Posted on 11/04/2007 4:23:00 PM PST by NYer
SANTA FE, N.M. (CNS) -- Little did the Spanish conquistadors and Franciscans who came to what is now New Mexico in 1625 realize that the same wooden statue of Mary they brought with them to help instill the Catholic faith would still be a symbol of love and devotion today.
Originally called the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, the statue is little more than 3 feet high, made of wood and hollow in the middle -- so it might fit atop a staff when displayed on horseback -- but it continues to inspire the faithful as La Conquistadora.
Her history is interwoven with the Catholic faith in Santa Fe, particularly among the Spanish settlers' descendants who have lived in the area for generations.
Every year, pilgrims carry the statue in a procession from the Cathedral Basilica of St. Francis of Assisi, where it resides, to Rosario Chapel several blocks away for "Fiesta de Santa Fe." At the end of the festivities, which include a Mass, it is returned in a procession to the cathedral.
The chapel was built on the spot where Don Diego de Vargas prayed to an image of La Conquistadora that Santa Fe be peacefully resettled following the 1680 Pueblo Indian revolt against the Spanish settlers.
"It's the story of a promise made by de Vargas and a promise kept. In 1692, de Vargas and his soldiers prayed to La Conquistadora that if they successfully resettled Santa Fe, he would honor her with vespers, Mass and a sermon," said Bob Martinez, assistant major-domo of Rosario Chapel.
De Vargas died in New Mexico in 1704, but one of his captains began the annual celebration.
In 1712, the city of Santa Fe issued a proclamation to officially recognize the devotion and commemorate the event with a re-enactment as well as a reading of the proclamation. The chapel was built in 1807.
Martinez, born and raised a Catholic, said his life changed a year after he became part of an honorary court of men called "de Vargas and his 'cuadrilla,'" which means band or team. They re-enact the return to Santa Fe of de Vargas and his company in a ceremony called "La Entrada" ("The Entrance").
Martinez also was taken with La Conquistadora when he participated for the first time in an honor guard called "Los Caballeros de Vargas," a group that protects the statue during celebrations.
He said he was "a successful realtor who looked on life" as being between partying or being faith-oriented -- that is, until he got involved with the annual celebration.
"Although I attended Mass on Sundays, it wasn't until I attended the novena leading up to the fiesta and saw the depth of faith of the people praying the rosary that my life changed," he said.
Martinez also belongs to a local confraternity whose members care for La Conquistadora; another member is Teresita "Terry" Garcia, a sacristan who dresses the statue in outfits to mark special occasions.
Ping!
Interesting. Thanks.
These crimes took place despite the condemnation of the Catholic Church.
To take just one example: the matter of Indian slavery. Race-based slavery began in large-scale during the 15th century and was formally condemned by the Popes as early as 1435, fifty-seven years before Columbus discovered America. In reference to Spaniards who enslaved the natives of the Canary Islands (off the coast of Africa), Pope Eugene IV in 1435 wrote in a document called Sicut Dudum:
"...They have deprived the natives of their property or turned it to their own use, and have subjected inhabitants of said islands to perpetual slavery, sold them to other persons and committed other various illicit and evil deeds against them... We order and command all and each of the faithful ... within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their earlier liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of said Canary Islands... these people are to be totally and perpetually free ..."
Those faithful, who did not obey, were excommunicated ipso facto. This is the same punishment Canon Law specifies today for Catholics who participate in abortion.
Yet there are 16 so-called Catholics in the US Senate who have consistently voted in favor of abortion-related measures, making them accomplices. To my knowledge none of them have been disciplined by their bishops. What should we conclude? That the Church has never taught against abortion ---- or that time and time again, the enforcement has been pathetically lax?
Strong doctrine, limp discipline. Another way of saying, as Jesus said of His own picked men, the Apostles, "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."
I am still inspired by the Spanish conquistadors themselves. Yes, some of them were terrible men, but others were great men who helped destroy an evil empire or two that practiced human sacrifice and worshipped false gods.
Been there. Seen that. Want to go back and see it again and live there.
Yeah, you should laugh at what you posted.
Actually, not so much. If you read documents from the period, it is the Catholic Church that is often arguing against Spanish excesses. Certainly the Church profited (received money, gold, etc), but to say the Church endorsed and encouraged would be false. I was a little surprised when I read the documents that do run counter to the standard histories of the period.
Don't get me started on the racial/cultural apartheid that was brought to the hemisphere by the British Empire...
I think you're the one rewriting history. Read up on the Jesuit "reductions" in Paraguay and Argentina, where the priests taught the natives to read, write, and pray ... before the Portuguese arrived to kill the priests and enslave the natives.
If it had not been for the church, the treatment of the indigenous people in Central and South America would have been infinitely worse.
