Seasons greetings amigos,
I must again beg your indulgence for a very long reply, as there have been a number of posts I would like to address.
Ritchie wrote
Indeed Lamar did shift responsibility for any mining activities to the Indians, but in your wildest dreams did you ever imagine the Priests themselves out there digging? It matters NOT who actually dug it up, but who possessed it in he end. All that is needed to bridge the grey area, is for everyone to agree that there was mining done that the Jesuits (Church) profited from, and therefore those profits could have, at one time been buried away somewhere for safekeeping.
Actually no - I have not envisaged the priests doing the actual digging, with one exception (Father DeSmet) as they were using Indians as laborers. Very much as slave laborers, that is, as they were not paid for their work, the work was mandatory and enforced with the whip and the pillory stocks; the Indians were no more "free" than any black African slave on a southern plantation - if they ran away, the priest had the legal power to send his men (which included Spanish soldiers besides "friendly" Indians, often of other tribes, such as using Opatas to oversee Pimas) so despite the modern attempts to repaint this period of history depicting the Jesuits as the great protectors of the Indians, their "protection" had a cost not much different than if they had done nothing to stop the Spanish. What is most telling here, are the Jesuit letters sent to the Spanish authorities, complaining about their Indians running away from the missions TO THE SPANISH, and working in the mines for them. The poor Indians who did this, running away to the Spanish, were then introduced to "every vice available" by those "evil" Spanish.
I use the term "Jesuit" when we refer to these particular mines and treasures as it is common usage, not because any particular Jesuit priest held a personal stake in them. It is very likely that they had no ownership at all, personally, other than being a member of the Order which owned them corporately. With one exception, in which a Jesuit complained in a letter about another Jesuit who was using the Indians as slaves in his own mine, and also gambling, I think the true "ownership" of nearly all of the mines and treasures was vested in the Society of Jesus, and some portion assigned to the Church. Very convenient for the padres.
Now I expect someone will demand to see those letters of complaints of the Indians running away, and the letter where a Jesuit complains about another Jesuit's use of Indians in his mine and his gambling, but most of these have been posted here on T-net previously so if you are curious it should be possible to locate them by spending some time looking.
Springfield wrote
This thread is taking a bizarre twist, with the happy natives partnered up with their new friends in some sort of mutual mining enterprise organized to provide the brothers with gold and the natives with steady back-breaking work. Sounds like a tough sell to me.
You have hit the nail yet again amigo - this period of history is very complex, but we can start to understand why some tribes just didn't seem to be too attracted to the Missions, like the Apaches for example, and why some of the tribes whom were friendly at first, ended up in rebellion against the padres and Spanish, as in 1751 (Pimas) 1740 (Yaquis) 1695 (Pimas) 1680 (Pueblos, Zunis etc) the record is inexplicable if we accept the apologists version of events.
The whole story is complicated though, which makes for un-ending arguments in our forums as few have examined the various "sides" of the issues. We tend to think of the Jesuit missions as being wholly made up of Pimas, Papagoes and Opatas, at least in that part of Arizona where they were active, yet whom is aware that a fair percentage of the Indian settlers at Tucson were none of these tribes, but Apaches. Some Apaches were attracted to the structured, relatively peaceful lifestyle at the missions - with the one solid benefit of a (nearly) guaranteed food supply every winter. Regardless of how many times Lamar may say "simple" in his posts about this whole subject, there is nothing simple about it.
Lamar wrote
In the reduction system, all of the native charges worked X number of hours per week towards the good of the community, ie, the reduction. This was actually a very good system for the natives because they usually worked less than 4 hours per day, 6 days per week, whereas if they were to leave the reductions, they were subjected to being enslaved by the secular colonists, and if not enslaved, they would have been forced to work about 10 to 12 per day for extremely low wages.
Hmm, skipping a few details here, such as those Indians who went to work for the Spanish were paid wages, while those who worked on the mission ranches, farms or mines got food. Trying to paint the Jesuits as great anti-slavery emancipators really ignores the fact that they were using the Indians in ways which were not much different from slavery, and that it was the Jesuits who introduced slaves into Pimeria. Jesuits were very large slaveowners in other areas including Brazil, Maryland, Argentina and other places, so their status as "great emancipators" is a very strange way to describe them.
Lamar also wrote
Mining for gold and silver had nothing to do with the problem between the Jesuits and the colonists, yet the colonists could not complain that the Jesuits were preventing them from enslaving the natives because the enslavery of fellow Christian subjects was against Spanish Royal Law.
