SLO Mission Controversy re: Annihilation of the Grizzly Bears in 1772

My time on the Dave Congalton show on 3/6/2024 with fellow Mission SLO docent John Ashbaugh. You can listen to the podcast at the Congalton Show web page: https://www.920kvec.com/show/dave-congalton-hometown-radio/

During the discussion on the show, an issue came up that I want to elaborate on. I am very aware of the many controversies about the Spanish California Mission System, which was operational from 1769 (when Mission San Diego del Alala was founded as the first California Mission) to 1834 (when Secularization of the Missions occurred after the Mexican Wars for Independence ended in 1821).

A person texted in to the Congalton Show, who was critical of a comment I had made about my interpretation of Mission SLO history. I intend to set the record state here. Thanks for listening.

I commented that in 1771 - 1772, Mission San Antonio and Mission Carmel were in dire straights, and were starving. Lt. Pedro Fages, commander of the Presidio of Monterey, lead an expedition to San Luis Obispo to harvest bear meat. It was written down in the contemporaneous Spanish records that the local indigenous people were grateful for the Spanish "Soldados" who were able to kill 103 grizzly bears in "Los Osos Valley" (Valley of the Bears!). Many of the Indians had the tell-tale scars from surviving vicious grizzly bear attacks. Apparently, the local Indians were not able to hunt and kill the big, scary, aggressive grizzlies.

A person texted in a critical comment about my statements of "apparent" fact. For some reason, as I am re-listening the the podcast of our show with Dave, it does not record the critical comment, so I'll have to paraphrase it. The texter criticizes our statement that the natives were grateful for killing the bears, and that we were somehow condescending in making that statement.

Did the Spanish come to SLO and harvest grizzly bears? Yes. That is a historical fact that nobody disputes.

Did the local Indians bear scars from frequent violent encounters with grizzly bears? Yes. That too is a historical fact that nobody disputes.

Were the local Indians grateful for the extermination of so many Grizzlies? That is the historical fact that is in dispute. Though Spanish contemporaneous record this as fact, is it actually true? IMHO only, it is HIGHLY LIKELY that this was true. Given
(1) the apparent abundance of grizzlies in Los Osos Valley,
(2) the likelihood that the Indians could not get rid of them,
(3) the bears posed an ongoing threat to the lives of the Indians,
it is likely that the Indians were indeed grateful for the Spanish, at that point in time. Am I 100% certain that the Indians grateful for this act of annihilation? Nope. I'm maybe at 90% certain.

I would love to hear from the local native American communities about their opinion on this topic. That is one of the many reasons that we would benefit from the local tribes participating in presenting the Spanish Mission History to the Public.

In general, I always point out to the public that just because the Spanish wrote down their thoughts and impressions of the events as they occurred, it doesn't mean what they wrote was actually true!

**************************Steve McDonough

Thought you might enjoy this background information on the California Grizzly. I am amazed how many there were. I know Portola was attacked moving up Los Osos Valley. Seems like they were very aggressive to anyone they spied. https://www.naturespeace.org/grinnell1938grizzlysierra.htm

 

**************************Tim Waag

Quote from the "Grinnell Essay" referenced above (this quote proves the abundance of Grizzly Bears in and around San Luis Obispo): " Another purpose in bear killing is in evidence in the reminiscences of George Nidever. In the year 1837 he shot 45 grizzlies in the neighborhood of San Luis Obispo; and altogether during his wanderings up and down the California coast he thought he had killed "upwards of 200 grizzlies. Judging from the tone of his narrative, Nidever's chief motive in killing these bears was to demonstrate thereby his accurate markmanship and his cool-headedness. His superiority in these respects over his fellow frontiersmen was a matter of great pride with him. "At this time," he says, "there was no sale for bear skins, so that we never took the trouble to skin them unless for our own use or to make a present to some friend or acquaintance."

 

Part I: The Mission Economy from 1768 to 1834

Part I: The Mission Economy from 1768 to 1834

Introduction: From 1768 to 1810, Spain planned and executed its "Sacred Expedition" to colonize and possess Alta California to ward off the looming Russian incursion. During this time, it was illegal for the missions to trade with anyone except Spain and, of course, the local Indians. During the Mexican Wars for Independence from 1810 - 1821, however, there was no support received by the missions from Spanish Mexico, but also no enforcement of the ban on trading with other countries outside of Spain. 