Mrs. Dono, thank you for that thoughtful reply. I get SO TIRED of the whining, ‘killed the Indians for Christianity’ tripe, but wasn’t sure of the details. We, in California, have the beautiful Missions, land consecrated to God, as our heritage. The kids I tutor always have to hear bad stuff about the White Men vs the Indians; I always teach them about Order from Chaos, about civilization, about the good things brought by the padres.
Don't get me started on the racial/cultural apartheid that was brought to the hemisphere by the British Empire...
First I didn't post the first pargraph, but the real truth is that one hundred years after Cortez arrival in central american, 90%of the native population was dead.
Source: A Popular History of the Catholic Church By Carl Koch Forgot to add.
Dead from smallpox and measles. This is the inevitable result when you are mixing populations from bioregions which had been geographically separated since the breakup of Pangaia. This is extremely well explained in this article from the Smithsonian-related Discover magazine, The Arrow of Disease.
The barbarous, slavery-based societies of the Incas, the Mayas and the Aztecs collided with the only slightly less-barbarous gold-seeking Conquistadores, imperfectly restrained by the law-and-civilization-generating Catholic Church, which served the purpose of giving them bad consciences by telling them that slavery was wrong and that the native people had a right to Life, Liberty, and Property.
The excesses of the barely-baptized Conquistdor class, however, do not include the crime of genocide, since disease exterminated New World populations rapidly before anybody had the barest conception of its vectors and causes. There is literally nobody to blame for that, just as there is nobody to blame for the Black Death which halved the population of Europe in the 14th century, as a result of contact with microbes carried in by the incursions of peoples of Central Asia to the coast of Dalmatia, and then carried by sailors (and ship rats) to all the port cities of Europe.
Pre-Columbian Mesoamerica had its own slavery, genocide, and oligarchic priestcraft. The big difference, when the Spanish came, is that the Church condemned slavery and genocide, but had the power only to mitigate it and not to abolish it.
You might try learning a bit about the Catholic Church's early and persistent defense of Indian rights, including the writings of Vitoria, a distinguished professor of theology at the University of Salamanca between 1526 and 1546, Domingo de Soto, Francisco Suarez and Bartolome de Las Casas.
Sure I believe that!
Cheap scepticism. Look up the sources linked above.
The Mexican population was 50% Indian, 40% Mestizo and 10% white/other at the the time of the Mexican revolution. The Indian population is now down to around 30% due to assimilation into the urban mestizo culture.
Remember that in Mexico to be an "Indian" you must identify with one of the indigenous cultures and speak an Indian language (Nahtual, Tarascan, Quiche, etc.). Most of the "mestizos" in southern Mexico are close to pure Indian in terms of ancestry, but are not considered as such since the assimilated into the westernized mestizo culture.
Your figures are based on fantasy. All one has to do is travel in Mexico, or even look at the faces of their people to see the strong Indian presence, both racially and culturally.
The only countries in the Spanish speaking world that had Anglo-American style "genocide" was in the Caribbean (due to disease) and the southen cone (due to the military campaigns of General Rosas, who wanted to clear the Pampa for grain and cattle).
Just in terms of cultural preservation and survival, I put the Spanish and the French well ahead of the Anglos. While their policies stressed "cultural genocide" (through assimilation), they generally steered clear of the racial apartheid/ethnic cleansing that was so common in Anglo-America.
Good point, Clemenza. The French, and even moreso the Spanish, frequently intermarried with the indigenous people (and these marriages were recognized by religion and law, and their offspring were legitimate and fully heirs). The English intermarried to a small extent, mostly without benefit of law or clergy, but more frequently killed indigenous tribal people or drove them off.
Ah, there's your problem. Not so much the book itself, which I'm not familiar with, but the use of secondary sources.
Try reading a primary source sometime--something actually written by the people who were there and recorded the events firsthand.
I've done enough historical research in the primary sources to know that a large percentage of modern "histories" of the Catholic Church, especially vis-a-vis the Indians, are pure fantasy.
I'd agree. The French treated the Indians the best, I'd have to say.
I'd also add that the English weren't as bad as they are often made out to be. First of all, look at the Indian Wars that the English participated in the early days, and you find that many of them were fought with Indian Allies. I'm quoting figures off the top of my head here, but I believe the Pequods were destroyed with 100 Englishmen and about 400 Narragansett. The Tuscarora were defeated with 100-200 Englishmen and 800 Yamasee Indians.
And then there's the "uncomfortable" fact that many tribes were destroyed by the Iroquois--without white people's help--in the 1600s. The entire Ohio valley was almost depopulated before settlers began to arrive: the Indians that were found there had all relocated there after the Iroquois Wars were over.