This is erroneous. The secular authorities had enough information of Jesuit mines and witnessed the wealth of the missions, and from the Jesuits own published accounts of the mineral riches found in their regions the Spanish colonists had reason to want to take those mineral riches away from the hands of the Jesuits. Why do you suppose that the Spanish authorities were so forceful in their searches for hidden treasures, on their arrest of the Jesuits? Just for "good measure" or is it really because they had been informed of the hidden wealth? They just didn't know where to search. The mines were hidden well before the arrest took place, which also means that mining ceased. If Lamar's version of this part of history were correct, the kindly Spanish secular authorities would have no reason to search for any hidden treasures or wealth, since those accusations about treasures and mining were all "trumped up" excuses for the lay people to enslave the Indians.
Lamar also wrote
Everyone, including the nobility, KNEW what the REAL problems were, yet they could not address the actual problems because that would have been a politically fatal manuver.
This is presumption on your part, and belies the fact that the Spanish even tortured the arrested Jesuits to learn the secret hiding places. You are here in this sentence trying to re-write that part of history, shifting the focus to some theoretical reason away from what is historical record. And you pride yourself on your historical accuracy.
Cactusjumper wrote
Spain, too late, realized how much damage was done in the New World by expelling the Jesuits. That damage continues to this day. With all of it's natural resources, manpower and land mass, Mexico remains a third world country. Other than the Yaquis, one of the Jesuits most successful endeavors, most of the Native populations were devastated, and remain so today......at least those who survived.
Well, one could take the opposite view, that the current situation in Mexico is a direct cause-and-event of the Jesuit reduction systems; which imposed a "communist" or 'kibbutz' type of economy, with no real reward for those who work harder to get ahead; that their education system instead of catapulting those Indians ahead of their contemporary European "competitors" or at least bringing them onto equal level, it has rather retarded their level of education so that they remain relatively un-educated compared with people living just north of them, but who had a different set of educators.
I will agree that simply arresting the Jesuits and marching them out, without having replacements to place in the missions immediately, was a rather stupid maneuver, which resulted in a fair number of missions becoming totally abandoned. However from the Franciscans who did replace the Jesuits, we find complaints that the Indians had not been educated. The gentle way Father Garces put it was, that his Jesuit predecessors had been "too busy with their labors" - which included quite large ranching enterprises, farming and mining.
Cactusjumper also wrote
The account of the Jesuit priest who became insane on hearing the decree read can be found in "Missionary In Sonora", which is the account written by Father Joseph Och, S.J. and translated by Theodore E. Treutlein.
I don't personally doubt that the arrest was shocking for the Jesuits, enough to cause some reactions - however how do we KNOW that particular priest wasn't simply acting? We don't. It was far easier to fake such a thing in the 1700's than today. If his mental state was so fragile, one wonders about the wisdom of having such a man in charge of a mission, with so many people under his charge. While the Jesuit version of events is our "historical record" it is not unquestionable, and I will go so far as to say it IS biased in favor of the Society of Jesus.
Cactusjumper also wrote
For anyone imagining great Jesuit wealth, this book would be a good one to read.
There is no need to "imagine" great Jesuit wealth, all one needs to do is look at photos of the gold and silver adorning their churches to see how "poor" they truly were.
Cactusjumper also wrote
Since you chose to sit on your hands while Ritchie was telling me how stupid I am, I will assume you agree with everything he wrote in the above post.
Well I don't agree with the various insults tossed around, and have tried to remain silent on them, which I do not wish for anyone to conclude equates with my assent to them. This subject is one of those 'hot button' issues, much more so than I ever believed, among our little community. I don't understand why the level of "hot" is so high, honestly. For the apologists, what difference can it make if some treasure hunters go seeking lost Jesuit mines and or treasures, if they never existed? For the conspiracy theorist, does it matter if the Society of Jesus denies any treasures or mines exist, if you have enough evidence to convince you? I don't get the apparent "investment of emotion" we find in this subject.
I could present a half dozen examples - for why would a particular religious order care, if someone claimed that they were searching for Atlantis and those Benedictine monks knew exactly where it is. Does that make sense to you?
Lamar wrote
An interesting item which most people do not know is that the Jesuits were arming and training their subject charges in defense of their individual missions and reductions. This occurred quite frequently and we may read of requests by Jesuit missionaries, asking for permission to arm and equip the their native charges in order for them to have been able to defend themselves.
Interestingly enough, it was never once stated against WHOM the natives were defending themselves or WHY there would have been a need for the natives to defend themselves in the first place, yet everyone knew the underlying answer already, therefore that issue did not need to be discussed.
Well this scenario you propose was in fact suspected in the case of the Guaranis, the "threat" to the natives being the Portuguese slave raiders; in Pimeria the threat was the Apaches, and south of there the Seris, and they are named in fact in at least one source (request).
Wishing you all a very Merry Christmas,
Oroblanco
