I do not mean to engage in reverse-romanticism. The Church often passed from benefactor to oppressor; and its historical role is at best equivocal. But so too the Liberals and it is necessary to undraw the false line in the sand the liberals have drawn. From approximately 1930 to 1980, the PRI did pursue an agrarian policy of parcelling out lands and protecting ejidal rights; but that was only after the Porfiriato all but pursued a policy of confiscating Indian lands. Moreover Juarez's land reforms -- which allowed the Indian to alienate his land ("freely sell" it) resulted only in the Indian being alienated from his land by mostly foreign investors.
Although a more complete discussion of the Church's role is beyond the present outline, it should be noted that it is somewhat inaccurate to speak of "the" Church as if it was a monolithic institution. It was not, anymore than criollos. Generally speaking the hierarchy was reactionary, whereas the lower orders were more sympthetic towards and protective of the communities they served. Hidalgo and Morelos, the instigators of the 1810 Revolution, were both liberals and priests, just as today a faction within the Church advocates Liberation Theology. In Mexico and Ibero-America there are no straight lines, and it is best to cultivate an enjoyment of paradox.
The point I wish to make here, is primarily "cultural". Modern Western man makes a distinction between "economy" and "religion". The Indian does not. Land, the production on it, the society around it and the gods under and above it, are all part of a seamless moral whole. The Church was attuned to this "indigenous" cosmology because it embodied a familiar wholistic approach present in feudalism and classical Greek "economic" thought. It was only liberalism that wrested economic activity from its moral moorings -- or perhaps more accurately said, turned economic activity into a moral good in itself.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment