Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 8:37 PM
23 online now:
DrJones*, jar, Theodoric (3 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,091 Year: 9,127/19,786 Month: 1,549/2,119 Week: 309/576 Day: 112/98 Hour: 4/12


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
34567Next
Author Topic:   Camel's Noses, Trojan Horses, and Cultural Aggression
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6269
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 16 of 94 (550982)
03-20-2010 4:25 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by IchiBan
03-19-2010 9:18 PM


Any desire to dispute what I say?
Yeah I guess not. Maybe some one else has balls.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by IchiBan, posted 03-19-2010 9:18 PM IchiBan has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6269
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 17 of 94 (550984)
03-20-2010 4:27 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by IchiBan
03-20-2010 3:13 AM


Re: wild claims
90% death rate from Franciscan mission? You have made yet another wild assed claim for which you have failed to back up.

You willing to dispute this?

Yeah. I thought not.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by IchiBan, posted 03-20-2010 3:13 AM IchiBan has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18484
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 18 of 94 (551000)
03-20-2010 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by IchiBan
03-19-2010 9:11 PM


Hi, IchiBan, welcome to this thread. It could use a healthy dose of an opposing viewpoint.

IchiBan writes:

What is this article doing in Creation/Evolution In The News forum? Oh thats right, another opportunity to bash Christianity.

I posted the article here because it was a news item, and it was an illustration of the same approach taken by creationists but in a completely different venue. It isn't Christianity that is being bashed but underhanded evangelical Christian tactics for proselytizing their views, be they about science or theology.

I share your skepticism at the high mortality rates and await evidential support.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by IchiBan, posted 03-19-2010 9:11 PM IchiBan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by anglagard, posted 03-20-2010 1:49 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 36 by IchiBan, posted 03-21-2010 3:22 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 271 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 19 of 94 (551015)
03-20-2010 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by IchiBan
03-20-2010 3:13 AM


Re: wild claims -- Not!
90% death rate from Franciscan mission? You have made yet another wild assed claim for which you have failed to back up. I guess for you and the choir you preach to that counts as fact.

Not so. You can find that figure in any number of books on the subject.

And I have confirmed that figure in my own research (I do research in that area myself).

You might want to consult the following sources:

Sandos, Converting California: Indians and Franciscans in the Missions (Yale University Press, 2004)

Jackson, Indian Population Decline: The Missions of Northwestern New Spain, 1687-1840 (University of New Mexico Press, 1994)

Hackel, Children of Coyote, Missionaries of Saint Francis: Indian-Spanish Relations in Colonial California, 1769-1850 (University of North Carolina Press, 2005)


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by IchiBan, posted 03-20-2010 3:13 AM IchiBan has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Percy, posted 03-20-2010 12:41 PM Coyote has responded
 Message 21 by Percy, posted 03-20-2010 1:04 PM Coyote has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18484
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 20 of 94 (551035)
03-20-2010 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Coyote
03-20-2010 10:22 AM


Re: wild claims -- Not!
  1. Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.

  2. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Coyote, posted 03-20-2010 10:22 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Coyote, posted 03-20-2010 7:21 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18484
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 21 of 94 (551037)
03-20-2010 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Coyote
03-20-2010 10:22 AM


Re: wild claims -- Not!
This is from all I could find at Amazon that was relevant from Sandos, Converting California: Indians and Franciscans in the Missions (Yale University Press, 2004):

Sandos writes:

Into the coastal area containing perhaps 65,000 Indians at contact in 1769, the Spanish enterprise introduced a new population of 150. By the end of Spanish rule in 1820 the white and mixed-blood population, the gentle de razon, counted only 3,400, while the Indian people in the missions, declining largely from European diseases inadvertently introduced, numbered less than 22,000. Just priot to secularization under Mexican governance in 1832, the gente de razon were still fewer than 4,000 and the Indians down to 17,000

There was nothing relevant at Amazon in the other two books, but they make very few pages available.