With the overthrow of Spain in 1821, Mexico and the rest of the Spanish New World (Caribbean, Central America, South America) had their hands full struggling to establish their own new world order. Thus, from 1821 - 1834, the missions continued without meaningful attention or support from Mexico. Trade in the form of barter expanded with other countries who had been venturing along the California coast since the 1780's with the advent of the sea otter fur trade. Finally, the mission era ended when independent Mexico issued final secularization orders to disband the Spanish mission system around 1834.

Economic Structure: In 1768, Fr. Junipero Serra, O.F.M. and Visitador-General Jose de Galvez planned the economic structures of the first two missions (San Diego and Monterey). Two missionaries would be assigned to each mission and each would receive an annual stipend (i.e. salary) of 350 pesos from the "Pious Fund" (later raised to 400 pesos). The Pious Fund was set up in Lower California by the Jesuits in 1698 in order to fund the missions with monies donated by wealthy Spaniards who hoped it would ease their way into heaven. Viceroy Croix also allowed 1,000 pesos for the founding of each new mission, which also came from the fund. The newly established structure caused heated conflicts between the missions, presidios and Spanish bureaucracy throughout the entire mission period.

 

 

San Blas: The new port of San Blas (see map) was founded by Galvez in 1768 with 136,000 pesos from the Pious Fund. The small harbor was to transport supplies to Alta California via sailing vessels (see map). In the early days of the missions, the colonies relied on supply ships to bring foodstuffs to ward off starvation while mission agriculture was being established. In later years when the missions became self-sufficient, the shipments provided tools and religious supplies which could not be manufactured by the colonies. Indian laborers and skilled Spanish craftsmen were also transported via ship.

 

Mission Re-Supply: The Spanish had a difficult time navigating the California coast in their small crude "packet" ships. This mission supply line was unreliable, as sailing along the California coast was difficult and time consuming. Voyages were often delayed due to lack of supplies, bad weather or sick or missing crew members. 

 

Land re-supply was tried, beginning with the Portola overland expedition of 1769 - 1770. It didn't help that there was a chronic shortage of mules for transport, or that the route to the missions was long, hot and difficult. The "Yuma Crossing" was the only location where the Colorado River could safely be crossed by a land expedition to California. The "Yuma Massacre" of 1781 wiped out two recently established missions ("La Purisima Concepcion de la Virgen Santisima" and "San Pedro y San Pablo de Bicuñer") at the crossing and forced all future mission trade to occur exclusively by ship.

 

Mission Accounting: The mission economy was conducted on a barter basis, as actual cash transactions were only conducted in Mexico. Both missionaries and soldiers were paid in goods, since there was nowhere to spend pesos. Only after 1810 did the California economy begin to use currency as trade volume with outsiders increased. 

 

Each Mission and Presidio kept a detailed set of account books for domestic transactions to be used for the collection of debts in Mexico. There was little systemic procedures for making entries, and modern accounting principles were completely unknown. Thus, accounts were infrequently totaled and the exact standing of each mission was rarely known. To add to the confusion, individual economic transactions were also logged in these books, but debts were often ignored or overlooked. Fortunately, many of these books have survived and continue to reveal additional understanding of mission history.

 

Upcoming Part II: The Transactional Details of the Barter Economy

 

The “packet ship” San Carlos.

"White" Jesus Controversy

Pandemic. Demonstrations. Riots. BLM. Saint Serra statues. Now "White" Jesus. 

Let's discuss?

BLM activists are saying "all murals and stained glass windows of white Jesus, his European mother, and all their white friends should also come down". They are a gross form of white supremacy. Tools of Oppression. Racist propaganda. 

They have a point. But have they gone too far? I agree that in a "perfect world", Jesus would look like the first century Galilean carpenter he was, not a Germanic, blue-eyed, marble white-skinned, straight-haired and bearded Jesus.

