounty of resources. The tribe lived in an area composed of three different environments: the interior, the coast, and the Northern Channel Islands.[6] These three provided a diverse array of materials to support the Chumash lifestyle. The interior is composed of the land outside the coast and spanning the wide plains, rivers, and mountains. The coast covers the cliffs and land close to the ocean and, in reference to resources gathered, the areas of the ocean from which the Chumash harvested, and the Northern Channel Islands lie off the coast of the Chumash territory. All of the California coastal-interior has a Mediterranean climate due to the incoming winds from the ocean. [7] The mild temperatures year-round save for winter made gathering easy; during the cold months, the tribespeople harvested what they could and supplemented their diets with stored foods. What villagers gathered and traded during the seasons changed depending on in which of the three environments they resided. [8] With coasts populated by masses of various species of fish and land densely covered by trees and animals, the Chumash had a diverse array of food. Abundant resources and a winter rarely harsh enough to cause concern meant the tribe lived a sedentary (meaning living in one place) lifestyle in addition to a subsistence existence. Villages in the three aforementioned areas contained remains of sea mammals, indicating that trade networks existed for moving materials throughout the Chumash territory. [9] Such connections spread out the land’s wealth, allowing the Chumash to live comfortably without agriculture.

Chumash diet before 1400 AD[edit]

Obviously, the closer a village is to the ocean, the greater its reliance on maritime resources. [10] Due to advanced canoe designs, coastal and island people could procure fish and aquatic mammals from farther out. Shellfish were a good source of nutrition, both relatively easy to find and abundant. Many of the favored varieties grew within tidal zones, areas close to the shore. [11] Shellfish grew in abundance during winter to early spring; their proximity to shore would make collection easier since gatherers would not need to venture out too far. Some of the consumed species included mussels, abalone, and a wide array of clams. Ocean animals such as otters and seals were thought to be the primary meal of coastal tribes people, but recent evidence shows the aforementioned trade networks exchanged oceanic animals for terrestrial foods from the interior. Any village could acquire fish, but the coastal and island communities specialized in catching not just smaller fish, but alsso the massive catches such as swordfish. [12] This feat, difficult even for today’s technology, was made possible by the tomol plank canoe. Not only did its design allow for the capture of deepwater fish, but it also facilitated the trade routes between villages. [13] Before contact with Europeans, coastal Chumash relied less on terrestrial resources than they did on maritime; vice versa for interior Chumash. [14] Regardless, they both consumed similar land resources. Like many other tribes, deer were the most important land mammal the Chumash pursued; deer were consumed in varying amounts across all regions, which cannot be said for other terrestrial animals. Interior Chumash placed greater value on the deer, to the extent that they had unique hunting practices for them. They dressed as deer and grazed alongside the animals until the hunters were in range to use their arrows. [15] Even Chumash close to the ocean pursued deer, though in understandably fewer numbers, and what more meat the villages needed they acquired from smaller animals such as rabbits and birds. Plant foods composed the rest of Chumash diet, especially acorns, which were the staple food for numerous reasons despite the work needed to remove their inherent toxins. They could be ground into a paste both easy to eat and stored for years.[16] Coast live oak provided the best acorns; their mush would be served usually unseasoned with meat and/or fish. [17]

Tortuga

[Edited on 5-8-2015 by tortuga]

David K - 5-8-2015 at 11:21 AM

The Chumash were only is a small area of California, but had a vibrant society IMO. Too bad the other California or Baja California tribes weren't as productive... or were they at one time and declined by the time the Spanish occupied the land?

LancairDriver - 5-8-2015 at 12:01 PM

There is no comparison between the level of civilization and standard of living between the Chumash and the Baja tribes. This is well documented.

sargentodiaz - 5-8-2015 at 12:04 PM

The Chumash were expert boat builders and sailors. They routinely visited the channel islands and some small temporary settlements were established on them. In that the islands lack regular supplies of fresh water, they were only temporary.

There is no question that they had a vibrant society. But - it lacked a sense of community. Each family or clan fended for themselves. Those from the mountains never went near those living along the shore. The only contact were raids to obtain young boys and girls to keep the blood lines from becoming stagnant.

I cannot find anything about a belief in a Creator spirit or anything in their lives but a dread for death they knew was inevitable. Thus, when the friars came with a promise of life after death, they did not need to be enslaved to seek conversion and life at the missions.

While I use Wikipedia but source material, it is but one source.

Osprey - 5-8-2015 at 12:30 PM

There you go again Sarge, You quit before and only came back to sell your Amazon book.

Now you show us more arrogance and twisted research by telling us non Christians then and now lead empty useless lives.

Vegas isn't far from California -- you can redeem yourself by a long visit at the California Historical Society which will hopefully open your eyes to the splendor of proud people from Alaska southward whose lives paint a story of peaceful occupation and reverence for the land, the animals and their own private spirits.

vandenberg - 5-8-2015 at 12:49 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Osprey

There you go again Sarge, You quit before and only came back to sell your Amazon book.

Now you show us more arrogance and twisted research by telling us non Christians then and now lead empty useless lives.

Vegas isn't far from California -- you can redeem yourself by a long visit at the California Historical Society which will hopefully open your eyes to the splendor of proud people from Alaska southward whose lives paint a story of peaceful occupation and reverence for the land, the animals and their own private spirits.

......to be subjugated by people of superior believes and weaponry, whose descendants, in turn, repeated the same atrocities by destabilizing most of the middle east and north Africa with their superior government style.
Loss of innocent lives being of no consequence.

[Edited on 5-8-2015 by vandenberg]

toneart - 5-8-2015 at 04:10 PM

Observations while reading this string:

What do Conservatives mean when they refer to Liberals as "Elite"?
In my opinion, the word is parroted by the usual, typical, non-original thinking posters who get their information from Faux News, Limbaugh, etc. They do not really know the meaning of the word.

