The Mission is a fictionalized account of the expulsion of the Jesuit Order from South America due to pressure from the Spanish and especially the Portuguese. Keen writes of the situation of the Jesuits and their 30+ South American Missions, "Rather than 'Christian socialism,' the Jesuit system could more correctly be described as 'theocratic capitalism'." (Keen 105) What do you think is the difference between these two terms? Would "Christian Socialism" be any more acceptable to the Bourbon's of Portugal and Spain? Why or why not? Answer these questions in the comment section of this blog entry. Remember to include your first name and last initial in your entry.
The Jesuits were expelled from South America in 1767, but that didn't end the pressure on the Society of Jesus. Read this entry from E.B. about Pope Clement XIV to find out what happened to the Jesuits just six years later.
29 comments:
Christian socialism would be if the Jesuits went to America and converted all of the natives and then the natives were treated as if they were Spanish Christians. But what was going on was theocratic capitalism, where the natives might be converted but then after their conversion they would be exploited and used to make the Spanish more money. Christian socialism would be more acceptable to the bourbons because then they would know that the natives are not just going down on paper as being Christian, but they actually are christian and they want to be rather then they're forced to be.
Ben E.
The difference is that with theocratic capitalism, the Jesuits were teaching the indigenous peoples how to adapt their talents to make money for their communities. If it was Christian socialism, every native would share the profits and the missions wouldn't have been so successful. And I don't think the missions would have survived even if they weren't theocratic capitalist societies because the Europeans still would have been jealous and enslaved the natives anyway. They wanted to control everyone.
The above was written by Chad h.
Christian Socialism would be when the profits form the mission are shared equally among the natives. Theocratic Capitalism is when the Jesuits tought the natives how to be very efficient and make a lot of money for the Jesuits. Christian socialism would seem more acceptable to the bourbons because with theocratic capitalism the main purpose would be to obtain a lot of money whereas in christian socialism the main goal is developing the christian faith of the natives.
Clare t.
Christian socialism would be when the Jesuits converted the natives and treated them equally as the Spanish. Also the profits earned by the natives would then be divided equally among the natives. Theocratic capitalsim is when the natives are converted and then treated as slaves and all the profits they earn go to the jesuits. I dont think Christian socialism would have been accepted by the bourbans. The reason is because even though they wanted to spread Christianity they were probably more interested in making more profits. And with Christian socialism they wouldnt make any so theocratic capitalism would fit their needs more than Christian Socialism.
Sabrina P.
Theocratic socialism would be when the Spanish would try and convert the Jesuits but were mainly focused on their benefits, which would be gaining them more money. Christian Socialism would be the Jesuits converting the natives and spreading wealth back amongst the community. Christian socialism would be more acceptable amongst the Bourbons because it would be concentrating on the actual faith of the people and not just gaining money.
Tachelle M :)
Theocratic capitalism would be a more accurate description of the Jesuits because profit (even if brought back into the community) was a strong motif for work on the Jesuit plantations. Christian Socialism would be slightly different in that the Jesuit order would divide and distribute all the wealth gained equally. Equality and not profit would be the ultimate goal of Christian Socialism.
I don't believe the specific policy of the Jesuits would have mattered much to Spain and Portugal. The Jesuits were clashing with the nations' national and economic interests. It may have made them to a degree more lenient, but ultimately opposing the countries' interests.
Lucas Leblanc
Christian socialism can be defined as a system in which the jesuits convert the natives into christianity faith, while taking into account that the natives should be treated like their fellow Christians. On the other hand, theocratic capitalism seems to have economically advanced characteristics compared to Christian socialism. Besides the fact the natives are Christians, the natives still experience hard labor without gaining personal profits for their labors. In other word, they are treated unfairly, from wealth to standard of living. The theocratic capitalism is more approprate to the boubon kings because: the crown can receive more profits from the unfairly used labors from the natives.
Lina C.
Christian socialism would be making profits and then dividing them equally among all the natives. Theoretic capitalism is where the majority of the profits go to the jesuits. Christian socialism would be better because then there would be a bigger emphasis in religion, and all the profits that got made would be given to those who earned it.
