Germans In Mexico: It's Been A While

Wow, it's been like a month since I've posted here. Oh well. School's juuust about over, so I might as well start posting the last of my assignments. Enjoy this one, it's about World War I. This is how I had to whittle it down over time in terms of subject matter.

February: Comparison of American press (New York Times) and British Press (London Times) on their opinion of the Germans before and during World War I.
March: Discussion of American press's pro-German nature prior to the outbreak of World War I and why it was as such.
April: Explanation of how American appeal toward Germany changed negatively as a result of Germany's actions abroad, the actions of the Kaiser's armies in war and international influence on the United States.
May (as in, two days before the paper was due and because I had 15 pages written on this already and didn't want to turn in 40+ pages): Argument in favor of idea that American appeal, as judged through examples in the American press, soured toward Germany and pushed the United States toward entry into World War I as a result of aggressive German actions in Latin America and the Caribbean.

I overdrew myself desperately in my History 200 class. It all turned out well, though.

---

It is an indisputable fact that, while the largest aggressor of the Great War (or World War I), Germany did not bring about the reasons that the conflict occurred; however, Germany’s actions did escalate the situation into the now legendary struggle that was the Great War. On the level of public opinion – especially in neutral nations, initially including United States – the actions of Kaiser Wilhelm II in the Western Hemisphere before and during the war made a convincing argument for involvement of Americans in the Great War to protect the sanctity of American dominance. This essay will examine several key of examples of events that turned American public opinion against Germany before the United States intervened in the conflict. In the Western Hemisphere, Germany enacted a trade monopoly over South America, Central America and several Caribbean nations; the Kaiser’s motives seemed to work directly against the statements of the Monroe Doctrine in at least one case. In South American nations such as Brazil and Chile, European trade monopolies sprung up and, aided by the German government, merchants pledging their allegiances to Germany received government protection and assuredness of the safety of their assets. American fears arose when the Germans stood against the United States government on the subject of rebellious Haiti, demanding to keep control of the trade there. A similar situation occurred in Mexico with the rise of authoritarian Victoriano Huerta, supported by the Germans with supplies but opposed by Americans in war. The diminutive Virgin Islands, too, prove to be troublesome for German-American relations as the Great War pushes America to acquire a base in the Caribbean. These incidents and others will show that Germany’s questionable actions in South America, Central America, and the Caribbean contributed to a change in public opinion in the United States toward Germany, as seen in the American press, and pushed the country to intervene in the Great War.

Despite the fact that a great deal is known about German activity in the Western Hemisphere before and during the Great War, much attention is focused on the Atlantic and in Europe; however, the actions put forth by the German government in their dealings with powers in Latin America show ulterior motives. Moves made by Wilhelm II and his government in Latin America and the Caribbean purportedly challenged the Monroe Doctrine as well as American dominance of the region[1]. Before the Great War, America was very familiar with European colonialism and attempts at dominance in foreign lands. As a result, suspicion was levied by the American people against the Germans as their interests in Latin America increased[2]. Several pieces of information lend credibility to this suspicion, but not outright fear over recolonialization of Latin America by the Germans. Military officials such as Constant Cordier were stationed in Latin America and viewed certain acts of German business in the region as worthy of investigation. Captain Constant Cordier was an American military attaché to Peru in 1912 and noted officially much German participation in regional business, reporting that Germans sent many workers to Bolivia in what he saw as an effort to take over industry there.[3] Cordier was very distrustful of German activity in Latin America and viewed their protections of German merchants from local harm as well as general protection of all Latin American ventures as precursors to German annexation of the entire landmass[4]. According to the reports of Cordier and others, Germany had large influence in Peru (where Cordier was stationed), Colombia, Argentina, Bolivia and Ecuador. Germany also had strangleholds on trade in Brazil and Chile.

Despite the suspect practices of Germany as reported by Constant Cordier the situation with Germany in Latin America was different and less hostile than it had been in the early 1900’s. Early on in the spreading of German influence in Latin America at the turn of the century, Germany’s actions were considered with much more seriousness; Germany’s eventual acceptance of the Monroe Doctrine and the Roosevelt Corollary led to a cooling down of the situation[5]. This occurred despite the fact that a large amount of the German populace desired their state to have a larger impact in Latin America; however, the “ruling circles” of the central European state did not hold any real intentions of actually expanding their national influence to Latin America just before the outbreak of the Great War[6].

