When reading Montaigne, I probably enjoyed his “On the Cannibals” essay much more than his “On Habit”. Overall, both essays felt very philosophical to me. I especially liked the part in the “On the Cannibals” essay, where Montaigne talks about the word “barbarism” and how mankind has used it to describe the nature of people and their culture or traditions that are not common in the place they are from (pg. 231-232). I never really thought about it this way and I just wanted to note that that piece was interesting. Montaigne is interesting because it seems like he is aware of who he is and where he stands in the world, who natives are and how they should be treated and seen, and how mankind relies on the simplicity of nature. The reading itself was a little bit scrambled and there wasn’t really any organization to it, and that made it a little hard to read for me. However, it did feel like I was reading a diary or journal, because he had little random thoughts that he deeply developed.
To my understanding, The Mission is more about making difficult decisions that later have a negative or positive effect. Although this movie was mostly about converting the Natives to Christianity or enslaving them, I felt it focused more on Father Gabriel’s (?) decision on what to do after the eminence had told him to abandon the natives. Because father Gabriel gained the natives’ trust and love, Father Gabriel decides to fight for them and do the right thing along with the slave trade owner who becomes a mission follower early in the movie. They defend their rights and beliefs despite risking their own lives. This collision of contrasting cultures (in general) is what creates a hostile environment for everyone…
Do you think this relates to radical difference?
I mean, the Portuguese believed they were animals because the natives were sacrificing their children but that is how their culture works. Yet, the Jesuits viewed them as smart (or at least I think they did). The missions taught them to play an instrument as well as crop despite the language barrier.
Radical difference is about power and feeling superior to someone/something that is not like you?
What are you thoughts? Agree/disagree?
Does anyone else have a different perspective?
It is challenging to watch a film, such as “The Mission”, as a secular 20 year old that encourages the Western Christian doctrine as a method of saving an entire people. It is challenging not to be skeptical of propaganda; it proves more difficult to keep in mind both the context of the 18th century and the context of the 1980’s. Though a British film, to separate the fact that Ronald Reagan was serving his presidency in 1986 is hard to ignore. More relevant for me is the teaching in many classes that the introduction of Christianity during the “age of exploration” resulted in a loss of “native” cultural identity and traditional practices and is seemingly also an attempt to civilize. However, the scene for example where the initial meeting takes place between the Spanish, Portuguese, the Jesuit community, and some of the Guarani in which the child is claimed “an animal” proves the intentions of the Jesuits undeniably good. This is especially clear when one considers the Spanish and Portuguese intentions not just for cultural destruction, but actual destruction of the land and people through slave trade. To be subjective, however, there were three problematic areas I noticed: the emphasis on children, the guilt complex of the emissary in the concluding scene, and the message at the end of the film.
Children (or young animals) are often used in advertisements or mass media to require empathy from the audience. The only moment in which the elders of the Guarani community are involved, besides the scenes where they are essentially extras, is the meeting in which they are told they must leave the mission. It is also the only scene in which the opinion of the Guarani is explicitly shown through their own community, not through Father Gabriel. The other scenes consist of Guarani children to express happiness in the Jesuit mission or fear of the Spanish and Portuguese or advanced warfare technology.
Did it seem strange to others that the emissary after creating such destruction and loss then felt guilty? I found it hard to emphasize with him after watching him choose the path of destruction. The message at the end of the film, regarding the struggle of those still defending their land and the missionaries who aim to solve these issues, was concerning only when contextualized in contemporary times. It is certainly important for external aid involving these grave issues of owning land and destruction of land for people native to the land, yet there are other methods than Westernizing the group through religious doctrine, which seems less selfless. To avoid seeming overly cynical, I believe it is important for anyone to take action and to be aware of these struggles, but it was somewhat concerning to advertise this one way of doing so.
It’s difficult to make an analysis of the conversion of the Guarani people to Christianity in this movie. It seems that the Jesuits and Father Gabriel genuinely cared about the natives and really we’re trying to “save” them in the spiritual sense. However, many external pressures cause a muddy result. The Portuguese wanted the land in order to enslave them, the governor’s hands were tied because of fear of condemning the Jesuits and causing a ripple in the church. It became difficult to make the right choices when power is no longer in your hands.
Also, from the moment the Guarani boy cut Mendoza’s baggage after reaching the top there seems to be a theme of redemption. The guarani project became more of redemption project for Mendoza and father Gabriel rather than “spreading the word of Christ.”
What are your thoughts? Did this missionary serve more as an attempt to redemption rather than helping the guarani people.