Rachael R
In theocratic capitalism the natives are used as a source of income, putting religious conversion as a secondary goal. In Christian socialism any wealth would be shares equally, and religious conversion would be a more rimary aspect of the mission. Christian socialism probably would have been preferred because the Bourbons wanted more money for the crown and since the Jesuits weren't paying taxes the king would not want them earning a large profit. However, they would have no objections to a group that was solely functioning to convert the natives.
Andrew E.
If it were Christian socialism, the profits made from the natives would be distributed equally among them. This was not the case however. What was taking place was theocratic capitalism beause the natives were being exploited and cheated out of their own profits.
Neither of these would have been effective because the Spanish still would have killed and enslaved the natives because they believe themselves to be superior.
Spencer R
Morally, Christian socialism would be much more acceptable in that the converted natives would receive equal amounts of profit from the work being done in the colonies. For the Bourbon kings, who were much more interested in economic wealth than the treatment of the natives, theoretic capitalism was probably better, where they would get all the profits. - Megan C
Chrisitian socialism would be everyone sharing the profits equally while theocratic capitalism is developing the individual skill and each person recievibg the benefits of their ow work. The former would be more acceptable to the ruling power because th Jesuits didn't have to pay taxes and the less they make the less the colonial power misses out on. I don't think for a moment that the poeple in charge ever cared for anything except monetary gain.
Becca F
Theocratic capitalism is where the profits are mainly focused on the Jesuits. The Christian socialism is where the profits are given to the community as a whole and divided equally.
Portugal or Spain wouldn't find either really acceptable. Their decision would be on the basis of which one does the least against them. Based on that logic the preferred system the Christian Socialism nbecause not as much profit is going to the Jesuits or the Church.
Jeremy F.
Christian Socialism would be the even distribution of the profits made by the Indians amongst the Indians. Theocratic capitalism describes more of an independent economy that is established based on a religous system, and has a focus on being competative economically. The system that the Jesuits implemented was Christian socialism, because all the profit from the mission came straigt back to it. The Bourbons would have preferred theocratic capitalism because one of the main concerns of the dynasty was to get more money for the crown. While he conversion of indians was important, it was not as important as the lack of funds that the Hapsburgs left behind.
Annie P.
Christian socialism would occur if the converted natives and the jesuits equally shared the profits that were made. Theoretical capitalism is when the jesuits kept all the money and profits although the converted natives were the ones who worked for it. I think the Bourbon kings would favor theoretical capitalism because they want to recieve as much money as they can.
Liz E
Christian socialism is better because the wealth is distributed equally to everyone. However, the Spanish monarchs would probably prefer theocratic capitalism because they would get a lot more of the money because the wealth is not evenly distributed
David h
Christian Socialism would have been a system in which the Jesuits taught the Christian natives, established the missions, and then left the natives to share the profits equally. Theocratic capitalism would have been a system in which the Jesuits would establish the mission, but with the incentive to make profits not convert the natives. Christian socialism would have been a preferred by the Bourbons, because they themselves would not profit from Theocratic capitalism.
Hannah A
Theocratic capitalism is when the Spanish teach the Natives certain skills so the the Spanish can benefit and receive wealth. As for christian socialism the Natives and Spanish benefit equally. It wouldn't matter if its acceptable to the bourbons because either way the Spanish will have slaves and get a profit out of that. Even if equality was a law the Spanish wouldn't want to lose their slaves since their getting a profit out of that, so they would get paid lower if they followed that law. But by not following it they would get a lot more money.
Jessica V.
Theocratic capitalism is when the Spanish teach the Natives certain skills so the the Spanish can benefit and receive wealth. As for christian socialism the Natives and Spanish benefit equally. It wouldn't matter if its acceptable to the bourbons because either way the Spanish will have slaves and get a profit out of that. Even if equality was a law the Spanish wouldn't want to lose their slaves since their getting a profit out of that, so they would get paid lower if they followed that law. But by not following it they would get a lot more money.
Jessica V.
