Widgets Magazine

Tweets by @Stanford_Daily


OPINIONS

On Serra and controversy

A student at a Catholic high school once asked me if the Catholic Church would strip a saint of his or her title if a cure were found years later for a miracle attributed to that saint. The fact that we know something today does not change the fact that it was a very real miracle for those who experienced it at the time — miracles are tested against the natural or scientific laws of the day. This example, I believe, gets to the heart of the ASSU Undergraduate Senate’s request to cleanse Stanford of the name Junípero Serra. Judging the past based on current values creates a slippery slope. A brief history lesson may be useful for those interested in what the ASSU Undergraduate Senate is attempting to do.

Only weeks after Serra’s death, his friend Father Francisco Palóu began writing a biography about the man who brought Catholic Christianity to California. In 1989, Dorothy Regnery wrote in Sandstone and Tile, the quarterly of the Stanford Historical Society, that Jane and Leland Stanford were very fond of Serra. They respected him so much that they commissioned a statue in his honor that was presented to the city of Monterey on June 3, 1891. Acclaimed novelist Helen Hunt Jackson glorified Serra in her 1883 essay “Father Junípero Serra and His Work.” In 1910, a movement began to recognize Serra for his contributions — its major booster was the Native Sons of the Golden West, an organization devoted to historical preservation. Two decades later, the society’s campaign would come to fruition. In 1931, Serra was memorialized with a statue in the rotunda of the United States Capitol. Father Muller, representing the Franciscan Friars of California, summed up the popular sentiment for Serra in the early part of the 20th century: “The unveiling of the statue of Junípero Serra is the realization of the words spoken by the Hon. Hiram W. Johnson when on the 24th of November, 1913, the bicentennial of the birth of Junípero Serra, as governor of the State of California he proclaimed a legal holiday saying: ‘To the memory of Junípero Serra, California owes an everlasting tribute.’”

In 1963, The Americas, a quarterly review published by the Academy of American Franciscan History, presented an article by historian Jack D. Forbes titled “The Historian and the Indian: Racial Bias in American History. Father Francis J. Weber wrote in his 1966 preface to “A Select Guide to California Catholic History,” “Telling the story of California’s missions is no new endeavor, and the pageantry of that era is now an accepted and pivotal part of Western Americana. Through the dedicated efforts of such scholars as Zephyrin Engelhardt, Herbert E. Bolton and Maynard J. Geiger, quality has been combined with quantity to provide narratives at once accurate and absorbing.” The understanding portrayed by Weber has been challenged, to some extent. How is it that such diverse people over such a long period agreed that Serra should be honored? It is not because new information has been uncovered, but because of changes in attitudes and in how we are taught about history. It is peculiar to me that in Mexico and Spain, Serra is not a controversial figure.

Rubén G. Mendoza, professor of archaeology at California State University, Monterey Bay, lived with anger for most of his life towards anything to do with the Catholic missions. He was told by those whom he trusted that Serra and the Catholic Church were anything but benevolent. However, he overcame these feelings while excavating at San Carlos Cathedral in Monterey, the site of the Royal Presidio Chapel founded by Serra in 1770. He shared in a March 17, 2015, Los Angeles Times article: “After years of rejecting the California mission era, I felt a powerful personal connection with it. . . . I’m Iberian, indigenous and Mexican. It took years to reconcile those differences. But I was born here.”

There is an inherent problem if anger is the dominant lens through which one sees history. Why? Because everybody can be angry when it comes to history. For instance, Catholics at Stanford were shunned for most of its history. The first regular Sunday Mass was not celebrated in Memorial Church until 1966. Catholics were not given their own parish on campus until 1997. Catholics at Stanford sure have every right to be angry.

History can be used as a weapon, but it can also be a powerful tool to show the common thread that binds us. I believe wholeheartedly that studying any topic from a myriad of viewpoints will make us more thoughtful and understanding. Serra’s writings are available online for free. Read them and one will see that he was no monster, as a few claim. Learn from the past to make sense of the present. Do not change the past in order to feel good about the present. Just imagine what people in the future will say of you and me.

– Christian Clifford

Contact Christian Clifford at saintserrabook ‘at’ gmail.com.

Christian Clifford is the author of “Saint Junípero Serra: Making Sense of the History and Legacy” and coming soon from Vesuvius Press, “Who Was Saint Junípero Serra?” For more information, visit www.SaintSerraBook.com.

