ConceptualizedNetherlandr
Bronze Member
Nethrlandr,
I see. You are trying to use logic with the government. Had much experience dealing with bureaucracies?
Good luck,
Joe Ribaudo
Yes. Tis how I made most of my living.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Nethrlandr,
I see. You are trying to use logic with the government. Had much experience dealing with bureaucracies?
Good luck,
Joe Ribaudo
Allo mi compadre Oro, May I ask were the coadjutors under any 'obligation' to report their activities to a lowly mission priest??
To them the coadjutors were simply other Spanish miners or whatever they were involved in.
The old "Need to know" factor.
Don Jose de La Mancha
Yes. Tis how I made most of my living.
Couple of points A-- Regardiig coadjutors, remember most wereJesut trained , and those dedicated to mining were especially so. Wold you trust your profiiable mine to what could be an uneducated Indian, no matter how trusted? An Improperly worked mine can lose the mine quickly.
Even then I was not safe from the persecution of the Fathers, because Lieutenant Don Cristóbal Yañez told me, “You must leave here because I have a letter from Father Jacobo Sedelmayr instructing me to give you fifty lashes and banish you from these parts.”
Which side of the issues?
Joe
They would direct the Indians, supervise them. They were obviously very hands-on to the point of instructing the army to whip any recalcitrant workers:
From Pedro de la Cruz, an Indian who ran away from hard labor in the mines, and who was later accused of corroborating in the Pima uprising of 1751.
If by workers you mean slaves. Are you seriously suggesting the Jesuits enslaved Indians? Or was whipping free men the norm then?
Under legal language the lost Dutchman mine, it would not be a new onem if had ever been filed under any name, or any time, and could legally be filed upon, It is NOt a new claim, but a refiling and bringing it up to date. ?
If by workers you mean slaves. Are you seriously suggesting the Jesuits enslaved Indians? Or was whipping free men the norm then?
Well, would you think that any free man would submit to being whipped?
Now I am not suggesting that the Jesuits proactively sought to enslave Indians, but they did not stop those of the Indians that refused to convert, from being enslaved.
Furthermore, in that they sought to gather the Indians into reducciones, or special mission settlements which were intended to facilitate evangelization (colonization) of these people, this could then be seen as borderline enslavement because the alternative for those Indians were to either engage in warfare with the Spanish Army, or risk outright slavery.
Inside those reducciones the Jesuits engaged in systematic repression and eradication of the Indian's indigenous beliefs and religion.
snip...
ConceptualizedNetherlandr wrote
We might get caught up in a word definition here amigo - the Mission Indians were not exactly legally "slaves" however they were NOT free, could not leave the mission without permission of the padres for instance, and DID have forced labor as most peons of Mexico also did, which was three days per week. At least that was the rule, however there is evidence the three days rule was widely ignored. The Jesuits DID introduce actual slaves from Africa into Sonora too, as they found the Indians did not live too long working in the mines. The thing is that the Indians had a legal standing similar to that of minor children today, with the padres as the "legal guardians" in charge of them. And whipping was one of the main forms of corporal punishment used on the Indians, along with the stocks. Whipping was not that un-common as a legal punishment for minor crimes in that time. So in a sense you could argue that the Mission Indians were indeed "slaves" being that they were not free and had to do forced labor, and yet you could also argue that they were NOT slaves, as they could not be bought and sold as true slaves were, and for three days of each week they were "free" to do their own work, which would be most unusual for slaves of that time.
Sorry for the long-winded and partially off-topic post,
Oroblanco
I'd need to see a whole lotta paperwork before I'd swallow that
How did you think the Missions actually worked? Why do you suppose the Indians rose in revolt against them, not just once but repeatedly over the centuries, and there were cases of the Indians running away from the Missions wholesale, only to be hunted down by soldiers and "trusted" Indian allies, even using dogs to run them down. The Mission system aka "reducions" was rather brutal amigo, not quite the heavenly gardens that some modern revisionists have been trying to paint them.
An outstanding feature of these [missions] reports is the constant complaint raised by the Jesuits that the main reason for the Indian attacks was to pillage the missions' property, and that the principal spoils of the Indian incursions were cattle and horses. The rest of the mission's property apparently remained untouched, or so it seems from the Jesuit records, which also suggest that, occasionally, total destruction occurred from these Indian raids. Despite such claims, however, total destruction was rarely the case since the Indians attacked symbols of domination: church buildings, crosses, and saints' images.
I'd need to see a whole lotta paperwork before I'd swallow that
By all means, do not take MY word on it; look up "reduccion" and "congregaccion" which is the Spanish terms for the Mission system; also check out "encomiendo" and "repartimento" which are Spanish laws for forced labor, outside of Missions which have not been secularized.
If you would like to get it in ONE book, I would suggest this one:
Salvation Through Slavery: Chiricahua Apaches and Priests on the Spanish Colonial Frontier by H. Henrietta Stockel
How did you think the Missions actually worked? Why do you suppose the Indians rose in revolt against them, not just once but repeatedly over the centuries, and there were cases of the Indians running away from the Missions wholesale, only to be hunted down by soldiers and "trusted" Indian allies, even using dogs to run them down. The Mission system aka "reducions" was rather brutal amigo, not quite the heavenly gardens that some modern revisionists have been trying to paint them.
I do not have unlimited internet time or I might pull up some of that extensive paperwork you wish to see for you, but just look into it on your own, and if you can show me where I have it wrong I would love to see it. Not being sarcastic in saying that, I would like to see contrary evidence to what I have seen.
Oroblanco
Concept.
I doubt the history is all one way......nor the other. The truth may very well lie somewhere between. Stories, even those in letters or newspapers of the day, are not necessarily the "facts".
Take care,
Joe Ribaudo
So are you saying the Jesuits did not come over to proselytize? What then were they doing here?