Mayor Heidi Harmon owes an apology to the parishioners of Mission of SLO. Her ill informed remark quoted by New Times that she was delighted to see Father Junipero Serra’s statue removed from “our open space” displays her ignorance of Junipero’s history, and the fact that the “open space” is sacred ground owned by the Monterey Diocese (“Church removes Serra statue from Mission Plaza—for its protection,” June 25). Your readership deserves to know that Serra was an advocate for the indigenous people, dedicating himself to their rights. He traveled by foot 2,000 miles from Carmel to Mexico City and back to ask the Spanish monarchy to issue formal protection for them. He tried to protect the women from rape by Spanish soldiers. He taught the Indians agriculture and offered them the faith without any undue pressure.
Anger against injustice can be healthy and cleansing only if it is based on truth. Father Serra’s record strikingly contrasts with the attitude of the first governor of the state of California, Peter Hardeman Burnett, who envisioned the extermination of Indians, 67 years after Serra had died. (He also promoted exclusion laws against blacks in Oregon and California.)
Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa represents 1,800 families and a vibrant Hispanic congregation. Its pastor and priests are fluent in Spanish, and its museum gives witness to the indigenous people who helped to build it. Its gift shop supports the sale of indigenous people’s products to this day. The mission has a centuries-old tradition of helping the needy locally and regionally, and participates in the overnight shelter program for the homeless, the rehabilitation of prisoners and family visitations to prisons, and participates in the interfaith program between the Muslim, Jewish, and Christian communities, all in the spirit of Junipero Serra.
Has Mayor Harmon visited the parish and its museum? Has she read the early history of the mission and Father Serra, who is not only an important founder of nine of the California missions, but an important figure in the early history of our country. Mayor Harmon has often spoken of the importance of words, and she would be well-advised to choose them more prudently. She congratulated the mission upon removing the statue, which was to her a “painful reminder.” Presumably she sees Father Junipero as a representative of brutality against indigenous people—the exact opposite of what he really was. Indeed words are important. They should always be checked as to whether they agree with the facts.
Genevieve Mary Czech
San Luis Obispo
This article appears in Best of SLO County 2020.
Serra’s missions weren’t a happy place for native Californians.
“Bucolic arcadia” is definitely not how most people these days would describe colonialism in the Americas — whether practiced by priests or soldiers. And Junipero Serra was undoubtedly on a colonizing mission: he wanted to save the souls of the natives as well as assimilate them into European culture. So, unsurprisingly, in the late 20th century, as historians started scraping off the “mythology” of colonialism to uncover what had been painted over, they had to reevaluate the mission system and Serra himself.
One way to answer the question of whether Junipero Serra was really good for the Native Americans he purported to serve was how natives were treated on the missions themselves. The backlash against Serra began when historians began to look at birth and death records on the missions and discovered that more natives were dying under Serra’s watch than being born — not a great indicator that Serra was saving native lives. The contemporary picture of the missions is less a “bucolic arcadia” than a feudal labor camp, with natives beaten if they violated Catholic teachings or didn’t work hard enough. Serra’s defenders point out that no native was forced to convert to Catholicism and live on the mission if he or she didn’t choose to; his critics point out that once someone chose to convert and live on the mission, soldiers would be sent after him if he tried to escape.
That’s definitely not great! But there were no great options for Native Americans living in 18th-century colonial California. Natives who weren’t living on the missions were also getting felled in huge numbers by European disease; they were subject to Spanish violence and cruelty; and some historians argue that the changes Spanish colonists wrought to the local ecosystem by importing foreign animals and plants were so enormous that it was basically impossible for native Californians to continue their traditional lifestyles. In other words, the missions were just one, arguably less terrible, option among terrible options.
To some of Serra’s contemporary defenders, the fact that Serra tried to provide a humane form of colonial rule to natives is enough. They point out that he tried to advocate on natives’ behalf to colonial soldiers and officials, and that he was more concerned with the natives’ well-being than his Spanish peers.
But no one is arguing that Serra disagreed with the colonial project — to the contrary, his kindness toward natives was conditional on whether they accepted Catholicism and European-style living within the missions. And that is at the heart of contemporary opposition to Junipero Serra: not that he was bad for the lives of the native Californians in the missions, but that he helped to erase and destroy their culture.
Some critics call this “cultural genocide.” Whether or not that term is appropriate, it’s hard to deny that Serra was interested in assimilating natives into “civilization.” And for native groups, and many other contemporary progressives, it’s a cultural imperialism that doesn’t deserve to be honored.
Of course, this isn’t unique to Serra: Most missionaries from most churches have gone to “backward” parts of the world for exactly this reason. The imperialism of missionary work is one of the biggest flashpoints between contemporary progressives and established religion. But it’s become particularly relevant as the Catholic Church has started venerating Junipero Serra. In 1988, Pope John Paul II started the sainthood process by beatifying Serra — but the controversy he provoked was enough to let Serra’s prospective sainthood languish for more than 25 years, until Pope Francis suddenly picked it up again.
These arguments are the standard and routine attacks on missions and missionary work made by ignorant intellectuals who don’t understand the life-changing benefits of the Gospel or the impact of Jesus Christ on society.
So the history and the truth are attacks now? Please show your work. It’ll take more than vague insults and an appeal to biblical authority to make you case here, Bill.
As a side note: Why do some people seem to think defining someone as an “intellectual” is supposed to be some sort of vile invective?
This was written by the National Catholic Reporter and is titled “Junipero Serra, Saint or Not? https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/faith-and-justice/junipero-serra-saint-or-not. It has a balanced point of view and talks about the circumstances of how Serro came here. It also gives some well-educated guess work regarding his purpose and how he was received.
Ladies & Gentlemen,
Sadly, Heidi Harmon attempts to rewrite colonial history surrounding Father Junipero Serra and the missionary indians, the left-wing assault on our common culture continues. As this opinion writer notes, Ms. Harmon owes the local Catholic community and the Monterey dioceses an apology, and her generalizations do nothing to inform debate about Junipero Serra and his work in California.
I say Heidi Harmon is the one guilty of cultural genocide, shame on her.
Catholic Lives Matter.