Modernity And Its Others 
When reading Montaigne, I probably enjoyed his “On the Cannibals” essay much more than his “On Habit”. Overall, both essays felt very philosophical to me. I especially liked the part in the “On the Cannibals” essay, where Montaigne talks about the word “barbarism” and how mankind has used it to describe the nature of people and their culture or traditions that are not common in the place they are from (pg. 231-232). I never really thought about it this way and I just wanted to note that that piece was interesting. Montaigne is interesting because it seems like he is aware of who he is and where he stands in the world, who natives are and how they should be treated and seen, and how mankind relies on the simplicity of nature. The reading itself was a little bit scrambled and there wasn’t really any organization to it, and that made it a little hard to read for me. However, it did feel like I was reading a diary or journal, because he had little random thoughts that he deeply developed.
LikeLike
To my understanding, The Mission is more about making difficult decisions that later have a negative or positive effect. Although this movie was mostly about converting the Natives to Christianity or enslaving them, I felt it focused more on Father Gabriel’s (?) decision on what to do after the eminence had told him to abandon the natives. Because father Gabriel gained the natives’ trust and love, Father Gabriel decides to fight for them and do the right thing along with the slave trade owner who becomes a mission follower early in the movie. They defend their rights and beliefs despite risking their own lives. This collision of contrasting cultures (in general) is what creates a hostile environment for everyone…
Do you think this relates to radical difference?
I mean, the Portuguese believed they were animals because the natives were sacrificing their children but that is how their culture works. Yet, the Jesuits viewed them as smart (or at least I think they did). The missions taught them to play an instrument as well as crop despite the language barrier.
Radical difference is about power and feeling superior to someone/something that is not like you?
What are you thoughts? Agree/disagree?
Does anyone else have a different perspective?
LikeLike
It is challenging to watch a film, such as “The Mission”, as a secular 20 year old that encourages the Western Christian doctrine as a method of saving an entire people. It is challenging not to be skeptical of propaganda; it proves more difficult to keep in mind both the context of the 18th century and the context of the 1980’s. Though a British film, to separate the fact that Ronald Reagan was serving his presidency in 1986 is hard to ignore. More relevant for me is the teaching in many classes that the introduction of Christianity during the “age of exploration” resulted in a loss of “native” cultural identity and traditional practices and is seemingly also an attempt to civilize. However, the scene for example where the initial meeting takes place between the Spanish, Portuguese, the Jesuit community, and some of the Guarani in which the child is claimed “an animal” proves the intentions of the Jesuits undeniably good. This is especially clear when one considers the Spanish and Portuguese intentions not just for cultural destruction, but actual destruction of the land and people through slave trade. To be subjective, however, there were three problematic areas I noticed: the emphasis on children, the guilt complex of the emissary in the concluding scene, and the message at the end of the film.
Children (or young animals) are often used in advertisements or mass media to require empathy from the audience. The only moment in which the elders of the Guarani community are involved, besides the scenes where they are essentially extras, is the meeting in which they are told they must leave the mission. It is also the only scene in which the opinion of the Guarani is explicitly shown through their own community, not through Father Gabriel. The other scenes consist of Guarani children to express happiness in the Jesuit mission or fear of the Spanish and Portuguese or advanced warfare technology.
Did it seem strange to others that the emissary after creating such destruction and loss then felt guilty? I found it hard to emphasize with him after watching him choose the path of destruction. The message at the end of the film, regarding the struggle of those still defending their land and the missionaries who aim to solve these issues, was concerning only when contextualized in contemporary times. It is certainly important for external aid involving these grave issues of owning land and destruction of land for people native to the land, yet there are other methods than Westernizing the group through religious doctrine, which seems less selfless. To avoid seeming overly cynical, I believe it is important for anyone to take action and to be aware of these struggles, but it was somewhat concerning to advertise this one way of doing so.
LikeLike
It’s difficult to make an analysis of the conversion of the Guarani people to Christianity in this movie. It seems that the Jesuits and Father Gabriel genuinely cared about the natives and really we’re trying to “save” them in the spiritual sense. However, many external pressures cause a muddy result. The Portuguese wanted the land in order to enslave them, the governor’s hands were tied because of fear of condemning the Jesuits and causing a ripple in the church. It became difficult to make the right choices when power is no longer in your hands.
Also, from the moment the Guarani boy cut Mendoza’s baggage after reaching the top there seems to be a theme of redemption. The guarani project became more of redemption project for Mendoza and father Gabriel rather than “spreading the word of Christ.”
What are your thoughts? Did this missionary serve more as an attempt to redemption rather than helping the guarani people.
LikeLike