Week 5: Religion in Early America: Jesuits, Puritans, and Native Americans
This week we will closely examine Jill Lepore's The Name of War and the foundations of religious ideologies in early America. We will also analyze the ways Native communities experienced religious conversions and/or rejected missionary efforts.
Readings: Taylor, chap. 9
Lepore, In the Name of War, chaps. 2-8
points of entry:
Pueblo Revolt -
http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/resources/archives/one/pueblo.htm
review of Lepore's book -
http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/02/15/reviews/980215.15countrt.html
Questions for discussion:
Which was a more effective form of colonization: religious conversion of material objects?
Were there any significant differences between Jesuits, Franciscans, and Puritans?
While both religious conversions and material objects were forms of colonization employed by Europeans against native peoples, I think that religious conversions had a bit more success. However one underlying factor that played a role in both forms of colonization was that of military force used against the natives to "guide" them in the direction of whatever goal Europeans were pursuing. That being said, once this force was used, missionaries allowed the native people some form of connection with their colonizers. Given that they were already religious people, those natives that did covert were able to use Christianity as a way to identify themselves as somewhat European.
ReplyDeleteI think that material objects were much more successful in colonization because religous conversion I think was something the natives took part in only as a means of survival and out of fear. However material objects were things that were able to penitrate into the culture of the natives. They were introduced into mny new objects and ways of life that the natives came to depend on and probably found it harder to do without. Also through trading and fighting both cultures integrated parts of the other cultures into their own through the objects used and without intent of doing so unlike religious conversions.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Renee. Just as several of our readings have said, most natives simply accepted the religion either for protection or out of fear of the Europeans. Most natives did not understand the religion and its practices, and many continued to practice their own native religion in private. Material objects, however, have a much greater effect on the natives. Material objects are not just an idea forced upon the natives, it permanently changed their lives. This small step of modernization made the natives somewhat dependent on the Europeans in that they became acclimated to using these modern implements and in some cases they couldn't do without the new tools/material objects.
ReplyDeleteThis is evident in the Pueblo revolt of 1680 led by Popé. When the Spanish were expelled, the Pueblo people wanted to keep certain Spanish goods such as livestock and agricultural foods and items because of how useful they were. Popé, however, seeing the influence these items had on his people, ordered the destruction of everything Spanish.
As we discussed in class, a major difference between Jesuits, Franciscans, and Puritans, is the circumstances that led them to have a presence in the Americas. The Jesuit order of missionaries had an intellectual approach to Catholic doctrine, therefore they saw the value to being open to Indian culture in order to facilitate survival and conversion. Franciscans, however, had a much more aggressive approach to their missionary project. Spanish friars saw New Spain as a continuation and extension of religious conflicts between Christians and their Muslim enemies. This is evident in primary sources where Spaniards referred to Pueblo Indians as Turks. Because the friars were a strict order that was was austere and conservative in response to the influence of cultural outsiders. Puritans also feared the influence of outsiders, and this is because they were religious refugees who had made and arduous journey to the Americas to be able to begin isolated communities where Puritans could preserve their Englishness and religion. These differences in experiences effected the way these groups interacted with those they tried to live with and convert.
ReplyDeleteEven with the differences between the Puritans, Jesuits and the Franciscans, each religion conversion attempt proved unsuccessful in effective forms of colonization. Like it has been said in previous comments, the Native Americans would convert for reasons such as protection or out of fear. The religion was not accepted nor practiced by the Native societies. However, goods that were exchanged through colonization became a part of normal life for the Native societies. The sharing of goods and ideas between the colonists and the Native societies go hand in hand. But it is the exchange of goods that proved to be a more successful form of colonization.
ReplyDeleteI think that religious conversion was a much more effective method of colonization than material objects. If a Native American is converted to a Christian religion, there is a high chance of that Native living in a praying town or at least near a colonial settlement; this Native will constantly be in the presence of colonists. If Natives come to colonial settlements only to trade, chances are they will return back to their tribe miles away from the colonial settlement.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of differences, Franciscans, Jesuits, and Puritans all differed greatly. Franciscans and Jesuits were sects of the Catholic faith whereas Puritans were Protestants. Jesuits were more willing to go out and assimilate themselves into Native culture while converting them. Puritans wanted Natives to come to them, and the Puritans were not tolerant of Native culture and practices. -Zach