Remedial Post: On Native Mistreatment.

An old friend, whom I respect and admire, checked me on my last post.  Specifically, on how easily I appeared to accept one historian’s complete dismissal of native abuse at the missions.  She was horrified that I (or anyone) would flatly deny the inhuman treatment the natives received at the hands of settlers, and, true to form, sent me several links and articles about mission cruelty. She’s perfectly rightful do so.  Frankly, if I was trying to categorically deny crimes committed by the Spanish against the Indians, or to propagate some nefarious misinformation out of loyalty to a secret society, or really if I tried to make any claim in support of which I boasted no authority, or provided no evidence… well, I’m just surprised nobody else has brought it to my attention.  With that said, I should clarify what actually transpired in my conversation, how I understood it, and leave you to argue among yourselves. 

I asked him what the fuss was about, meaning, what would lead us to think in the first place that natives were enslaved or abused at the missions at all?  Now, anyone is free to say that religion is its own form of oppression, or that European occupation of the New World devastated the existing culture, or that soldiers with guns intimidated the natives, I can understand all these points, but these are seperate questions.  My question was simply “What is all the fuss about mission cruelty?” 

Granted:

1. None of us were there.

2. The records were kept by the Spanish.

3. I am only reporting this man’s response.

His short answer was “nothing” (seems dismissive, but he was on his way out, and seemed impatient to leave).  He further explained (I paraphrase), “None of the typical events which people use to illustrate native mistreatment in early California happened on the missions during the mission era.”  In other words, California’s early history is full of beatings, battles, murders, displacement, enslavement, oppression, dehumanization, and genocide, but it is a gross misrepresentation to say the missions kept the natives as slaves, or that it was common practice for priests and soldiers to rape native girls, etc.

The trouble is, this is exactly the opinion most people have (I’m talking about people whom I have spoken to on this trip, and a few friends): that missionaries were just corrupt European officials in a now obsolete religio-political order of the Spanish empire, who led armies into virgin lands, forced the natives into slavery to build their fortresses and grow their food, who killed and raped at will, and effectively operated as rich, new-world dictators while their military support lasted.  I’m not trying to be facetious, that’s just what I imagine from their descriptions.  To say this never happened to the natives at all would be incorrect,  but what the gentleman in the archives said was that there is no reason to say that this was the practice, or worse, the intent of the missions.

As I said, none of us were there, and for all we know the old gentleman could be wrong. He could be wrong as easily as any other source, it’s just not clear what really happened.  Why is there such a difference of opinion on the facts?

 It’s possible this man wants to defend the Catholic missionaries because he is himself Catholic (e.g. “We must preserve the unspotted reputation of Holy Mother Church at all costs!” Though I don’t know if the church has ever really had a spotless reputation, nor that it would really matter), but the opposite possibility –that post-Christian historians are willing to defend the native minority group (everyone loves an underdog) and blame the church (rich white bastards) simply because they themselves are post-Christian– is no less likely.  I’m not taking a side here, nor do I think we’re really as polarized as all that, but if it’s wrong to believe a historian who says the Franciscans were not tyrants, then what of believing the historian who calls them monsters?  I want to say that the same thing can be applied to the Romans, Saxons, or Mongols (who showed much less trepidation about raping and enslaving the conquered), but few people have such lingering feelings about what bastards the Vikings were.  

So, to be clear, he wasn’t denying that the natives were mistreated by the Spanish, the Mexicans, or the Americans.  He didn’t say that the missions were little slices of heaven.  He only said that the really notable examples were not related to the mission program, and that tyranny at the missions has been greatly exaggerated.  You can weigh his account against others, you can doubt his integrity, or you can question his sanity (he is, after all, a Catholic), but that’s what he told me.  

I know that being religious doesn’t exempt you from sadism, lust, inhumanity, greed, self worship, or any other evil that humans can conceive.  Argument aside, the worst allegations may be true, of the missions, of the priests, of the whole undertaking, and if it is, and we have evidence for it, then we need to own that and make it right.  But I will not say that I “know” the missions were slave camps, that the Catholic Church is just a corrupt political parasite, or that Junipero Serra was a tyrant without the same basis of evidence.