The difference between christian socialism and theocratic capitalism is that christian socialism would be if the church made a profit off of the jobs the natives were doing (such as making instrument and farming) and then redistributed the money throughout the tribe. Theocratic capitalism has the church signifying the private business so all profits made go back to the church. The bourbons would have preferred christian socialism because the jesuits were dominating the economy and business of the Americas with theocratic capitalism. Also the money went back to the church in theocratic capitalism so it could b used to strengthen the church as opposed to the government. Katri Gurney
Christian socialism is when the Spanish equally distribute wealth around themselves and the natives. As theocratic capitalism is when the Spanish take advantage of the natives and profit from their labor. Any of these two theories would not have made a difference to the bourbons because slavery would still be used in mines and plantations of the Americas no matter what happens.
Brandon W.
Christian socialism exist if the main goal would be to convert the natives. The money from their labor would be equally distributed among them. Theocratic capitalism is where the priority is to make money and exploit the natives who would still be converted to Christians. The Bourbons would have prefered theocratic capitalism in the colonies as long as the money went to the crown.
The Jesuit practices can be described a therocratic capitalism because the Jesuits were buisnessmen and used the products the natives produced to trade with spain. They did this in addition to leaving many of the products within the native community which alone is Christan socialism. Christan socialism may have been more acceptable to the Bourbon Kings because it would have made the Jesuits less powerful.
Jack B
The Jesuit practice could be characterized as therocratic capitalism because the Jesuits were buisnessmen and sold the products made by the natives to Spain in addition to giving products back to the Native community. Simply redistributing the goods among the natives would be Christan Socialism. The Bourbon kings would have been more accepting of Christan Socialism because it would have made the Jesuits less powerful.
Jack B
Christian Socialism is much more rigid than Theocratic Capitalism. Christian Socialism is the view that the missions came in and took control of the natives entirely, forcing them to sacrifice for the community rather than working independently for personal gain. Also, the natives would become strictly christian. Theocratic Capitalism is much looser. This implies that that natives were left to work on there own and either succeed or fail in the name of god. The Bourbons probably would have prefered Christian Socialism because they viewed the indians whos lands they were conquering as savages who would turn to wild animals if left to there own devices.
Daniel G
Christian Socialism occurs when the Jesuits convert all of the indigenous natives into Christians and then the Jesuits treat them equally by sharing all of the wealth and profits received. The Jesuits also treat the natives equally by acknowledging them as regular Christians. In Theocratic Capitalism, the natives were manipulated into making money for the Jesuits or the Spanish after they were converted into Christianity. When it comes down to the Bourbon’s in Spain and Portugal, Christian Socialism would be more acceptable because the natives would actually practice the Christian religion voluntarily instead of being obligated to develop the faith just to make money for the Spanish in the end.
-Imane Zirari
Christian socialism is the ideal that everyone and everything should be run on Christian ideals. In turn, theocratic capitalism is the belief in free enterprise with theocratic undertones. Although they both deal with religion, capitalism and socialism are virtual opposites. While socialism is about success as a whole through government run programs, capitalism entails individual work and success through privately owned businesses and enterprises. I believe, the Bourbon Spanish and Portugese would have perferred Christian socialism over theocratic capitalism because they seemed to be more involved with profit than with spreading the "word of God." Although converting the natives was important, competition that came from the missions detracted from Spanish profits. If all of the missions were to work together, it would be less competition for the Spanish and Portugese, and they would be able to continue their dominance in trade and prodction. By using Christian socialism, the missions would be able to equally share their products amongst themselves instead of trade it for other goods, as was very common. The Spanish and Portugese's greed would look more favorably upon this because they profit over the missions.
Max B.
The term theocratic capitalism best describes the Jesuit system. Theocratic capitalism is a type of capitalism where it is thought the people are governed by some higher god. This is exactly what the Jesuits believed. They were not to follow the chiurch's rule, but instead they were to follow the Christian God's rulings. Christian socialism is a type of polictics that directly correlates government with religion. The Jesuuits did believe in social justice, like those who follow Christian socialism believe, but that was there key goal for the indigenous people, not governance.
Courtney R.
Post a Comment