Germany was not alone in its attempts to make use of Latin America as grounds for lucrative financial gains. The markets of Latin America were bountiful for any industrialized nation which could fund market participation there; however, Germany had moved toward this goal much more quickly than other European powers, leading to an interesting statistic: a large portion of Latin America’s merchant class consisted of German merchants[7] . From 1903 to 1912, Americans made large economic ground in Latin America, especially in Bolivia, Brazil and Cuba, where it is worth noting that America had militarily intervened in Cuba repeatedly in the early 1900’s[8]. Future president William H. Taft was placed in a position to observe German efforts in Latin America and stated that despite gains in Argentina, the Dominican Republic and Paraguay, Germany would most likely not try to capitalize on their market monopolies in Latin America and make political moves. Taft saw that the reasoning for this was simple: Germans preferred to work outside of their own possessions because they made more money doing so and, thus, would not jeopardize their lucrative position in Latin America[9].

An example of American suspicion about German motives can be seen in the plight of August Dziuk. Dziuk was a German businessman who deigned to spend a good amount of currency in order to establish a sprawling railway system in Panama, assisting local industry with the aid of the local government as well as aiding other German-backed industries in the region. At the time, Panama was a region of severe interest by many powers, specifically the United States, due to its crucial trading and logistical position as the connection between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The board of Dziuk’s representing company featured a cavalcade of higher-ups within German society including members of the German parliament as well as direct relatives of presiding state officials[10]. There was no solid evidence of the German government ever participating in Dziuk’s business in Panama, nor any real reasons for the United States to find a grand amount of suspicion with Dziuk’s actions. American statesmen such as Francis M. Hunt, the Undersecretary of State, saw a potential threat in that if Dziuk were to ever run afoul of the German government, his Panamanian possessions could be taken by the German state and put to use as federal territory[11]. With this in mind, Hunt approach the Panamanian government and convinced it to refuse Dziuk approval of his venture. This incident shows the extent of suspicion to which the American government adhered to toward the German government after their former exploits in Latin America.

The American press began to respond to the events occurring in Latin America by publishing more stories and editorials on the subject as well as transcribing state speeches that referenced occurrences in the Western Hemisphere. As seen in “The President’s Warning”, the American president’s words shamed the “unprincipled adventures” who may find it lucrative to interfere in Latin America by sowing the seeds of revolution and creating conspiracies that work against the American cause. The article specifically mentions Germany as a nation that may have the potential to take advantage of resource-rich backwater nations in Latin America[12]. While not the only reason as to why American sentiment began to turn away from Germany, Latin America did indeed have an impact. As written by Henry H. Chamberlin, the arrogance of the Kaiser had begun to get the better of his nation – Wilhelm II’s demands and motives were becoming unruly across the globe[13]. Chamberlin also echoed a statement made by many members of the press: even outside of war, Germany’s aggressive nature was making it no friends on the international stage.

Haiti was a staging point for Germany’s closest violation of the Monroe Doctrine before the Great War commenced. Haiti was a place of constant turmoil at the turn of the century and beyond. After multiple revolutions in an extremely short span of time, the United States occupied the island nation in 1915 and stayed there for nearly 20 years in order to quell unrest (while only creating even more; however, that is a different commentary for a different assignment). Before the American occupation of Haiti, Germany had a very notable amount of internal trade – possibly as much as 90% of it – in Haiti[14]. In addition, Germany had a literal monopoly on the water surrounding Hispaniola, the island that Haiti shares with the Dominican Republic. The Hamburg-Amerika Line, Germany’s largest shipping company for trans-Atlantic trade, controlled sea business around Haiti at the time[15]. Germany strengthened their economic position by openly funding Haitian revolutionary factions in bouts for sovereignty of the nation, as well[16]. If a faction the Germans supported came into power, they would be given kickbacks and access to national projects. On the other hand, the Germans could also lose access to markets and have their assets seized by a counterrevolutionary government. In the Haitian Revolution of 1907, German merchants backed the losing side of a guerrilla stand-off and had its Haitian possessions sized by the new government[17]. The binds Germany fell into by supporting revolutionary groups in Haiti can be seen in the interesting example of faction leader Theodore. The Germans had just suffered a major blow in the assassination of Cincinnatus Leconte, a German-backed Haitian warlord. In turn, Germany funded Theodore, a revolutionary leader who was soon assassinated by his associate Zamor, who quickly gained power over the state. Germany demanded compensation from Zamor, who had used Theodore’s German-supplied assets to gain his victory; Zamor refused to grant them anything, resulting in a total financial loss for the Germans[18]. Zamor had also been backed by the Americans, who attempted to take control of Haitian customs to not only preserve Zamor’s role as the nation’s new leader but also their own role in Haiti’s economy. In an awkward diplomatic move, the German government made a demand that America internationalize Haitian customs[19]. This event made American headlines due to the danger of Germany violating the Monroe Doctrine; “Germany Balks at Plan for American Control of Customs Revenue” and “Haitian Situation Acute” are just two of the many headlines on the subject posted by The New York Times, reflecting American opinion on the subject as negative toward German intervention. The Germans eventually backed down from their demand; however, for a time, the possibility of conflict over Germany’s demands was a reality.