I did find a more complete online copy of Sandos's book at Google: Converting California: Indians and Franciscans in the Missions. It's lengthy and I couldn't find the place it says anything about 90% mortality, but if you can find it then just let us know what page.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Coyote, posted 03-20-2010 10:22 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2010 1:47 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 30 by Coyote, posted 03-20-2010 7:28 PM Percy has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 94 (551043)
03-20-2010 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Percy
03-20-2010 1:04 PM


Re: wild claims -- Not!
I found this:

Drought During California's Mission Period, 1769-1834

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/17v0416f

Coyote wrote:

quote:
The Franciscan missionaries built 20+ missions along the California coast to save souls.

During the mission era (1769-1834) the death rate in that mission zone was on the close order of 90%.

But they saved their souls...


Is he actually implying that the missionaries caused the deaths or just noting the correlation?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Percy, posted 03-20-2010 1:04 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by anglagard, posted 03-20-2010 2:09 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 31 by Coyote, posted 03-20-2010 7:31 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2189
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 23 of 94 (551044)
03-20-2010 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Percy
03-20-2010 8:24 AM


Post-Conquest Mortality Rate Among California Indians
Percy writes:

I share your skepticism at the high mortality rates and await evidential support.

This Wiki article: Population of Native California and what I was taught in the California school and junior college system tend to support Coyote's position.

quote:
Pre-contact estimates range from 133,000 to 705,000 with some recent scholars concluding that these estimates are low. Following the European people's arrival into California, disease and other factors brought the population as low as 25,000. It is estimated that some 4,500 Native Californians suffered violent deaths between 1849 and 1870.

Normally I greet Wikipedia articles with some skepticism but this one is well referenced.

quote:
The decline of Native Californian populations during the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was investigated in most detail by Cook (1976a, 1976b, 1978). He assessed the relative importance of the various sources of the decline, including Old World epidemic diseases, violence, nutritional changes, and cultural shock. Declines tended to be steepest in the areas directly affected by the missions and the Gold Rush. Other studies have addressed the changes that occurred within individual regions or ethnolinguistic groups.

The Native Californian population reached its nadir of around 25,000 at the end of the nineteenth century. Based on Kroeber's estimate of 133,000 people in 1770, this would represent a decrease of more than 80%. Using Cook's revised figure, it would constitute a decline of more than 90%.


Considering Cook published his research during the same time I was attending the local JC, I can see why it was discussed in several of my classes.

As to the continued existence of any Piro Indians, I offer the following:

quote:
Sandia Pueblo, 14 miles north of Albuquerque on the east side of the Rio Grande, and Isleta Pueblo, 14 miles south of Albuquerque on the west side of the river, are both Tiwa-speaking pueblos. Their native names are Nafiat (dusty) and Tuei (town). Sandia Pueblo lands comprise 22,884 acres, (93 km2) and the village itself seems to have been occupied continuously since about 1300. Isleta's lands comprise 187,826 acres (760 km2) and the present village site cannot be dated earlier than 1500. The core population of both villages is probably made up of descendants of Puebloan peoples living in the Rio Grande Valley long before European contact. Both pueblos probably also received population increments from the now extinct Piro Pueblos, which existed before the conquest along the river south of Isleta and from the abandoned Saline Pueblos (Abo, Gran Quivera, and Quarai) of the Estancia Basin.

Emphasis mine.

Source: Albuquerque's Environmental Story
Educating For a Sustainable Community
Heritage and Human Environment
Pueblo Indian Influence
by Linda Cordell, with material by Matthew Schmader

There are more sources, if deemed necessary.


The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
— Salman Rushdie

This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Percy, posted 03-20-2010 8:24 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2189
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 24 of 94 (551052)
03-20-2010 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by New Cat's Eye
03-20-2010 1:47 PM


Re: wild claims -- Not!
Catholic Scientist writes:

Is he actually implying that the missionaries caused the deaths or just noting the correlation?

Whether or not the mortality rate was direct from murder and enslavement, or indirect through destruction of culture and disease, it is the contact that caused the vast majority of deaths.

California has always had periods of drought, the effects of which are greatly magnified through the recent population explosion. Are you suggesting that periods of drought, affecting a much smaller amount of people, is the sole or even major cause of the decline in the Indian population?


