Quote of the Day – Archbishop Jose Gomez
From a recent talk:
“The people of this land were called Christians before they were called Americans. And they were called this name in the Spanish, French and English tongues. From this history, we learn that long before the Boston Tea Party, Catholic missionaries were celebrating the holy Mass on the soil of this continent….
This is the missing piece of American history. And today, more than ever, we need to know this heritage of holiness and service — especially as American Catholics…
When we forget our country’s roots in the Hispanic-Catholic mission to the New World, we end up with distorted ideas about our national identity. We end up with an idea that Americans are descended from only white Europeans and that our culture is based only on the individualism, work ethic and rule of law that we inherited from our Anglo-Protestant forebears.
When that has happened in the past, it has led to those episodes in our history that we are least proud of — the mistreatment of Native Americans; slavery; the recurring outbreaks of nativism and anti-Catholicism; the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II; the misadventures of “manifest destiny.”
There are, of course, far more complicated causes behind these moments in our history. But, at the root, I think we can see a common factor — a wrongheaded notion that “real Americans” are of some particular race, class, religion or ethnic background.”
(Hat tip: Michael Sean Winters).
Trackbacks
Comments are closed.
Hugh Akins has a self-published novel called Yuma which captures this period in American history so very accurately and so very well. You can google it. I hope my own in-progress scifi Catholic novel does dialogue better–I must say–but will never master the catalogue of differences between Catholic America and Protestant America the way Akins does. You’ll have a hard time voting Tea Party after it, loves.
A very nice quote, and the rest of the speech by the Archbishop has a great deal to say. But I made the mistake of reading the commentary there: the blatant racism, nativism and prejudice were painful, as were the exultation of “good American” (read Protestant) values.
I liked this quote on first read, but on second and third read I get the feeling that Bishop Gomez seems to gloss over the colonialist implication of that history. He also appears to lightly suggest that there is such a thing as an “American”—which is to mean someone from the USA, not the Americas in general. Nonetheless, the sentiment of this quote is one that I do agree with… Thanks,
Sam
That’s a very good point, Sam.
I can see how anybody with a Spanish surname might want to gloss over most of the initial history of Catholicism in the Americas. And there might be something to be pondered in the distinction between “Spanish” and “Hispanic” in that regard, as well.
The relationship between “Spanish” and “Hispanic” and the colonial identity of Catholicism in the New World is a highly contested ideological ground. At my own school, the question came up when the Spanish language section of Modern Languages wanted to rename itself “HIspanic Studies”: the one Spaniard on the faculty asked, pointedly, if he was hispanic. (The final consensus was that he is.) Also, the colonial identity of Catholicism is tied up with underlying pro and anti-European sentiments: did the Spaniards bring genocide and religious oppression or did they bring civilization and the true faith? (The complicated answer is yes.)
In Mexico our own relationship with Spain has been complex and contradictory almost from the beginning, as evidenced by the famous “Grito de Dolores”: in launching the fight for independence, Fr. Hildalgo simultaneously called out “long live the king [of Spain]” and “death to gauchupines [recent colonists from Spain, distinct from the mestizo descendents of earlier colonists]“.
Whatever the linguistic etymology of the word “Hispanic,” I would argue that it’s current common usage, and the understanding of the implications of that usage, in the Americas, makes it equivalent to “African American” or “Native American.” That is, there is history embedded in it, not just ethnic-cultural data. If your skin is brown and your surname is “Hispanic,” you are in much the same historical position as the person of African descent whose surname is that of his white antecedents, not excluding slave owners.
“…the colonial identity of Catholicism in the New World is a highly contested ideological ground.”
That’s why it is more fruitful (as in “honest”) to look at it in the light of historical data, which is plentiful. What happened is not really “contested.” How to spin it, is.
“…did the Spaniards bring genocide and religious oppression or did they bring civilization and the true faith?”
One can’t licitly do Evil that Good will result.
“If your skin is brown and your surname is “Hispanic,” you are in much the same historical position as the person of African descent whose surname is that of his white antecedents, not excluding slave owners.”
Well, my skin is brown and my surname is “Hispanic” but I am not real clear on what you mean by this.
You should remember that the very term “hispanic” is not universally accepted. It was created by the US government in the 70′s to create a pan-ethnic category. Many (most?) “hispanics” do not see themselves as such: they are Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Columbians, etc. So the problem with “hispanic” is not that it has history embedded in it, but rather that it glosses over widely divergent histories and identities. As a Mexican-American, my take on history, religion, the United States, etc. is practically incommensurable with my Argentinian or Puerto Rican friends.
“That’s why it is more fruitful (as in “honest”) to look at it in the light of historical data, which is plentiful. What happened is not really “contested.” How to spin it, is.”
The “facts” may not be contested, but their interpretation is. (A much better term than the pejorative “spin.”) Is the Church in the colonial period to be understood by its support of the latifundia system? The Jesuit missions in Paraguay? The establishment of convents for indigenous women in Mexico? Any attempt to integrate these into a coherent narrative will be influenced by where the author (or reader) stands on any number of other issues.
“One can’t licitly do Evil that Good will result.”
I agree completely. Nevertheless, looking back on what did happen (as opposed to the moral, counter-factual question of what ought to have happened), the Spaniards did great evil, and also produced great good, sometimes simultaneously. Some overlook the bad to emphasize the good; others denigrate the good and focus on the bad. Going back to the original post, I suspect the Archbishop falls into the former camp.
“Hispanic” is like “Black” or “Asian.” Is does not take into account the differences, great and small, of the various groups, or individuals, that will be categorized as such by those who don’t fall into any of the groups labelled by it. As such, it glosses over the histories, the cultures, and the various ethnic differences which make each group uniquely valuable.
I have often seen the word “Protestant” used much the same way on this blog. Maybe even by you?
As for the archbishop falling into the former camp, it might be pointed out that in many cases abortion can easily be justified using the same logic. Once you start destroying a village (or a person) in order to save it, the damage is done.
The Archbishop raises an important matter of consideration while noting that it is something ” far more complicated ” than his observation.
Take for example the internment of the West Coast Japanese. It was far less a racial matter than is assumed today. In fact it was other Asian Americans, particularly Chinese-Americans, who first and most strongly called for Japanese internment and other actions that were rejected as too extreme.
The internment of Japanese-Americans, along with similiar actions against German and Italian Americans, was an over-reaction by my fellow liberals as part of a “Brown Scare.” (Complimenting the Right wing’s “Red Scare” of the McCarthy era). The Left, with its aggressive opposition to fascism, certainly did some things that went too far.
The very “anthropology” of the Catholic theological tradition (to use one of John Paul II’s favourite words) was opposed to the profoundly atheistic Enlightenment philosophies of most of the more significant personages among the “Founding Fathers.” (Indeed, very few of them would have made philosophic common cause with their chief British defender, Edmund Burke). The United States is a country deeply deeply steeped in the world view of heresiarchs of the so-called “Reformation.”