A second and noteworthy act of German participation in the Caribbean would be the German states’ impact on Denmark’s holdings in the region. For quite some time, the Virgin Islands were an economic hole for the Danish government; various economic policies meant to improve the holdings were met with no reaction. In an effort to gain more territory, the United States was fairly relentless in its efforts to gain the Virgin Islands as a Caribbean base. The acquisition of the Virgin Islands during the Great War became an important issue with the United States due to the general fear that it would be sized by a belligerent nation such as Germany for use as a naval station. Germany may have actually put pressure on Denmark to prevent the sale of its government property to the United States for that very reason[20]. In 1902, Denmark attempted to negotiate a deal with the United States in which the Virgin Islands would have been passed on to American sovereignty; the Danish Parliament put down the deal by a very slim margin. The failure of this Danish-American Treaty of 1902 was blamed on outside German pressure upon members of the Danish parliament; almost in response to this blame, Germany began moving into the region in a fashion similar to their actions in Latin America[21]. This can be seen as yet another example of German interference in American dominance of the Western Hemisphere.

Perhaps the most notable example of German intervention in the Western Hemisphere can be seen in Central America at the time of the Mexican Revolution. The dictator of Mexico until 1915 was Porfirio Diaz, a harsh ruler in a region known for its rebellious tendencies. To strength the force of his military, Diaz hired on German military advisors and put them in charge of the modernization of the Mexican Army[22]. While not a direct participation in the Mexican government by the German government, the appearance of German military advisors at the side of a repressive dictator did not do much for German appeal in the southwestern United States. The outbreak of the Mexican Revolution, which lasted in slight spats into the 1920’s, brought the United States into Mexican affairs while the Germans acquiesced to remove themselves from movement against the Americans in the politics of the region for a time[23]. To a point, the two powers even worked together to further a mutual hope for stability in the area – for instance, German and American forces cooperated in the rescue of Francisco Madero, a Mexican intellectual who had predicted by Mexican Revolution as a result of Diaz’s terrible reign and had demanded armed revolution from his fellow countrymen[24]. As a result of his saving by American and German forces, Madero was able to fuel the revolution and eventually return to Mexico where he would be president before his eventual capture and execution.

Eventually, Germany and other European nations began to demand stability in tumultuous Mexico. The American government had been calling for the resignation of new Mexican leader Victoriano Huerta, known for his similarity to Diaz for repressing democracy; Germany, on the other hand, saw Huerta as an upholder of the law. While in no position to move against America on the subject of Huerta’s reign, Germany feared much unrest if America interfered in the Mexican Revolution: unrest that may destabilize German trade possessions and economic participation in Mexico[25]. This point was pushed even further when Mexican revolutionary and legendary historical figure Pancho Villa took several international dignitaries hostage at the Mexican city of Torreon. Villa freed the Americans quickly but held many of the European dignitaries, including those representing Germany. This outraged the German government and American papers began to publish rumors that the Germans were planning on sending a force to rescue their diplomats[26].

In April of 1914, another near-violation of the Monroe Doctrine was seen in the “Vera Cruz Incident”. A Hamburg-Amerika Line liner, Ypiranga, arrived in Mexican port city of Vera Cruz carrying arms for Huerta’s military. The situation in Mexico was similar to the situation in Haiti – the German government vowed support for revolutionary forces, supplying them with weapons and hoping that their victories would contribute to German economic activity in the region. When the Ypiranga entered the harbor, it was confronted by Utah, an American ship that had been keeping guard over the waters of Vera Cruz. The Americans had taken control of Vera Cruz recently and had made the order to investigate all naval vessels in the region. When the Americans discovered the cargo of the German ship and demanded that the Ypiranga turn over its weapons, the Germans reacted negatively; after all, this was a direct violation of international law in that the Americans were demanding the cargo of the German ship before their release[27]. Eventually, the German ship left the harbor with its cargo, against American wishes, and landed further north to deliver its cargo to Huerta’s forces. This was seen as a near-violation of the Monroe Doctrine as Germany influenced politics in the Western Hemisphere against American wishes.