The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
— Salman Rushdie

This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2010 1:47 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2010 2:19 PM anglagard has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 94 (551056)
03-20-2010 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by anglagard
03-20-2010 2:09 PM


Re: wild claims -- Not!
Whether or not the mortality rate was direct from murder and enslavement, or indirect through destruction of culture and disease, it is the contact that caused the vast majority of deaths.

California has always had periods of drought, the effects of which are greatly magnified through the recent population explosion. Are you suggesting that periods of drought, affecting a much smaller amount of people, is the sole or even major cause of the decline in the Indian population?

I don't know what caused them to die. I don't think that the drought was the sole or even major cuase, but it certainly would have exacerbated any other causes. It was prolly a lot of disease. I doubt that the missionaries intended to cause all the death, and I doubt they would have been out there mudering them. But honestly, I don't know much of anything about it.

I just googled a bit and found that article, then re-read Coyote's statement, and he didn't actually say that the missionaries caused it.

It looked to me like he was doing a little trolling and Ichi fell for it hook, line, and sinker.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by anglagard, posted 03-20-2010 2:09 PM anglagard has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18484
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 26 of 94 (551058)
03-20-2010 2:32 PM


To Catholic Scientist and Anglagard
In Message 5 Coyote said, "During the mission era (1769-1834) the death rate in that mission zone was on the close order of 90%."

If when he says "death rate" he's actually referring to population decline then I agree with him. The population figures cited by various authorities differ a little bit, but 80% or 90% or whatever it really is, I think everyone agrees that the arrival of white men in Indian territory was always accompanied by dramatic population declines.

But if by "death rate" Coyote instead meant "mortality rate," which is what I thought he meant, then his point needs additional clarification. Mortality rates are usually given on an annualized basis, but the period he mentions is 65 years. A mortality rate of 90% over a period of 65 years in a primitive indigenous population exposed to diseases for which it has no resistance actually seems exceptionally low, and when annualized would be incredibly low.

And of course the 90% figure couldn't be an annualized figure, as that would wipe out the entire population in just a few years and there would be no individuals left after 65 years.

Coyote was using the statistic as an indictment of Christian proselytizing efforts of the period, but if you read that first book he cited you can see that while the missions were prone to many barbaric practices that contributed to population decline, the mortality rate in any given year could never have approached 90%, and over 65 years could never have been as low as 90%, and if either of these things was what Coyote was saying then I continue to be very skeptical.

--Percy


Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by anglagard, posted 03-20-2010 3:16 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2189
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 27 of 94 (551066)
03-20-2010 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Percy
03-20-2010 2:32 PM


Re: To Catholic Scientist and Anglagard
I took death rate to mean population decline rate rather than mortality rate for the very reason a 90% mortality rate makes no sense in this context. However, I can easily see how there could be some confusion over exactly what Coyote meant by "death rate."

At any rate thanks for clearing that up.


The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
— Salman Rushdie

This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Percy, posted 03-20-2010 2:32 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Coyote, posted 03-20-2010 8:33 PM anglagard has not yet responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 94 (551073)
03-20-2010 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
03-17-2010 11:18 AM


Buzsaw Position: Jehovah vs Allah
Percy writes:

Gee, where else have we seen any similar Christian sneakiness and misrepresentation?

Hi Percy. Sneakiness and misrepresentation, I think not. Rather it is ignorance.

Our church helps sponser a lindguist translator in Indonesia. When he visited our church I spoke with him regarding this. He informed me that he uses the term, Allah to represent the Biblical god in translating because the predimonantly Muslim nation would not recognize the name Jehovah. I proceeded to explain to him the reasons that Allah an Jehovah were not one and the same gods and how I thought this would work to legitimize the Koran. He said that he would look into this. I haven't seen him since that time and don't know if that influenced any changes.

Perhaps there's an underlying fear among missionaries of persecution if they allude to any god but Allah. The linguist I mentioned above is with Wycliff Bible Translators. Surely, Wycliff, being in this work for a very long time should be aware of this. If so, I fault them for not apprising their workers about it.

Interestingly, the concensus her at EvC among the members is the same as the Christians to whom you allude. My position has consistently been that Allah and Jehovah are not only not one and the same god, but that that they are quite diametrically opposing gods who apparantly have inspired diametrically opposing doctrine into the their respective major prophets, Jehovah's Jesus and Allah's Muhammed.