MLK wrote in 1957 that the color of Jesus' skin is of no consequence. His significance lay not in His color, but in His unique God-consciousness. Okay - that message is clear. But how did we get here? Let's look at history.

The Bible gives absolutely no clue as to what Jesus looked like - not how tall, not how big or small, no coloration or haircut clues - nothing. The first Christians did not depict Jesus in any way, honoring Judaism's ban on "graven images". They only cared about what He had done.

In the Christian world, the desire for images of Jesus and the Virgin Mary slowly grew as the centuries passed and Christianity spread to different cultures. These cultures tended to portray Jesus in their own likeness. The Greek's recreated Christ in the long-haired style of the Greek's sun god Apollo. Jesus is also seen as Romanesque in a classic beard and sitting on a throne, like Jupiter, king of the gods. Lacking any Biblical clues, these artists portrayed Him as they saw fit.

Above: gotta throw an image of me in there.

No, I'm not a Monk - but I portray a Franciscan for 

4th graders at Mission La Purisima in Lompoc.

However, the 7th century conquest of North Africa and the Middle East by Islam created a barrier between the Christian worlds, thus isolating Europe and it's Jesus artisans from its Christian brethren below. They were left to portray Him as a white European. So where did the "modern" mostly white image of Jesus come from?

It turns out that during the Middle Ages, a number of relics bearing the "true" likeness of Jesus miraculously appeared. They were claimed to be images created during His actual time on Earth. These relics, unsurprisingly enough, featured the long hair and straight beard that we associate with Jesus today. Also, throw in the famous "Shroud of Turin", believed by many to be His burial cloth, whose material retains an amazing likeness of the "bearded white Jesus" of day.

Above: Warner Sallman's 1940 "Head of Christ" 

In the late 1800's through early 1900's, white Jesus was indeed used by some as racist propaganda, and thus Jesus gained blue eyes and a lily white complexion - both rare in Christ's Middle East. Couple that with artist Warner Sallman's 1940 "Head of Christ" painting, which has been reprinted half a billion times, and you have turned Jesus into a glamorous and virile white man.

During the so-called "Age of Exploration" (roughly the 1500s to the 1700s), missionaries exported Jesus around the globe, and His likeness began to appear with the racial features of the local population. The most famous of those images is the "Virgin of Guadalupe" in Mexico, which depicts Mary with dark brown skin and straight black hair. As always, controversy over the depiction of Christ followed, wherever He went.

Above: Base of St. Serra statue at Mission SLO

Even the master Michelangelo was criticized during his lifetime for his depiction of beardless Jesus in the Sistine Chapel fresco of the last Judgment. Over in America, pictures of Jesus were rare well into the 1800's, as dominant Protestants were wary of promoting idolatry through Christ images. As more Catholics "crossed the pond", that began to change. The long conflict of the depiction of Jesus had finally come to America.

The controversy over "what should Jesus look like?" that has taken place over thousands of years continues today. In my opinion, that is a healthy debate that may be worth having for some folks, but not me. Destroying white Jesus images? I do not recommend it. Taking down white Jesus and putting up historically accurate, or locally-centric images? Sounds like a worthwhile undertaking, if there is a budget for it.

Peace and Love in these "weird" times.

Above: probably closer to what Jesus looked like.

Race and appearance of Jesus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_appearance_of_Jesus

Head of Christ:
https://medium.com/@mock/warner-sallman-and-the-branding-of-jesus-christ-4b711e5226b5

Another take on the "White Jesus" debate:
https://usagag.com/the-fallacy-that-christian-art-generally-portrays-christ-as-a-northern-european-man/

Mission La Purisima State Historic Park in Lompoc (where I am a docent):
http://www.lapurisimamission.org

Various visual depictions of Jesus through the ages:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depiction_of_Jesus

Virgin of Guadalupe:
https://fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/our-lady-guadalupe-anti-pachamama-53487

SLO: Why Wait Until the Homeless Show Covid-19 Symptoms before Housing Them?

Note: All of our volunteers, including myself, are following the strictest Covid-19 exposure guidelines, despite reports to the contrary.

Our safety net is facing its biggest test in decades as a flood of people have flocked to homeless shelters, slammed suicide hotlines and packed food pantries. The economic shutdown is hitting the poor and working class with the most force, especially in cities like SLO with high homeless populations.