An example of failed espionage that brought Germany’s participation in the Mexican Revolution to a forefront was the capture and charging of Franz Von Rintelen, a German spy charged with, among other things, the diversion of American attention to Mexico instead of the Great War. As stated scathingly in the New York Times on December 8^th, 1915, a plot conducted by high-ranking German official Franz von Rintelen was discovered by American investigators and Mexican-Carranzista officials[28]. According to the interrogated contacts of Rintelen, a major goal assigned to him by the German government was the sparking of a Second Mexican Revolution in order to prevent the United States from turning its military attention to the situation in Europe. In order to accomplish this, Rintelen hoped to follow what seemed to be a German tradition of funding new revolutionary groups in hopes of destabilizing Mexico, which was under heavy American influence at the time, and bringing about a Second Mexican Revolution. Rintelen was introduced to revolutionary figures and pledged support for Huerta, the former authoritarian coup-backed president of Mexico. Huerta had been forced to step down from the presidency after a series of losses against other rebels in southern Mexico and, since that point, had hoped to strike out against the Carranzista-run Mexican government[29]. Rintelen’s funding for the purpose of driving up a Second Mexican Revolution was essentially limitless; reports in the New York Time state that he had upwards of $30,000,000 to spend on the Mexican situation alone, not to mention other acts of subterfuge in the Western Hemisphere for which he had more funding. In terms of general inflation, Rintelen’s funding in the modern day would be $613,992,747.44 – a number that, when put into a modern perspective, shows the importance of Rintelen’s assignments. As a first move, Rintelen purchased approximately 10,000 rifles that, at the outbreak of the investigation, were initially thought to have been intended for use in Europe. Further investigation displaying communications between Rintelen and Huerta show that the weapons were intended for use in Mexico[30]

The German government disavowed any knowledge of Franz von Rintelen’s actions as a spy by way of Count von Bernstorff, the German ambassador to America. A statement made repeatedly by Bernstorff claimed that Rintelen was not in the United States under orders of the German government but was acting on “private interests” – a statement now known to be false[31]. After this, the New York Times began to openly criticize Bernstorff’s position as German ambassador to America.

As shown in the many examples of Latin America and the Western Hemisphere in general as well as the American press response, the actions of the Germans did nothing but alienate its position in terms of the opinion of the citizens and government of the United States. Germany’s interference in US business ranging from aggressive business in South America to participation in the Mexican Revolution have been actions that directly opposed to the United States and, at times, direct violations of the Monroe Doctrine. In the months after the capture of Rintelen, American relations with Germany would sour even further with events such as the continued use of chlorine gas by German forces (as well as Allied forces) and the sinking of the HMS Lusitania as a result of Germany’s unrestricted submarine warfare. Combined with the British monopoly upon American press and European news, America’s entry into the Great War seemed to be inevitable.





Bibliography
Primary Sources

“Berlin Disavows Rintelen’s Plot In Official Order to Bernstorff…” The New York Times (Dec 13, 1915): 1. ProQuest 04 May 2008. Keyword: “Germany”, “Mexican Revolution”.

“The Presidents Warning.” The New York Times (Mar. 13, 1913): 10. ProQuest 04 May 2008. Keyword: “Latin America”, “anti-German”.

“Uncover German Plot To Embroil US With Mexico.” The New York Times (Dec. 8, 1915): 1. 04 May 2008. Keyword: “von Rintelen”, “Mexico”.

Chamberlin, Henry H. “Anti-German Sentiment: Two Reasons Why the Kaiser is to Blame for the War.” The New York Times (Aug. 16, 1914): 14. ProQuest 04 May 2008. Keyword: “American opinion”, “anti-German”.

Secondary Sources

Small, Melvin. “The United States and the German “Threat” to the Hemisphere, 1905-1914.” The Americas 28.3 (1972): 252-270. JSTOR. 23 Apr. 2008. Keyword: “anti-German”, “great war”.