For the most part, the EvC membership response to my allegations have been negative rebuttal attempts, sometimes regarding my position as hateful bigotry.

In Christian circles and out of Christian circles, folks whom I've discussed this with consider the gods of the Koran and the Bible to be one and the same. It's also the case in mainstream media, including Fox News. I notice it, since it's an important issue.

Imo it does more to legitimize Islam than it does to benefit propagation of the Biblical gospel. In fact there has been some times when Islamic apologists in America have tried to claim that the two are one god. I don't recall the source or sources, but perhaps I could get some up if needful.

The fact is that Jehovah is the one and only proper name of the Biblical god and Allah is the one and only proper Koranic god, proper, gramatically speaking, denoting names. The Hebrew Biblical word, elohim, is not a proper name but a generic name simply meaning god. Though the meaning remains the same in the Koran, Muhammed deemed the Arabic rendering of god to be the proper name of his god, Allah, one of the many god's worshipped at Meccah before by the sword, Muhammed's god, Allah prevailed to become the monotheistic god of Islam.

I'm not alone among evangelicals insisting that the two gods are not one and the same. As per a link cited in the link in your OP, Ergan Caner, president of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary agrees with my position. I'm sure there are others

Link from OP writes:

Ergun Caner, president of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, in Lynchburg, Va., said in a recent podcast, “There’s nothing that the two gods — the god of the Koran and the god of scripture — have in common. Nothing.”

From your link, Muhammed also appears to have had somewhat
the same ulterior motive for essentially hijacking the Biblical god, Jesus, Abraham, et al as well as some doctrines and events from the Bible, which was to legitimize his paganistic Allah god religion so as to gain converts. He picked and chose carefully, so as to undermine the trinity, sonship of Jesus and particularly the Abrahamic Covenant which Jehovah declared exclusively to to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and exclusively from Ishmael and Esaw in the OT.

Muhammed essentially hijacked the OT violent actions of Jehovah which Jehovah exclusively applied to Israel and the land of Caanan and excluded the love your enemy non-violent doctrines of Jesus and his apostles in the NT.

Exerpts from OP link writes:

How and when did Muhammad decide that the Abrahamic god was the one and only God? According to one early oral Muslim tradition, Muhammad’s wife had a wise old cousin who was a Christian. When Muhammad had his initial revelation, it was so disorienting—Was he going crazy? Was he demon-possessed?—that he sought guidance from his wife, and she consulted this cousin.

If indeed Muhammad fleshed out an initially vague religious experience with the help of a Christian, that could explain why he concluded that his mission was to spread a monotheist message, and, more specifically, the message of the Abrahamic god; especially if, as that early Islamic tradition has it, the Christian in question had long believed that God would send a prophet to the Arabs—and declared upon hearing of Muhammad’s experience, “Verily Muhammad is the Prophet of this people.” This is the kind of pronouncement that could help a seeker with messianic leanings but no clear mission fill in the blanks.

Even aside from the Christian cousin-in-law, Muhammad had chances to learn about the Judeo-Christian God. There may have been pockets of Christians and Jews in the Meccan vicinity, and there was a sizable Christian community in Yemen, one of Mecca’s two main trade partners. And the other big trade partner, Syria, was part of the Byzantine Empire and hence heavily Christian. Muhammad is said to have traveled to Syria as a boy with his uncle on trade trips.

He would probably have carried an open attitude toward Syrian religion. Mecca was a polytheistic society that, in classic ancient fashion, was tolerant of the gods of trade partners. In fact, Mecca’s famous shrine the Ka’ba—today the destination of the hajj, the annual Islamic pilgrimage—was in pre-Islamic times surrounded by idols of gods favored by various tribes and clans, and this pluralism seems to have lubricated commerce. According to one early Muslim source, a Christian had been allowed to paint an image of Jesus and the Virgin Mary on an inner wall of the Ka’ba—the sort of formalized respect for the beliefs of trade partners that would have been unexceptional in an ancient polytheistic city.

