Columbus Day

[metis]

Around two decades ago, I was marching in a Columbus Day parade largely because my wife is from Italy and we belong to an Italian organization that had a spot in the parade.  However, during one of the parades I saw and Indian with a sign that had a negative message about Columbus but, unfortunately, I cannot remember the wording.  I had a general idea where he was coming from, but I decided to do some research on it.

Even though Columbus tends to be at least somewhat highly revered with much of North American society, it certainly is not with much of the Indian population, which should be of no surprise obviously.  But what else I found out was very interesting.

In Latin America, Columbus is generally held in poor esteem, especially since much of the population there has some Indian "blood" and some have African "blood".  But what else you often see, which I've witnessed for myself, is also a disdain for the Catholic Church especially because of its perceived treatment historically towards Indians, but also its perceived historic justification for the powers that be.  But then you have a counter reaction with many others, including some Indians, that have a great deal of faith in the Church.

Anyhow, my question:  How do you perceive Columbus and why?  Also, what do you tend to think about the Church's historic role dealing with such and, since the Church has changed course in some of these areas, was and is the Church doing the right thing?  Please realize, however, that this thread is not intended by me to be an anti-Catholic attack by any means.

Shalom,
Vern     

[Acumen]

It seems like an interesting question, but I honestly don't know a lot about Columbus or the Catholic Church's dealings with him.

[metis]

It seems like an interesting question, but I honestly don't know a lot about Columbus or the Catholic Church's dealings with him.

You might try Wikipedia (I haven't yet).  There's also two books that are very well documented that deal with this issue, and one is "Lies My Teacher Told Me" and "American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World", the latter being written by David Stannard.

The extremely short version: Columbus got involved in activities that led to the slavery of Indians and also to massive killings.  The RCC was very slow to react, but finally outlawed the slavery of Indians (not blacks, however), but that really didn't change much of anything.  Political leaders continued their slaughter with hardly a whimper coming from the Church.  This frustration and others in Latin America eventually led in part to the "liberation theology" controversy that plagued the Church in the 60's and 70's especially. 

Obviously there's much more to the story.

Shalom,
Vern

[metis]

I could comment on the subject of evangelization and how it differed in times past.  Many people condemn the Church when it comes to how it had evangelized the world, complaining that the Church committed atrocities towards the natives and their cultures.  The problem is that these people want to judge the Church based on our evangelical standards today and not the standards from the particular time period.

No doubt.  And also there's not much doubt that many of the decisions probably were more political than religious-based.

I am just wondering exactly who determined that the Church reacted slowly and that they somehow approved of this "slaughter?"

I did not say or imply that the Church approved of the slaughter.  The fact that it reacted slowly is evident by the history of what took place.  But how could one possibly summarize in a few sentences that which books have been written about?  Any good book on Latin America history should be easy to check out.  I'll see later today if there's some websites that directly deal with it, as I'm quite sure there are.

Shalom,
Vern 

[metis]

I didn't have much luck.  I Googled and Wikipediad several articles, but they so much link the Church activity (or the lack there of) with the Spanish/Portuguese political activities, that I haven't found a source that just deals with the Church.  My information came from a variety of sources, including a Latin American history class I took when starting my master's, two Native American classes while working on my masters, my involvement with the United Farm Workers Ministries (I even had a chance to talk with Cesar Chavez), and numerous books (one of them was written by a "liberation theology" priest who eventually was assassinated in Colombia-- thrown out of a helicopter with no parachute). 

Another very interesting meeting I had occurred about 20 years ago when I was at a church conference down in Dayton, Ohio.  There I met a priest whom was pastor of the two Catholic nuns and two lay missionaries that we murdered by a death squad down in El Salvador.  We talked for about three hours, with some of the discussion relating to the treatment of Indians (his parish was in an area that was heavily Indian).  I have to admit that he did 99% of the talking and I did the listening.  Fascinating man! 

Back to the thread.  For short and quick reading, get a copy of "Lies My Teacher Told Me" and turn to the chapter on Columbus.  It's a well documented book that heavily relies on Columbus' own diary and letters.