---

[1] Melvin Small. “The United States and the German “Threat” to the Hemisphere, 1905-1914.” The Americas 28.3 (1972), 252.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Small, “German “Threat” to the Hemisphere”, 253.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Small, “German “Threat” to the Hemisphere, 254.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Small, “German “Threat” to the Hemisphere”, 267.

[11] Ibid.

[12] “The President’s Warning.” The New York Times (Mar. 13, 1913), 1.

[13] “Anti-German Setiment: Two Reasons Why the Kaiser is to Blame for the War.” The New York Times (Aug. 16, 1914), 14.

[14] Small, “German “Threat” to the Hemisphere”, 257.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Small, “German “Threat” to the Hemisphere”, 258.

[18] Small, “German “Threat” to the “Hemisphere”, 259.

[19] Small, “German “Threat” to the Hemisphere”, 260.

[20] Small, “German “Threat” to the Hemisphere”, 261.

[21] Small, “German “Threat” to the Hemisphere”, 263.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Small, “German “Threat” to the Hemisphere”, 263.

[25] Small, “German “Threat” to the Hemisphere”, 254.

[26] Ibid.

[27] Small, “German “Threat” to the Hemisphere”, 265.

[28] “Uncover German Plot To Embroil US With Mexico.” The New York Times (Dec. 8^th, 1915), 1.

[29] Ibid.

[30] “Berlin Disavows Rintelen’s Plots In Official Order to Bernstorff…” The New Yo k Times (Dec. 13^th, 1915): 1.

[31] Ibid.

Afro-Caribbean Religion In America: Immigrant Beliefs In An Immigrant's Nation (Pt. 2)

Here's the second part of that essay. I hope you enjoy it.

---

AFRO-CARIBBEAN RELIGIONS IN AMERICA: IMMIGRANT BELIEFS IN AN IMMIGRANT'S NATION (PT. 2)

The Haitian Revolution was one of the major pushes for Vodou’s entry into the United States and is thus an important historical event to observe in terms of Afro-Caribbean religious immigration. August 14^th, 1791 is an important date in Vodou history: on it, Vodou “houngan” (priest) Dutty Boukman presided over a service with strong political overtones, urging the slaves and free blacks of Haiti to revolt[1]. In addition, a possessed woman at the ceremony named the eventual leaders of the Revolution while under the control of the Vodou figure “Ogoun” – an ancient war deity. Word of this event spread quickly among the slaves of Saint-Domingue; the Haitian Revolution began seven days after Boukman’s proclamation.[2] Once organized, the revolt was carried out under the leadership of Toussaint L’Ouverture, Henri Christophe and Jacques Dessalines – the men named by the woman at Dutty’s ceremony. The Revolution was the first large scale slave revolt in the Western Hemisphere to succeed, establishing a black-run state mostly free of European influence – Catholicism included. This allowed for a prospering and spreading of the Vodou faith across the island of Hispaniola, including into the Dominican capital of Santo Domingo (which traded hands multiple times during the course of the Haitian Revolution, eventually returning back to the Spanish crown). Although never officially sanctioned, Vodou became the most adhered-to religious practice in Haiti.[3] It is a probable concept that the black residents of Saint-Domingue may not have risen up against their colonial masters if it had not been for the unifying practice of Vodou.

The Haitian Revolution displaced many former residents into Louisiana and Florida, many of whom carried with them their Afro-Caribbean beliefs. After seeing the effect that the practice had upon the state of Saint-Domingue, American law enforcement hoped to prevent a similar situation with new immigrants by cracking down on the practice of Vodou[4]. Drum ceremonies were banned and large gatherings of black people (free or enslaved) were looked upon with suspicion from whites until the meetings, too, were banned. Many Americans found an intense displeasure with Vodou animal sacrifice, stating that it was a savage practice; however, in Haiti, “animal sacrifice” was conducted as part of a social event in which the food created from the sacrifice would be eaten by the community[5]. This practice continues within American Vodou communities despite public shock and opposition.