Elite: Elite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EliteCached

In political and sociological theory, an elite is a small group of people who control a disproportionate amount of wealth or political power. In general ...

Found in Google search:

"When American conservatives speak of the "liberal elite," they use
"elite" as a pejorative, ignoring its denotative sense as simply a
group of people that, because of their education, position, power, or
wealth, wield influence far greater than the rank and file within any
given larger group of which they are a part. Instead, they usually
limit the liberal elite to the intelligentsia of the NE corridor of
the United States (e.g., journalists and academics) and the activist
moguls, directors, and actors that make up the most politically vocal
segment of the Hollywood set."

Again, found in a Google search:

"Is there an analogous "conservative elite," and, if so, how would one define it?

My initial inclination is to define two variants, as follows:

1) Certain non-govt persons who can be individually identified as
influential proclaimers of conservatism as the political philosophy
best for America. Some examples:

Rush Limbaugh
Ann Coulter
George Will
Bill Buckley
Bill Kristol
Richard Perle
Fellows of the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation,
and the Cato Institute
CEOs of Fortune 500 companies (most of them)

2) The whole sub-class of upper-crust conservatives who have prospered
especially well by following such a political-economic philosophy and
who, as a result, wield a good deal of political influence either up
front or from behind the scenes.

Power elite is a term used by American sociologist C. Wright Mills to describe a relatively small, loosely connected group of individuals who dominate American policymaking. This group includes bureaucratic, corporate, intellectual, military, media, and government elites who control the principal institutions in the United States and whose opinions and actions influence the decisions of the policymakers.[15]

The basis for membership of a power élite is institutional power, namely an influential position within a prominent private or public organization.[citation needed] One study (published in 2002) of power élites in the United States under President George W. Bush (in office 2001-2009) identified 7,314 institutional positions of power encompassing 5,778 individuals..."

David K - 5-8-2015 at 04:23 PM

"Elite" when used by me earlier describes the "group" who think they are better than everyone else or superior to others. That only they are wise enough to know how the rest of us should live... while they live however they wish, using any resources needed for their lifestyle... having more while asking us to do with less.

300 years ago, the Spanish and Europeans were the elite in the New World... of course before them, the Aztec kings and other Indian nobility were the elite.

Now, it is often those with wealth or those followers who do the intellectual bidding of the wealthy, who instruct all others to do with less, while they enjoy having more. ELITE

GOOD AND EVIL AS RELIGIOUS IDEAS.

toneart - 5-8-2015 at 04:33 PM

The word "evil" has been used in this string.

From the book, Sacred Texts:

"THIS WORLD OF OURS is a world of opposites. There is light and shade, there is heat and cold, there is good and evil, there is God and the Devil."

So, in their world, if evil, you are the opposite of good. It is a value judgement based on a narrow interpretation of their belief system. It is a self righteous declaration.

Quote: Originally posted by bajacamper

Believe whatever you want, "just don't scare the horses".

bajabuddha - 5-8-2015 at 05:42 PM

Quote: Originally posted by David K

"Elite" when used by me earlier describes the "group" who think they are better than everyone else or superior to others. That only they are wise enough to know how the rest of us should live... while they live however they wish, using any resources needed for their lifestyle...

Yet another TOPPER.

Kind of like asking about "is it so hard to sign up for facebook?" ...and repeat the same question, as if it had any relevance whatsoever? Ever try to get off of facebook? It took me 6 months and a lot of internet jogging to get the hell away from you elitists.

"Can't you just be like me?" is what you're really asking. It must be wonderful to be you.

Geezo, I wish I could be just like you.

[Edited on 5-9-2015 by bajabuddha]

sargentodiaz - 5-10-2015 at 10:55 AM

I have never inferred that California Indians lived useless lives!

All I ever indicated was their desperation to live day by day without the skills necessary to get them through droughts, floods, or other disasters.

I have also not judged their belief system as most of them had no words for anything beyond what they could see, taste, smell, or hear.

Some of their basketwork was awesome. The Chumash were master boat builders - for less than one day voyages. There is no record of them having gone beyond the Channel Islands - places further away that they could not see or imagine.

They showed no interest in trading with other tribes to the east or even among themselves. They did try to explain some natural events with myths such as a turtle holding up the world and earthquakes coming when it got tired and had to shift its stance.

In other words, their "rich culture" had no imagination or desire to improve beyond their Stone Age existence.

If that is being derogative, then let it be so.

[Edited on 5-10-2015 by sargentodiaz]

monoloco - 5-10-2015 at 11:38 AM

Quote: Originally posted by sargentodiaz

I have never inferred that California Indians lived useless lives!

All I ever indicated was their desperation to live day by day without the skills necessary to get them through droughts, floods, or other disasters.

I have also not judged their belief system as most of them had no words for anything beyond what they could see, taste, smell, or hear.

Some of their basketwork was awesome. The Chumash were master boat builders - for less than one day voyages. There is no record of them having gone beyond the Channel Islands - places further away that they could not see or imagine.

They showed no interest in trading with other tribes to the east or even among themselves. They did try to explain some natural events with myths such as a turtle holding up the world and earthquakes coming when it got tired and had to shift its stance.

In other words, their "rich culture" had no imagination or desire to improve beyond their Stone Age existence.

If that is being derogative, then let it be so.

[Edited on 5-10-2015 by sargentodiaz]

If they didn't possess the skills to get them through "droughts, floods, and other disasters", how did they manage to survive for thousands of years in an inhospitable place like Baja? The myth of a turtle holding up the world isn't any more far fetched than God creating the earth in 6 days or many of the other Biblical myths.

[Edited on 5-10-2015 by monoloco]