Shalom,
Vern

[metis]

I am not buying that the Church acted "slowly" just because that is how some people have interpreted that time in history especially since they, without a doubt, did not know the rational and circumstances that were taking place in the Vatican at the time.  It's conjecture and that is why I was trying to bring the discussion into a less subjective place.  How the Church evangelized in different times and cultures is a little easier to debate and in my opinion more appropriate.

Since you already admitted that you really don't know that much about the subject, why are you sticking up for the Church's decisions or indecisions?  Might it not be better to do some inquiry first?

Shalom,
Vern

[metis]

That would be an endless rabbit trail that would lead to nowhere.

And how could you possibkly know that unless you actually took a chance to find out?

Shalom,
Vern

[WorldWarrior]

"Many people condemn the Church when it comes to how it had evangelized the world, complaining that the Church committed atrocities towards the natives and their cultures. 

The problem is that these people want to judge the Church based on our evangelical standards today and not the standards from the particular time period"


It seems you are not aware of the Pope's prononcements at the time encouraging the taking of Native Americans as Slaves?

And encouraging the attitude of "convert or die"?

And encouraging taking the lands of Indigenous Peoples?


It would give a much better impression of Catholics if you would educate yourself on the Church's role in the depredations that ocurred for several hundre years in the Americas.



btw--I am a Cradle Catholic and I have taken the time to learn what the Church did/eoncouraged others to do to the Indigenous Peoples of the Americas.

[WorldWarrior]

Ell says--"Cradle Catholic means nothing"



I knew it!

You're a convert.



I can spot them a mile away--anything that is said that is the LEAST bit critical of the Church is viewed as a  MORTAL SIN by converts.


Cradle Catholics already know it's OKAY to question the Church and the pope.


No lightning bolts. No ten plagues.

Just an increase in knowledge and understanding.

[WorldWarrior]

Ell says--

"Where are your sources and then I will consider them."



Let's start with Quod super his.

[WorldWarrior]

You read it and then we can discuss it.



Why don't you go ahead and read Romanus pontifex and we can discuss them in tandem.

And go ahead and read the Spanish Bull and the Portuguese Bull--we'll discuss all of them in order.

[WorldWarrior]

" Your problem is that you think, out of ignorance, that just because there are many "cafeteria Catholics" who are not faithful to the faith of their upbringing that they somehow are more enlightened about things Catholic."



Cradle Catholics are NOT necessarily "cafeteria Catholics" but it's interesting that your response to a fellow Catholic who disagrees with you in any way is insults.

[WorldWarrior]

"I'm still waiting?"

I'll wait while you read--



Quod super his.

Romanus pontifex.

The Spanish Bull.

The Portugese Bull.



We can then begin our discussion.

[WorldWarrior]

"I don't see the problem with any Church teachings and or proclamations. 

What's the problem, I am waiting to hear your beef?"




From your above it seems you are not familiar with any of the Church documents I listed.


We can begin discussing the topic at hand once you are familiar with those.

[WorldWarrior]

Ell says--"I am familiar with them. Let's get it on."




Which one of them proves your point that the Church committed atrocities "based on standards from the particular time period"--in particular taking the lands of Indigenous Peoples of the Americas and enslaving them?


Please quote the specific portion(s) and show how the Church was only committing atrocities "based on the standards of the time."

[WorldWarrior]

Ell--


You did not say this in your post #3 on this thread?



"Many people condemn the Church when it comes to how it had evangelized the world, complaining that the Church committed atrocities towards the natives and their cultures. 

The problem is that these people want to judge the Church based on our evangelical standards today and not the standards from the particular time period"

[WorldWarrior]

Ell says--

"You are referring to the Papal Bulls of Spain."


No I'm not.

[WorldWarrior]

Each of the documents I listed addresses a different aspect of the discourse of conquest.


Let's discuss them (both the issues and the documents) in chronological order-shall we?

[WorldWarrior]

Let's start with the document that takes the New World away from its Indigenous Peoples and gives it to someone else--its conquerors.

[WorldWarrior]

Okay.

As soon as you acknowledge that you said--








"Many people condemn the Church when it comes to how it had evangelized the world, complaining that the Church committed atrocities towards the natives and their cultures. 

The problem is that these people want to judge the Church based on our evangelical standards today and not the standards from the particular time period"


in your post #3 on this thread.