The Piraha

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Apr 9 2007, 02:43 PM) [snapback]420384[/snapback]</div>

It is quite funny to read excerpts from books like Ishmael - Daniel Quinn, or The Ohlone Way - Malcolm Margolin and imagine the dialog between aboriginal peoples and Spanish missionaries when they tried to convert the indigenous peoples to christianity. It truely does make christianity sound as rediculous as the other myths of the past (Norse, Greek etc.).

 

The Spanish did it at the point of a sword...then added slavery and a boat load of different diseases.

 

There's a fascinating article on the Piraha (pee da HAN) in the April 16 issue of The New Yorker. They're a culture in the Amazon who have resisted all efforts of colonisation and religious conversion. Their language, very much a part of their 'here and now' way of life, is causing us to question our understanding of linguistics. To them, all other languages are "crooked head".

 

A sword yes, but not wielded by the missionary.

First pestilence and starvation after the conquering army has gone through, then the missionary, who has been waiting patiently at the rear, comes forward with food and medicines in one hand, and the bible in the other. The natives are not given the choice to pick the charity and ignore the bible.

Finally, the good christians back home pat themselves on the back for sending their tithes to a good cause.

I'm going to go and vomit now.

 

Actually, the Spaniards had a fairly easy time converting the Aztecs: The Aztecs counted on Huitlapochtle (the sun god) to give them victory in battle. They took their defeat at the hands of the Spanish as a failure of Huitlapochtle, and an indication that the Spanish god was more powerful. So they were not all that reluctant to abandon the god who had failed them, and switch to the apparently more-powerful god. In addition, there were enough parallels that the new religion didn't seem that much different to them, and the Spanish allowed them to keep a good deal of their own rituals.

I've watched as Mexicans, dressed up in Aztec garb, danced rather wildly to what I presume was intended to be pre-columbian music, and then, for a break, walked into the Catholic church they had been dancing right in front of, carrying all their pre-Columbian paraphernalia. Essentially combining the two traditions, and all of it fully accepted by the Catholic authorities.

The abuses that followed the conquest are another matter, and the way the Church gave its imprimatur to the oppression and abuse. But once the conquest had taken place, the conversion followed without much resistance.

 

This is echo'd by the Spanish conquest and "enslavement" of the Inca after the fateful battle that arose due to Atahualpa's refusal or further inquiries of the christian doctrine.

Jared Diamond's"Guns, Germs and Steel" spent some time on this confrontation.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 15 2007, 04:48 PM) [snapback]423779[/snapback]</div>

Well, the Spanish bishops did but the RCC did not sanction some of the more egregious atrocities, such as slavery and the slave trade, that the Spanish conducted (in fact, the Pope had a Papal Bull that promised excommunication to anyone engaging in the slave trade, but the rise of power of the Spanish monarchy created a situation where the Papal Bull could not be read in Spain, and therefore the prohibition against slavery was never enacted there as it was in the other Catholic countries.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Apr 15 2007, 08:55 PM) [snapback]423838[/snapback]</div>

The Catholic Church permitted the enslavement of Africans, but prohibited the enslavement of American Indians. However, the Spanish neatly side-stepped the prohibition with the system of "encomiendas." Technically, they did not call the Indians slaves, and they did not buy and sell them. However, the Indians were forced to work for the Spanish, without pay, and against their will, in return for "protection" and "instruction" in "the true religion." The Indians were effectively slaves, but the Church was satisfied, because they didn't call them slaves. In actual practice, the owners provided little or no actual protection, and no "instruction" at all, leaving the latter to whatever priests might choose to come along and preach.

 

"There's a fascinating article on the Piraha (pee da HAN) in the April 16 issue of The New Yorker"

Agreed. I just finished it. The Piraha live completely in the present and do not think in the abstract. They have no words for colors, like red. They would just say "it is the colour of blood". They also have no numbers beyond one, two and many. They seem to be very happy people.