In this case the respect probably went beyond the formal. The Byzantine Empire was more cosmopolitan, more technologically advanced, than Arabian society, and the culture of a powerful neighbor often holds a special fascination to a less developed people. So long as that power isn’t viewed as an enemy, the fascination can be alluring.

This leads to one way of looking at Muhammad—as a man who had the ingenuity to fill a wide-open spiritual niche. He took a foreign god that was already making inroads in Arabia and became that god’s official Arab-language spokesman. To put it in modern commercial terms, it’s as if no one before Muhammad had thought to secure Arabic translation rights to the Bible, even though demand for such a book was taking shape.

The Koran itself comes close to saying as much: “Before this, was the Book of Moses.… And this Book [the Koran] confirms (it) in the Arabic tongue.”

However, there’s a crucial difference between this line and the Muhammad-as-translator analogy. In the translator scenario, Judeo-Christian theology is transmitted to Muhammad by contact with Jews and Christians and/or their scriptures. In the Koran’s scenario, Judeo-Christian theology was transmitted to the Jews and Christians by God and then to Muhammad by God. When God, in the Koran, tells Muhammad that he has “made it an Arabic Koran that ye may understand: And it is a transcript of the archetypal Book,” the archetypal Book isn’t the Bible. Rather, the archetypal book is the word of God—the Logos, as some ancient Christians and Jews would have put it—of which the Bible is equally a “transcript.” Muhammad didn’t get the Word via Moses. Rather, like Moses, he had a direct line to God.

So Islam, by its own account, isn’t descended from other Abrahamic religions, even though it is rooted firmly in the Abrahamic lineage. Yes, Islamic tradition may highlight Muhammad’s contact with a Christian relative, but the idea isn’t that the relative was an invaluable tutor in Christianity; more important was his role in helping Muhammad see which god was already doing the tutoring.

This distinction would have been crucial to Muhammad. The way to attract a devoted following in those days was to have special access to the supernatural. Just having access to a cousin-in-law conversant in biblical scripture wouldn’t be very impressive. Indeed, that Muhammad’s “revelations” were in fact coming from human sources is an allegation Muhammad’s enemies made in trying to blunt his appeal. As the Koran describes the charge, Muhammad’s message was dismissed as “tales of the ancients that he [Muhammad] hath put in writing! And they were dictated to him morn and even.” At one point the Koran even addresses a specific accusation about who was doing the dictating. “They say, ‘Surely a certain person teacheth him.’ But the tongue of him at whom they hint is foreign, while this Koran is in the plain Arabic.” Case closed

This misunderstanding among the sheeples of most nations and particularly the mainstream media is a signifant factor in the phenomenal growth of Islam globally.

The falsehood is a greater benefit to Islam than to Christian missions.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 03-17-2010 11:18 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-20-2010 11:49 PM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 94 by Theodoric, posted 05-10-2010 6:47 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 271 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 29 of 94 (551077)
03-20-2010 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Percy
03-20-2010 12:41 PM


Re: wild claims -- Not!
I am aware of that, Percy.

But those books are at the office and I am at home, it being a weekend.

That's the best I can do at the moment.

But those figures are accurate: during the mission era (1769-1834) the death rate in the mission zone was on the close order of 90%. I say "close order" because of course it varied a bit from mission to mission.

I can provide details when I get back to the office and can pull the books.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Percy, posted 03-20-2010 12:41 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 271 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 30 of 94 (551078)
03-20-2010 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Percy
03-20-2010 1:04 PM


Re: wild claims -- Not!
Good research Percy. I was not aware those books were (at least partially) online.

But the figures you are dealing with are overall mission populations.

Because of the high death rates, particularly with the epidemics of the 1790s and following, the missions were forced to search farther and farther for converts--they needed the labor to keep the missions running, as there was little support from the Spanish government and almost no support from the Mexican government after they took over.

They had to bring in Indian peoples from farther and farther east. Those figures mask somewhat the death rate of the coastal peoples. The figures you quoted give a death rate of 75%, so even without the peoples who were brought in from the east we are close to my figure of 90%. When you add in the thousands of extra people from eastern communities, the death rate in the mission zone does indeed average about 90%.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Percy, posted 03-20-2010 1:04 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Percy, posted 03-20-2010 8:08 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
34567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019