There is a document here http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/item.shtml?x=52004 which fits in with this notion of peasant property which you may find of interest.

In another part of Peru the indigenous people have won a battle to stop the government giving their land to oil corporations, they are very brave and well organised people….you can see their website here http://www.aidesep.org.pe/

You accuse me of being “skewed” and “inaccurate” yet provide no evidence for my being so. Hmmm. So, am I now to believe that not only are typos are held as Catholic criteria for basic reasoning, but ad homs , no matter how subtle, are held to be “good” criteria for reason?

Brennan wrote: I am afraid that your slant of historical knowledge is greatly influenced by the Protestant/Catholic tensive relationship.”

Whatever that means…But, really, I couldn’t care less, in approximately 99.9% of contexts, about the bickering between Protestants and Catholics. Neither of them are representative of the place I’m coming from.

Brennan wrote: “Your understanding of true Catholic teaching appears skewed as well.”

No. I simply don’t irresponsibly separate the purported core “teachings” from the real lives those who profess the faith of Catholicism. They are not separable and I couldn’t attempt such a separation with good conscience. People, Christian and otherwise, are known by their deeds, not what they profess, no matter how highfalutin those professions may tickle our subjective fancy. Are you ultimately advocating a “if it feels good, do it” mentality?

Oh. It’s not simply the transcendentalism of Catholicism I reject, it’s pretty much *all* transcendentalist theologies and ideologies. I see this transcendentalist virus, as a matter of course, as ultimately as a violence toward, and incompatible with, the wild variety of places…Whether or not this is a stance of “base pride” is irrelevant. If Aristotle’s view that we should conduct our investigations “from the things which are more knowable and obvious to us and proceed towards those which are clearer and more knowable by nature” is considered by you to be base pride (sinful) then so be it. You can judge me to your heart’s desire…I, simply take his method to heart, even if it ultimately distances me from him…

You are welcome for my reply.

I am afraid that your slant of historical knowledge is greatly influenced by the Protestant/Catholic tensive relationship. Accuracy can be wanting at times. Your understanding of true Catholic teaching appears skewed as well. I am not “frazzle[d]” as you suspect, merely frustrated with people who bash Catholicism out of ignorance, and then elevate their ignorance in public forum to infect others with equally base pride.
Mr. Medaille’s point was to express his satisfaction with Mr. Webb’s newest book; and to re-iterate that: “The result is a remarkable book and a remarkable plan, one that recognizes both the values of communities and the modern potential of building on those values. An economy without values has no future”.
Your “rather odd incongruities” were based solely on your ardent anti-Catholicism, and resulted in the bashing of Catholicism, not Mr. Medaille’s goal.

Thank you for your brief comments.

I simply think it is artificial to separate the “Spanishness” of the Conquistadors, and their descendants, from their being Catholic. Their society was inundated with Catholicism through and through, and inseparable from Catholicism.

Thank you for responding.

You wrote: “It is quite evident, that for whatever reason, or lack thereof, as I suspect, you are an ardent anti-Catholic. ”

I have plenty of reasons to be *un*-Catholic, and un-Christian, really, (but not necessarily agnostic or atheist, either. I bet that frazzles your brain a bit) but I am anti-deception as much as I’m able.

Brennan: “You of course realize that your concerns are not addressed in Mr. Medaille’s article because it has nothing to do with the points he is making, or the book he is reviewing.”

Really? To provide a sense of some context regarding the long history of Peru, (not to mention the similar contexts of many of the peasants in “third world” countries), is not addressing Mr. Medaille’s points? Interesting. I would have thought that those “communists” and “capitalists” as well as the peasantry made an appearance within the context of Peru’s violent history.

Brennan: “1. I’m quite certain that even you can recognize that not all that call themselves a thing are always that in practice. Our Lord Jesus Christ says as much when he states the following in the infamous Sermon on the Mount (I recommend you re-read it in its entirety)”

Jesus (if he even existed) sure said mouthfuls, didn’t he? But is it up to *your* interpretation of these ambiguous words to decide who is Christian and who is not? This seems a big problem for “Christianity” because Christians can’t decide who is Christian, who is Christian enough, or who is an outright heretic. It wasn’t all that long ago that Mormons weren’t considered “christian” by other Protestants, if they do now at all. Do Catholics, being the “Universal” Church by its very definition, consider all Christian sects to be “Christian?” I doubt it. So, even within “Christianity” there seems to be a long past of confusion and incoherency. By the way, what about those Jesus quotes regarding the “timber in one’s own eye” and “judge not…?”

Look. These Conquistadors considered themselves wholly Catholic, regardless of your hermeneutic. Their stated mission was to bring civilization and the word of God to the New World, not just to seek gold. You, sir, artificially attempt to separate what was more likely than not, a combination of influences we know as the Spanish Conquistador.

Brennan: “You seem to prefer to blame the aftermath on the Catholic Church, rather than the sinful ones committing the atrocities…”

No. But I don’t simply, and conveniently, separate the being Catholic from actions committed, horrible or otherwise, by those whose social environment strongly incorporated the tenets of Catholicism, in order to remove responsibility from Catholicism. Given your seemingly extreme binary thought processes, should I conclude that the Catholic Church is responsible for all the “good” done in those areas, while having of none of the “bad”? Hardly. Besides, I’ve never heard of a single instance where the Church turned down a single shekel rendered from the natives in Peru or elsewhere.