Before the virus was first detected, homeless shelters were already filled to capacity. In a typical week, numerous volunteers help run the shelters. But because of the coronavirus, few volunteers are coming. The demand on the paid staff is greater than ever, with surfaces needing to be disinfected regularly and people needing to be screened for symptoms. Beds now have to be spaced at least 6 feet apart to protect against the spreading of the virus.

Most of the chronically homeless (who do not stay in shelters) are in their 40’s, 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s, and their physical health is often more in line with people 25 years older. To make matters worse, showers trailers and restaurant / gas station restrooms have closed. As far as I can tell, the announced hand washing / sanitation stations have largely not appeared. In all my wanderings in the last week, I only saw 1 hand sanitation station, and that was outside the restroom at Mission Plaza. How does that help? The restroom was already open. With personall hygiene among the homeless so important right now, there is very little available.

Recently, homeless have been asking for masks and gloves, and we have none to give them. Eventually, when the Covid-19 spreads throughout our homeless camps, the homeless will swamp our medical systems, and will die at rates 2 or 3 times the average for their age. Then we’ll wish we had put them in hotels / trailers BEFORE they showed symptoms.

Final thoughts: There is a survey used by the "70 Now" (Housing First) program called the "Vulnerability Index: Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool" (VI-SPDAT), which is used to "rate" the homeless on their medical vulnerability, and thus their admission to the program. Basically, VI-SPDAT determines a rating for the relative likelihood that a particular homeless is most likely to die prematurely due to living on the streets. This survey could be used to determine who are also most vulnerable to the novel coronavirus / Covid-19, and house them before they get this virus and require hospitalization. Think about it.

CALIFORNIA SUCKS! Why? We do NOT Recycle the Ubiquitous Styrofoam Packaging

RECYCLE STYROFOAM? NOT SO FAST! Holiday season is often filled with gifts in cardboard boxes, packed with styrofoam to protect the contents. Time to look into what to do with styrofoam packaging. Result? So frustrating. Indeed, 25% of our land fill is styrofoam - is that really possible? Is that acceptable to you? It's not to me! It appears that it is almost impossible to recycle the stuff (see article). Your best best is to "store it and re-use it when you ship stuff" - huh? That is a ridiculous suggestion, IMHO (as in - where am I going to store it all?). https://www.hunker.com/12002950/how-to-recycle-styrofoam-in-california

Rich Old White People! Can't We Just Hate Them All?

Update 3/2/2021: Now that the "Standard Bearer" for the left is none other than "old white man" Joe Biden, isn't it funny how you no longer hear the libs complaining about it. As always, ridiculous and hypocritical. My personal approach is simple: support the best candidate, independent of race, gender or age. I only care about ability. "The only way to end racism is to end racism". I am too simple-minded to see it any other way - sorry.

 

Original Article: Hysterical how liberals have continuously bashed the "old white men" who crafted our amazing Constitution, particularly that stupid electoral college thing. The American Revolution started in 1776, and the Constitutional Convention took place in the summer of 1787. There were 39 signers of the constitution, with an average age of 44. The youngest was 26, and the oldest was senior statesman Ben Franklin, at age 81.

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/signers-factsheet
Contrast that with the "old white men" and one "old white woman" running for President on the Democrat side. Where's the criticism about "old white people" now? Not a word...not a word. How ironic. Age at inauguration for 2020 Presidential Race (January 20, 2021): - Bernie Sanders 79 - Michael Bloomberg 78 years, 11.2 months - Joe Biden 78 - Trump 74 - Elizabeth Warren 71 https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-sanders-and-warren-pressed-in-debate-on-age-health On his first inauguration day January 2017, Trump was 70 years old - younger than all the leading democrats will be when they are inaugurated when they win! Former President Jimmy Carter recently called for an “age limit” to the presidency. And 80, Carter said, is too old. Democrats insist that asking their "old white candidates" about their health has now become "out-of-bounds". It used to be that only asking about minor children of presidential candidates was out of bounds - my, how times have changed! Not for the better, IMO.

11/9/2019 Mission Life - Slides