Several decades after the Haitian Revolution, French scholar Hypolite Rivail began work under the pseudonym of “Allen Kardec”; his works would eventually become known as “Spiritism”. Spiritism was a system of belief that incorporated many religious practices including adherence to spiritual communication as well as familiar Eastern concepts such as “karma”. These writings would have a major impact on two drastically different groups: well-to-do white Americans and Afro-Caribbean immigrants. Spiritism found itself popular with whites in the mid-nineteenth century due to a general societal interest in exotic, foreign imports; Vodou followers were empowered by Spiritism as it closely followed their own beliefs[6]. Both stressed the importance of spiritual communication, respect for the deceased and the necessity of esoteric spiritual gatherings. The incorporation of Spiritist beliefs eventually led to “Hoodoo” and its offshoot “New Orleans Voodoo” which combined the beliefs of Vodou with general American folk beliefs and Spiritism. Santeria, too, was impacted by Spiritism in the Caribbean.

Despite its similarity to Vodou, the rise of Spiritism would not prevent former Haitians from facing major difficulties as a result of their beliefs. American authorities continued to prevent a prospering of Vodou, which it viewed as rebellious and primitive. The United States Marines entered Haiti in 1915 due to general instability, taking control of the nation’s major cities and putting a major damper on the practice of Vodou there. Working as civil aid in conjunction with the United States, the Catholic Church conducted “antisuperstition campaigns”, destroyed places of worship and Vodou relics in an effort to do away with the syncretic belief[7]. This sent a notable message to the Haitian followers of Vodou in the United States, who were forced to practice their beliefs in secrecy in order to avoid persecution[8]. The many Haitians who left their island nation for the United States in mid-80’s due to unrest were seen and referred to by Americans as economically collapsed, AIDS-carrying magic-believers due to previous stereotyped views of Haitian immigrants[9].

Santeria’s development and treatment in the United States is a notably different experience than that of Vodou. The many slaves of the Spanish colony on Cuba were specifically of Yoruba descent, unlike the practitioners of Vodou who came from many locations on Africa’s western coast. The Spanish masters of Cuba believed it to be a monetary decision to simply replace slaves in Cuba as opposed to breed them as was done in the United States; this led to a strong foundation for Santeria, as the African influence was present next to the constant Catholic authority[10]. The Spanish imported slaves in staggering numbers due to the extremely profitable business of sugar cultivation and production based around the capital of Havana, allowing for many slaves of similar backgrounds to interact. Social clubs sanctioned by the Catholic Church were organized by African slaves and referred to as “cabildos” – this allowed for the prospering of a syncretic faith, in this case Santeria[11]. At this time in Santeria’s development, Cuba had much more of a white European presence and was not as racially polarized as Haiti. White Cubans were accepted into and adhered to the predominantly-African “La Regla de Ocha”, which was the largest cabildo in Havana[12]. Its members referred to themselves as “Lucumi” – a Yoruba slang term for “friend”[13]. The cabildos began to gain influence and were eventually feared by the Spanish crown as source of insurrection; this proved to be a likely assessment when clashes began in Cuba over independence with the cabildos acting as forums for dissent. The Catholic Church joined the Spanish crown and, eventually, the common people of Cuba were left without much help from their government or their religion. More white Cubans began to turn to Santeria due to their discontentment with Cuban society and Catholic religion[14]. Ongoing displeasure with Cuban politics and religion led to a number of practitioners of Santeria to escape the cities for the mountainous eastern region of Cuba, forming maroon communities which incorporated beliefs from many fleeing slaves on the island.

Becoming suspicious of the majority of slaves on Cuba, Spanish landowners made profits by exporting Santeria-practicing slaves to the United States. Santeria entered the United States in the nineteenth century at places of notable Afro-Cuban slave populations; such locations include as New York, New Orleans and Florida. American plantations required fewer slaves than the massive ongoing projects in the Caribbean, thus disallowing for a large spread of Santeria as had occurred on Cuba[15]. Afro-Cubans immigrated to South Florida in the 1800’s to work in regional factories; public records exist of their “Satanic” ceremonies. In Cuba, music had served as a major aspect of the practice of Santeria; in America, it acted as a signal flare within Caribbean communities that Santeria was present. It was brought to New York City in 1930’s; many popular Cuban musicians based out of New York at that time were practitioners of Santeria, such as Latin jazz figures Mario Bauza, Chano Pozo and Francisco “Machito” Grillo[16]. The 1959 Cuban Revolution initially pleased many Cuban Santeria practitioners by closing down vices such as prostitution and gambling, which led to the Revolution garnering much support from many Santeria communities. The Revolution then took a more liberal move – relationships were established with the anti-religious Soviet Union, and the reduction of church influence through reform in education and land worried many followers of Santeria[17]. This prompted many “Lucumi” – over 400,000 in total - to leave the country, mostly for the American city of Miami.