Brennan: “3. (even though you used another “2″, and since you are so obviously concerned about those that are imperfect, I have righted the wrong)”

OK. So typos are now considered part of the Catholic criteria for argumentation, rather than the arguments themselves? That’s really funny! Seems pretty petty to me.

And I mentioned “perfection” where? I don’t even believe in perfection, as it is an incoherent concept. Why would I use such a term? Besides I thought that the ‘Perfect’ was the whole raison d’etre for the Church from the get-go. It’s in the business of, or for, the “Perfect”.

Brennan: “I don’t want to get my hopes up to high, but perhaps now, the “resounding” answers have changed… There has never been a Christian, “particularly of the Catholic variety” (you amuse me…) that has ever forced anyone to convert. The very act of violence would nullify its attempt.”

You’ve obviously never heard of Charlemagne, then, and Constantine, who made life utterly miserable for pagans until they finally disappeared? Oh, you are right, in the case of the former the Saxons were indeed given a “choice.” Convert or die. But no one was technically “forced,” right? Oh yes, these weren’t Christians and they definitely didn’t aid in building up the the Church. Let’s not even get into the persecutions of other Christians during the early days such as the ‘Gnostics’ or even the very concept of ‘heresy’ itself.

It is quite evident, that for whatever reason, or lack thereof, as I suspect, you are an ardent anti-Catholic.

You of course realize that your concerns are not addressed in Mr. Medaille’s article because it has nothing to do with the points he is making, or the book he is reviewing.

Further, your biased assumptions are incorrect. Allow me to address them.

You start your concerns with admitting to not being able to “keep [your] mouth shut” since Mr. Medaille is an “ardent Catholic”, as it relates to incongruity between his thought (writing), and your apparent concern for what you prefer to lump together as the “dominant Spanish [ardent Catholic] Conquistador”…
1. I’m quite certain that even you can recognize that not all that call themselves a thing are always that in practice. Our Lord Jesus Christ says as much when he states the following in the infamous Sermon on the Mount (I recommend you re-read it in its entirety):

Matthew 7:
19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.
20 So by their fruits you will know them.
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, 10 but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.
22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’
23 Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. 11 Depart from me, you evildoers.’

So, it seems that those that do evil “evildoers” are not to be considered the Lord’s own; no matter what they thought… The dominant Spanish Conquistadors were in search of gold and land, not spreading God’s goodness. You seem to prefer to blame the aftermath on the Catholic Church, rather than the sinful ones committing the atrocities… While I don’t know if you are Atheist, Agnostic or Protestant, you should note that there are great similarities to the conquest of the North American Indians, by the “dominant Protestant Conquistador” culture. Have no fear, dear Parmenicleitus, they too are enjoying their just rewards…

2. Reference #1 above for the a similar result. However, please note that while the pre-conquered Incas contained immeasurable amounts of gold, they were agrarians, and worked for the common good of their own. They did not have the possessions of Europe.

3. (even though you used another “2″, and since you are so obviously concerned about those that are imperfect, I have righted the wrong)
If your premise was correct, then perhaps the answer is Yes, but only to the “offering” of conversion, however, your premise, and resultant understanding of salvation, is incorrect… No man can “promise” the “valuable things” of conversion. We are mortal and fallible. As for “forcing conversion”, your reasoning skills should help you recognize the folly…

I don’t want to get my hopes up to high, but perhaps now, the “resounding” answers have changed… There has never been a Christian, “particularly of the Catholic variety” (you amuse me…) that has ever forced anyone to convert. The very act of violence would nullify its attempt. There are many that were professed Christians, and even those that were “particularly of the Catholic variety” who would have attempted to force conversion, but no Catholics by practice committed these crimes.

Allow me to provide a quote:
“I wish your Your Majesty to understand the motive that moves me to make this statement is the peace of my conscience and because of the guilt I share. For we have destroyed by our evil behaviour such a government as was enjoyed by these natives. They were so free of crime and greed, both men and women , that they could leave gold or silver worth a hundred thousand pesos in their open house..So that when they discovered that we were thieves and men who sought to force their wives and daughters to commit sin with them, they despised us. But now things have come to such a pass in offence of God, owing to the bad example we have set them in all things, that these natives from doing no evil have turned into people who can do no good.. I beg God to pardon me, for I am moved to say this, seeing that I am the last to die of the Conquistadors.” Mansio Serra Leguizamon

Questions:

1. Isn’t “the dominant Spanish culture” the same culture that converted these people to Catholicism, most often through force and fear?

2. Didn’t the original contact between Inca and Spanish (and ardently Catholic) Conquistador provide the context for the present marginalization and “peasantry” of these people from the outset?

2. And, ultimately, isn’t offering and/or forcing conversion itself a form of promising to give “valuable things” if only pre-existing values are surrendered?

I think the answer to all three is a very loud resounding “Yes!”

I’m left wondering, now, if the author intends to imply that it’s acceptable to radically alter, and/or destroy, a culture by force as long as it’s done in the name of Christianity, particularly of the Catholic variety. Also, I think any attempt to separate “the dominant Spanish culture” in Peru from its long history of Catholicism, and the latter’s mission to convert the indigenous peoples of the New World, would be, at best, artificial.

http://distributism.blogspot.com/2009/07/peasantry-of-future.html

I’m looking forward to hearing further from Adam Webb.