 

  • An Asian American

    Ah, yes, the same Native Sons of the Golden West who successfully fought in the early 1900s to exclude all “orientals” from California, then subsequently agitated to stigmatize Japanese Americans and spread fear of the yellow peril in California. The Native Sons who, in 1942, campaigned to deny citizenship to American-born Asian Americans and to revoke the citizenship of Japanese Americans, and also successfully campaigned for the unconstitutional and inhumane displacement of all Japanese Americans into wartime concentration camps. And the same Hiram Johnson who worked to push through the Immigration Act of 1924 to prevent East Asians from immigrating into the United States. How fitting that these people are cited uncritically (that is, without an examination of multiple viewpoints) in an apology for Serra that implores readers to examine history from multiple viewpoints.

    Back to the point: there is no request to “cleanse” Stanford of the name Junipero Serra. indeed, John Lancaster-Finley and other proponents of the bill have emphasized that there are proper places, such as museums or classroom discussions, to mention Serra’s role in history, where people can engage with his complicated legacy – however positive and negative – in a more nuanced way than can be gained from a street or building name (which certainly does nothing to encourage the study of anybody’s legacy from multiple viewpoints).

    The article claims that “a slippery slope is created when the past is judged based on current values.” I would contend that we enter a far more morally perilous region if we choose not to judge the past based on current values. Should we not judge eugenicists, slavers, and others from the past, based on current values rather than the values of their dominant time and culture? Does it make sense to understand biological warfare today as a terrible deed yet celebrate historical figures who distributed smallpox blankets for the goal of genocide of Native Americans? Why should we not judge our own actions today with the understanding that future generations will critically examine our choices?

    Finally, why is anger inherently an unproductive dominant lens for understanding history? So much of what has happened in the past inspires anger precisely because it is horrifying, unjust, or tragic. Everybody *should* be angry about the ways in which we have violated, and continue to violate, each other’s humanity. There are certainly productive and unproductive ways to be angry – but why can we not use careful anger as a tool to help us build the path to a more just and loving (and less angry) world?

  • Jack2622

    Widely considered a robber baron, Leland Stanford as president of the Southern Pacific Railroad (memorialized by Upton Sinclair as “The Octopus”) bribed and corrupted politicians and business people alike. A profound racist, in a January 1862 message to the legislature supporting restrictions on Chinese immigration, Stanford said, “The presence of numbers of that degraded and distinct people would exercise a deleterious effect upon the superior race.” His statement was initially received with widespread enthusiasm, and Stanford was lauded as a defender of the white race. Public opinion shifted when it was revealed that Stanford’s Central Pacific Railroad had recruited and imported thousands of Chinese laborers to construct his railway. Of course, Stanford did do some good things, but if history should be re-written to exclude known racists from public approbation, let’s start with the name of Stanford, a name linked forever with the lowest form of American.

  • of_the_people_4_the_people

    I think you failed to prove this point “…such diverse people over such a long period agreed that Serra should be honored?” I don’t see diversity here at all. Your examples are basically all Europeans making statements in time when ‘European dominance’ was at it’s height. The closest I see that you get to diversity is with Mendoza and I’d hardly call “I felt a powerful personal connection with it” a valid reconciliation that we can hang our hat on. The Stanfords are far from examples of unbiased wisdom. Conversely they are the most biased here and at the very core of altering this history to serve their religious, land and railroad ventures. The historical record proves this. If you want diversity, look to the California Indigenous community not those invested in colonization or the church. The facts are the facts. Serra insisted that the Indigenous people could not leave the missions without permission. If they did HE insisted (in his own letters and writings) they be hunted down, kidnapped, brought back and often tortured brutally. This is irrefutable fact. You can put as much flowery context around him as you want, point to all his admirers to justify your admiration and to soften the brutality, but the facts remain.

  • C. Clifford

    Thank you for taking the time to comment of_the_people_4_the_people. I hope that your construct of what is diverse will consider the following: I include in my Op-Ed the voices of an Episcopalian, Progressive statesman; non-sectarian Protestants; Catholic priests of the Franciscan order; a novelist who advocated for Indian rights; a historian of Native American history; and an Iberian, indigenous, Mexican, PhD.

  • C. Clifford

    Thanks for the comment An Asian American. First, I too am saddened that the Constitution was set aside due to wartime hysteria. That should not be forgotten. However, the Native Sons of the Golden West have also done much good. As early as 1909 they were advocating for the needs of Indians in the state. Hiram Johnson was an advocate for direct democracy. You and I are recipients of his call for the initiative, referendum, and recall processes in our state government. Next, who is celebrating “historical figures who distributed smallpox blankets for the goal of genocide of Native Americans”? Also, I think that we agree that righteous outrage can be a good. Last, I invite you to look at the past in this non-judgemental way — “And maps can really point to places where life is evil now.” – W. H. Auden

  • http://msgdaleday.blogspot.com Dale Day

    Everyone sees Saint Serra through their own ethnicity. One has to remember that Americans coming to and taking over California from Mexico believed in Manifest Destiny and that anyone not American was an ignorant savage – even Mexicans. The first official order of the new governor was to round up all Indians and force them onto reservations. And, when President Lincoln returned the missions to the Catholic church, he did not overturn all those acts that had stripped the missions of their lands.

