Controversy over pope's canonization of missionary

[timosman]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/descenda...-canonization/

The canonization of St. Junipero Serra is controversial.

At Mission San Juan Capistrano, Juniperso Serro was honored, but 430 miles north at Mission Dolores, protestors denounced him.

For Corrina Gould, Mission Dolores is sacred ground.

"I see pain for my ancestors. I see a change in our entire world," she said looking at the Mission.

Thousands of her ancestors from the Ohlone Tribe are buried there -- in unmarked graves. For her, Serra left a legacy in his drive to baptize and assimilate California Indians, often beating and imprisoning them in missions.

"Once you were baptized and became Catholic then you lost your freedom all together," she said. "You become the property of the Church."

"But Serra doesn't see that. He sees Indians as naked, as hungry, as hungering literally for food and for salvation in Christ," said History Professor Steven Hackel.

Hackel says for many Hispanics in California, Serra is seen as a founding father.

His presence is everywhere.

"I think what the pope is really trying to do is open up an understanding of our American origins," Hackel said. "It wasn't just Anglo-American protestants, but Catholic priests throughout the continent."

"Father Serra was a Spaniard. He was European, therefore he was white. He was not Hispanic," Gould said.

Gould believes by making Serra a Saint, the Church is ignoring an ugly chapter in California history.

"The mission system that he brought with him created total destruction of who we were as a culture and people," she said.

Serra is the first Spanish speaking saint from the United States. Pope Francis personally fast tracked his canonization, waving the rules that usually require two miracles for sainthood -- to just one.

[nobody's_hero]

"The mission system that he brought with him created total destruction of who we were as a culture and people," she said.

Those who do not learn from history . . .

[alucard13mm]

If only the native americans killed or shoo off everyone that got off the first ships that landed in north america, things may have been different.

Most of the native americans are dead, have most of their lands taken away, forced to give up their culture, and lost their unique gene pool.

All we know about native americans now is their casinos and high alcoholic abuse and poverty...

[erowe1]

"The mission system that he brought with him created total destruction of who we were as a culture and people," she said.

Am I allowed to ask, "So what?"

[timosman]

Am I allowed to ask, "So what?"

You may ask, but it will not reflect in a positive way on you.

[Zippyjuan]

If only the native americans killed or shoo off everyone that got off the first ships that landed in north america, things may have been different.

Most of the native americans are dead, have most of their lands taken away, forced to give up their culture, and lost their unique gene pool.

All we know about native americans now is their casinos and high alcoholic abuse and poverty...

Most of us would not be here if they had.

Junipero Serra built missions all up and down the California coast- from San Diego to San Francisco.

If another religion, say Islam, did what Sera did to Christians today he would be branded a terrorist.

[erowe1]

You may ask, but it will not reflect in a positive way on you.

Why? Cultures change over time. We shouldn't treat living human beings like museum relics who aren't allowed to change, just so we rich white people can look at examples of some culture that ought to have disappeared centuries ago.

[timosman]

Why? Cultures change over time. We shouldn't treat living human beings like museum relics who aren't allowed to change, just so we rich white people can look at examples of some culture that ought to have disappeared centuries ago.

What are you still doing here ?

[erowe1]

What are you still doing here ?

Promoting freedom.

You?

[DevilsAdvocate]

"The mission system that he brought with him created total destruction of who we were as a culture and people," she said.

Thank God. Because what they were before was barbaric

[erowe1]

Thank God. Because what they were before was barbaric

Seriously. This lady doesn't really want to go back to the stone age.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Seriously. This lady doesn't really want to go back to the stone age.

However I'm sure you'll admit that they didn't all deserve to die.

Take note: this is the danger of unchecked immigration. The Native Americans know firsthand.

[erowe1]

However I'm sure you'll admit that they didn't all deserve to die.

Definitely not. I'm not justifying anything. I just don't get into mourning the lost cultures of centuries past.

There are still tribal people in Brazil who live in total seclusion from modern people, and the government doesn't let anyone go meet them and introduce them to Christianity or any of the amenities of the modern world because they have this crazy notion that they need to preserve the ancient tribal culture. It's as if they're relics and not human beings.

[nobody's_hero]

Thank God. Because what they were before was barbaric

And I'm sure that's how a lot of 3rd worlders view capitalism. 'Barbaric', where the wealthy care nothing for the poor and power trumps the meek. Libertarian philosophy is probably viewed as 'every man for himself' and 'uncaring' (an easy assumption to make, from the outside looking in), in an age of progressivism where government is some benevolent provider for the common good. (their thoughts, not mine)

Definitely not. I'm not justifying anything. I just don't get into mourning the lost cultures of centuries past.

It doesn't keep me up at night crying, no. But I'd like to at least learn from the misfortunes of others, even if they lived a long time ago. Some of you seem to think we're somehow immune from the same fate. I vehemently disagree.

And when they've ridded the world of our culture, "so what?" will also be their reply.

[timosman]

And when they've ridded the world of our culture, "so what?" will also be their reply.

Some people are too dense to recognize the obvious similarities.