The mass arrival of Cuban immigrants to America – a new country with different practices and ideals than what they considered traditional – led to the formation of Cuban collectives as means of social survival. As had been experienced with Haitians, a language barrier existed between the immigrants and the already settled Americans; this dissuaded Cubans from joining Catholic congregations in New York and New Jersey, where they were discriminated against on ethnic basis by Irish and Italian congregations[18]. Although a 1910 American ban on African gatherings existed, purportedly out of fear of the insurrectionist tendencies of the Spanish cabildos, Cubans began to turn to Santeria out of survival. Many Cubans turned to Protestant Pentecostal communities due to the familiar practices such as “filling with the Spirit” and speaking in tongues which are comparable to Afro-Caribbean spiritual possession; other immigrants formed communities directly based on their Afro-Caribbean beliefs. Instead of practicing Santeria straightforwardly like followers of Vodou had done, they emphasized the Christian and Spiritist aspects of their religion while leaving less emphasis on African traditions[19]. This did not stop repression from forces of authority as well as popular opinion. In New York, practitioners of Santeria were constantly targeted for raids pertaining to animal abuse and charged with littering for offerings left in public places. Miami politicians criticized Santeria heavily and even went as far as to establish a mostly symbolic “Voodoo Squad” of janitors tasked with cleaning up remnants of Afro-Caribbean ceremonies, including dead animals[20].The earliest modern newspaper articles pertaining to Santeria were in New York Times in 1980, reporting a “Ritual Slaughter Halted in Bronx by a Police Raid” as well as “Police Seize Animals Prepared for Sacrifice by Cult in the Bronx”[21]. – The Florida Humane Society, as well as local churches, described Santeria as barbaric and a boil upon the Floridian community when asked to express an opinion on the subject[22].

Despite the suspicion surrounding it and its followers, Santeria proved to be remarkably adaptive to the United States’ social climate. Santeria began to be “Americanized”, resulting in redefinition of the faith due to impact of Eurocentric ideas and adaption to American statutes and ideals[23]. Over time, the beliefs became less specific with Cuba and the Spanish language became more disused for ceremonies[24]. A traditional practice for those hoping to be ordained into Santeria as a “babalowa” (priest) was that they would have to return to Cuba to do so; this restriction was also lifted and the process could be completed in the national confines of the United States. In addition, the general role of the babalowas was reduced as regular worshipers began to take central roles in ceremonies. Formerly central practices are changing: animal sacrifices were replaced or generally avoided, drumming ceremonies were toned down to not disrupt neighboring communities[25]. Santeria is still changing today, dropping its most archaic beliefs and gaining new ones as followers bring new views to the system and pressures are removed and applied.

The tribulations of Vodou and Santeria practitioners were shockingly unfair in many ways, from their original enslavement and attempts at forcefully converting them to their eventual persecution in the United States for representing the African religious fringe. The story of Afro-Caribbean religions is a very interesting journey – the slaves’ ability to combine their own religions with the beliefs forced upon them unfairly was an ingenious and natural adaptation to the situation. The repression of their beliefs in the United States can only be seen as a shameful practice, sensationalized by the media and politicians in order to gain attention at the cost of the safety and preservation of a peoples’ faith. This practice still continues today - despite Santeria’s respectable growth - as practitioners in the United States are still forced to act outside the public eye to avoid harassment and unjust shame. To reverse this, much effort must be expended in order to educate people on the unique and deeply interesting beliefs of Santeria and Vodou. It should come as natural to America, a nation known for its immigration, to come to know these belief systems, which are immigrant in origin. When this occurs it will be the first step in a long, tenuous path to acceptance for the repeatedly oppressed followers of Vodou and Santeria.

---

[1] Bob Corbett, the Haitian Revolution of 1791-1803.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Long, 19.

[4] Long, 30.

[5] Long, 32.

[6] Long, 29.

[7] Long, 20.

[8] Long, 30.

[9] Long, 30.

[10] De La Torre, 165.

[11] Long, 24-25.

[12] Long, 25.

[13] Long, 24.

[14] De La Torre, 171.

[15] De La Torre, 166.

[16] Long, 31.

[17] De La Torre, 177.

[18] De La Torre, 177.

[19] De La Torre, 178.

[20] Long, 33.

[21] De La Torre, 209.