    Thus, we had decades of history written by the victors with all their biases. Hubert Howe Bancroft, the so-called chronicler of California history was a Midwestern Protestant with a strong bias against Injuns and Mex’s. His extensive works have been cited as “the word” on California history so are youth are taught his bigotry in the schools. Even the found of Stanford felt Bancroft to be the final word.

    One has but to read the words of Saint Junipero to understand his zeal for his mission and the love he felt towards those he considered his children, the Indians who came to the Catholic church and were baptized.

    Thank you Christian for an interesting article and the link.

    To red my views of Saint Junipero, visit Father Serra’s Legacy @ http://msgdaleday.blogspot.com

  • of_the_people_4_the_people

    Thank You Christian for taking the time to respond.

    One example of his compassion doesn’t trump him creating an ecosystem of enslavement and abuse.

    I’m not convinced with your diversity argument. 80% if not 100% of your representatives are Christian. 95% Colonialists. Native Sons of the Golden West was formed a ‘whites only’ organization to glorify the heroic efforts of the gold rush pioneers (famously brutal to the real natives). You even use a personal friend of Serra as evidence? Helen Hunt Jackson died almost exactly 100 years after Serra and spoke of Serra relative to the Holocaust waged from Americans. She also said Serra transformed the Indian to become “the industrious toiler of the soil, weaver of cloth, worker of metals, and singer of sacred hymns.” And with all due respect and acknowledgment of my limited understanding, Mr. Mendoza seems to have reconciled his disdain for the missions and Serra not because he discovered contrary evidence but because he connected with his blood line in an archeological dig. Many Indigenous people identify strongly with the missions because it physically connects them to their ancestors. I can’t speak for Mr. Mendoza but his story doesn’t exonerate Serra of the fact that Serra insisted on using brutal and enslaving methods for his crusade.

    If you/ others want to take the “slippery slope” of judgment based on current values out of the equation – investigate and consider the historical record of Serra’s time. For example: The King of Spain (when Serra was alive) said the fate of mission Indians was ‘worse than that of slaves’ (1779). King Carlos wrote a letter to Serra asking him to free his Indians, stop whipping them and give them legal representation. Serra justified his abuse by acknowledging Francisco Solano also whipped his Indians and he still became a Saint. Serra refused all the Kings requests to stop his abuse. (Jan 7, 1780). Priests sent to head missions wrote letters back to Spain appalled from the treatment of the Indigenous people – “the many abuses that are commonplace… worse than anything I’ve ever read about… for reasons however insignificant it may be, they are severely and cruelly whipped, placed in shackles, or put in stocks for days on end without even a drop of water.” (1798) This is the system Serra had virtual autonomy over. These are the exact punishments Serra refused to stop after being asked by the King of Spain to stop. These are irrefutable facts. Even in the context of his day, he was the leader of a brutal mission – the final blows of the Spanish Inquisition.

    Why do you think it’s “peculiar that Serra isn’t controversial in Mexico and Spain?” Most people of California don’t know who he is and how do you think the story and news of Serra would be learned there? The Catholic church? The colonialist news? When I think about current United States public education’s history lessons on Native Americans and what I was taught in public schools vs. what really happened… it isn’t peculiar to me at all.

    The Franciscans took extraordinary records of the numbers of lashings, to whom they were delivered to, and for how many days. You might look to those records before you continue to defend these places and the founder of this movement. With all due respect, I plead that you do. I don’t have all the facts here either. I am not Indigenous and don’t speak for them. This is a complicated journey. We were lied to in public schools and that was embellished with expensive propaganda statues but we must take responsibility for the facts of history. Please, look beyond the perpetrator’s organization, those with religious bias, and beyond those who stood to gain from a more romantic version of history. We owe it to the Indigenous community who still are alive today and who are survivors of what many call, genocide. We all grow stronger and healthier for engaging here. Thank you for doing so.

  • of_the_people_4_the_people

    FYI: Serra’s one and only miracle? The ‘curing’ of lupus as stated by the Catholic Church. Lupus.org says all symptoms can and sometimes do stop completely and without reason. The miracle is a fabrication by the church for political reasons and to continue to spin themselves as good and to cover up its abuses. Those across Mexico and the world will never get this information because they are happy to simply trust and follow. Check out how the nun and those around her speak about the process. You can almost hear the fabrication process.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRBSc7mL6cU

  • Mark Rickart

    GREAT article Chris Clifford, WELL DONE!