[Danke]

Why? Cultures change over time. We shouldn't treat living human beings like museum relics who aren't allowed to change, just so we rich white people can look at examples of some culture that ought to have disappeared centuries ago.

I must say, you have some of the more interesting posts. But if these earlier settlers used force to convert the locals, isn't that wrong?

[Occam's Banana]

And when they've ridded the world of our culture, "so what?" will also be their reply.

Some people are too dense to recognize the obvious similarities.

Maybe. Or maybe some of them recognize the similarities all too well.

Maybe some people just don't realize that they're doing a White Man's Ghost Dance ...

[moostraks]

Am I allowed to ask, "So what?"

Definitely not. I'm not justifying anything. I just don't get into mourning the lost cultures of centuries past.

There are still tribal people in Brazil who live in total seclusion from modern people, and the government doesn't let anyone go meet them and introduce them to Christianity or any of the amenities of the modern world because they have this crazy notion that they need to preserve the ancient tribal culture. It's as if they're relics and not human beings.

Your so what response to the atrocities inflicted upon NAs in quest to conform them to European ideals is why many support the preservation of tribal cultures not already forced into the global collective.

[erowe1]

It doesn't keep me up at night crying, no. But I'd like to at least learn from the misfortunes of others, even if they lived a long time ago. Some of you seem to think we're somehow immune from the same fate. I vehemently disagree.

And when they've ridded the world of our culture, "so what?" will also be their reply.

If I choose to change my culture, then "so what" should be their reply.

[erowe1]

Your so what response to the atrocities inflicted upon NAs in quest to conform them to European ideals is why many support the preservation of tribal cultures not already forced into the global collective.

I never said "so what" to any atrocities. I said it about the loss of a culture.

[erowe1]

I must say, you have some of the more interesting posts. But if these earlier settlers used force to convert the locals, isn't that wrong?

Yes. Let's keep the focus of our opprobrium on that use of force, rather than on the fact that some old lost culture isn't around any more.

[erowe1]

Some people are too dense to recognize the obvious similarities.

I do recognize the similarities. In case you've missed it, I support open borders, and I am against policies of "preserving our culture" supported by people like you.

[moostraks]

Why? Cultures change over time. We shouldn't treat living human beings like museum relics who aren't allowed to change, just so we rich white people can look at examples of some culture that ought to have disappeared centuries ago.

I never said "so what" to any atrocities. I said it about the loss of a culture.

The atrocities were at the very heart of how another culture was not offered as an option from a liberty position but forced upon them by those who still complain at how they have provided progress to the society in question and that is clearly not being appreciated. The so what is offered along with the rebuttal and complaint about how some don't want to allow them to repeat the process with current tribal societies. The so what is a prickish, compassionless position which justifies heinous acts because of supposed progress from the pov of one who has benefitted from the destruction of said other culture.

[erowe1]

The so what is a prickish, compassionless position which justifies heinous acts because of supposed progress from the pov of one who has benefitted from the destruction of said other culture.

I don't know what "so what" you're talking about. But it's not the one I said.

The Gould woman in the OP has herself benefitted from the destruction of said other culture, which you will notice, to this day she voluntarily chooses not to adopt.

[timosman]

I don't know what "so what" you're talking about. But it's not the one I said.

The Gould woman in the OP has herself benefitted from the destruction of said other culture, which you will notice, to this day she voluntarily chooses not to adopt.

Why do you say she "benefitted" ? Are you a racist ?

[moostraks]

I don't know what "so what" you're talking about. But it's not the one I said.

The Gould woman in the OP has herself benefitted from the destruction of said other culture, which you will notice, to this day she voluntarily chooses not to adopt.

The original so what with its subsequent clarifications you have made is the so what I am talking about. That you think the Gould woman has benefitted from the destruction of her culture and yet state that she has voluntarily chosen not to adopt it shows how naive and ignorant you are of the what is driving the argument against a global collective monoculture.

[erowe1]

Why do you say she "benefitted" ? Are you a racist ?

Certainly she benefitted in material ways. Her life expectancy is longer than the peoples' whose culture she mourns. Her standard of living is higher. She's better educated. She also apparently has knowledge of Jesus Christ, even if she rejects him.

I'm not sure how racism factors into this. There's no need to get all nostalgic about mistaken traditions of the past that people were right to cast off. This applies to people of all races. You won't see me mourning the loss of the culture that spawned the Salem witch trials.

[erowe1]

The original so what with its subsequent clarifications you have made is the so what I am talking about.

That's obviously false. You yourself clarified what it was that you were criticizing, and it bore no resemblance to anything I had said. You were just making up some view and putting words in my mouth so you could criticize me.

[PaleoPaul]

Good thing I'm Protestant. The Pope could canonize a cup of coffee for all I care. I don't have to recognize his authority.

[timosman]

That's obviously false. You yourself clarified what it was that you were criticizing, and it bore no resemblance to anything I had said. You were just making up some view and putting words in my mouth so you could criticize me.

Didn't you have a PhD in something like applied considerology ? You think you are so clever nobody can see through your flawed logic. Keep lying to yourself. Useful idiots are very important.