The English record in Virginia and New England was basically the same: a policy of conquest and expulsion. It was a history of warfare until the finally subjugation of the Indians by the end of the 19th Century. From my perspective, as one from an Indian family, is that the English conquest was racist in a way that neither the Spanish nor the French were, because it refused fully to tolerate indian nations that were already half assimilated. Even allies were treated shabbily. The Chickasaw were the allies of the English from the 1730s on, One of my ancestors fought alongside the “English” at Fallen Timbers. Yet, when push came to shove in the 1830s, the Chickasaw were also “removed.” One must not ignore the brutal policies of the Spanish conquerers, who brought the habits of racial war from the Reconquista to America, but, the Black Legend—the invention of a Elizabethan propogandists—is at best half truth. The complaints against the Anglo-American conquest is, IMHO, at least 5/8 true. (There’s a joke here, if you can figure it out).
Is it a blood quantum joke? LOL
I understand what you’re saying....though I’d add that whatever happened after 1787 can be conveniently laid at the feet of our very own American government rather than the English. We were the ones that were continually testing the borders and settling where we weren’t supposed to.
And you’re right that it’s impossible to ignore a sense of manifest destiny in the continual pattern of establishing a new “Indian country” only to revoke it in 10-20 years as that land became desirable. It really is heartbreaking from an Indian perspective.
But I think what I object to is the notion that this policy was specifically *planned* from the beginning, and particularly one that the Church (or the Protestant misionaries for that matter) was complicit in. The record of Christian missionaries is considerably better than that of Christian governments.
Correct. The expansion of the Iroquois Confederacy, while not as extensive or bloody as that of the Bantu peoples in Africa, nevertheless succeeded in wiping out many of the indigenous peoples in the Ohio Valley and the NE.
As I understand it, the people whose tribal name served as a name for the city where I was born -— the Eriez -—were wiped out by the Iroquois in the 1550’s before they had ever come in contact with Europeans. The Iroquois similarly wiped out the Wyandot (eastern Hurons) about a century later.
Oligarchic rule, slavery, racism, torture, and genocide were all endemic among the Eastern Woodland tribes well before any European influence.
The fall of the Erie was around 1654-1655, a few years after the Hurons/Wyandot and the Neutrals, but you’re right on the money. The Iroquois Confederacy invaded their homeland and sacked Rigue. There was another tribe, the Stadaconans, who were around in the 1540s but disappeared shortly after—that may be who you are thinking of.
Since you’re from Erie and today is Nov. 6, I can’t resist mentioning Catherine Gandeaktena, an Erie Indian who was captured during the 1655 war and brought back to the Iroquois country. She taught Fr. Bruyas to speak Iroquois, and she was subsequently baptized and helped found the mission of St. Francis Xavier that Kateri Tekakwitha eventually came to. Gandeaktena died in the odor of sanctity in 1673.
More on Catherine here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1517046/posts
and here:
http://www.biographi.ca/EN/ShowBio.asp?BioId=34360&query=gandeaktena
I have a great devotion to Catherine. I’d like to start pushing for her canonization, once I figure out who to talk to about it! :)
Claud, this is excellent. I just skimmed this -— will come back and look at it again. The mystery of grace.
You got it.
I would blame it on the people. The government generally followed where the people led. And I used the term “English” advisedly. Just look at the list of Presidents of the United States. Beyond that, even the Celtic and Dutch and Gedrman names: all were thoroughly anglicized. Of course the record of the missionaries was better than the government. “Professional” indians—whose attitudes are reflected in the museum in DC are very anti-Christian, even though 85% of declared Indians are also declared Christians. But the harsh efforts to assimilate the indian children into American culture were —really —what every school tries to do, indoctrinate children into the dominant culture, and Indian kids were treated no more harshly than the European immigrant children were. The public schools especially always create environents that repress unwelcome opinions and unwelcome behaviors.
All good points.
And I’m intrigued by what you said about the “professional Indians”—I do a lot of work in Indian linguistics, and the activist types that most people hear from seem to be a far cry from your average Catholic/Methodist/Anglican/Baptist Indian families out there. Most of white America doesn’t understand how Christian American Indians are.
Are you talking about the boarding schools? I’d like to get your take on those....I’ve been coming around to thinking they were a very bad idea, and then I read an article recently that compared them to the schools set up for immigrants. Basically, everyone back then was expected to assimilate—including my Italian parents and grandparents. Sort of put a whole new light on things. All things considered, though, it’s safe to say that aggressive assimilation didn’t really work and tended to alienate lots of Indian folks.
Interesting point also, relating it to modern public schools! I’ll have to cogitate on that. :)
Schools always manage to alienate some students, in part because they aim to separate the student’s thinking from that of their families. Look at the failure with respect to the blacks.
My mother liked her school experience. She was there with her favorite sister, and besides her family was a bit mixed up. But one is always torn when the culture of the schoolis different from the family culture. Each has good and each has bad, and sometimes people just can’t decide which to identify with.
IMHO, the elite schools are ever bit as “bad” as the old reservation schools. Except they take kids from Christian families are try to make them agnostic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.