[22] De La Torre, 211.

[23] De La Torre, 206.

[24] Ibid.

[25] De La Torre, 223.

---

That's all. I sincerely hope my professor enjoys it and doesn't think it goes too crazy on the anthropology bent - the historical aspect of it really is the most interesting part. Ah well. It's just a draft anyway, and I'm sure she'll think it's interesting.

More stuff later.

Afro-Caribbean Religion In America: Immigrant Beliefs In An Immigrant's Nation (Part 1)

This is the first part of a paper I'm currently working on for my American Immigration (HIS) course at Rhode Island College. My original first draft saved awkwardly on a school computer today, rendering it incompatible with my system - forcing me to restart the entire paper, which was going to finish out at approximately ten pages. Eh. It's alright. I've rewritten a good portion of it and now I'm taking a break, so I figured I'd post it here while continuing to finish it.

I'll follow it up with Part 2 within the next day or two. Until then, enjoy.

---

As an introduction to this essay, some clarification is required for the uninformed. The terms “Santeria” and “Vodou” refer to similar but culturally different forms of religion that both stem from the comparable bases of regionally-similar African belief systems with Catholic folk influence. The names of the belief systems (that is, “Santeria” and “Vodou”) are not to be used interchangeably because they are distinctly different entities, a point which the writer will strive to display throughout the work. Both possess similar deities – be they “loa”, “vodu” or “orisha” - with distinctly human characteristics such as favorite foods and personalities; both forms of belief also stress constant appeasement of deities as well as honored ancestors. Spiritual possession is an honored event at many major celebrations in both “Santeria” and “Vodou” and animal sacrifice is indeed committed – painlessly and, for the most part, not wastefully. In addition, both belief systems are major aspects of Caribbean immigrant culture: they are not only religions but also function as parts of immigrant life as they provide means to communicate with likeminded individuals and establish links within a community.

The reader should try to familiarize themselves with the terms as well as the practices of the paper’s subject matter. “Santeria” is a belief system that draws on the same African traditions as other Afro-Caribbean religions but can find its origins closer to Cuba and other notable Spanish colonies. “Vodou” is often used as an umbrella term for Afro-Caribbean religions but can be applied specifically to denominations originating specifically Haiti and other French colonies; it is also spelled as “Voodoo”. This is not to be confused with “Hoodoo”, which is the traditional form of African-American folk practices as adapted from Vodou beliefs and ceremonies for use in the United States. “New Orleans Voodoo” is a variant of basic “Hoodoo” and is the most popularized of Afro-Caribbean traditions in the media, giving birth to myths such as the “cursed voodoo doll”. Hoodoo is similar in practice to the Trinidad-based beliefs of “Obeah” in that both are syncretist combinations of Christianity and African beliefs focusing around practical use of folk magic. Finally, and although mentioned only briefly, it is worth knowing that “Condomble” is an Afro-Brazilian religion that derives from Christianity and African beliefs and is comparable to Vodou or Santeria.

A final suggestion to the reader would be an advisement toward avoiding judgment of the belief systems before reading this work. Sensationalization and essentially racist fictionalization of Afro-Caribbean religions, especially through the medium of American movies and television, has pushed a large amount of the beliefs’ American practitioners into hiding. In order to get as much as possible out of this paper, the reader is advised to put themselves in the place of an impartial observer: take this information as it comes to you and treat the information in front of you as the first you have heard on the subject. Due to the dubious nature of provided information on Afro-Caribbean religions, there is a realistic chance that this will be the first time some light is shed on the subject for you.

---

AFRO-CARIBBEAN RELIGIONS IN AMERICA: IMMIGRANT BELIEFS IN AN IMMIGRANT'S NATION (PT. 1)

One of the cornerstones of the United States lies in the nation’s ideal of religious freedom – a concept that has not always stood strong once applied to reality. A concept derived during the ancient times of Antiquity, freedom of religious worship was touted by historical giants such Cyrus the Great, famous for extending his Persian Empire from the Bosporus to modern-day India – where another major figure, the Buddhist convert-emperor Asoka, ruled the Mauryan Empire which encompassed the grand amount of the Indian subcontinent. During the time of the Crusades, the Kingdom of Sicily was known for its tolerance toward Islam at the height of their persecution of Europe; hundreds of miles away, the Kurdish-Ayyubid military leader Saladin incorporated agents of all religions into his Middle East-encompassing government. Many examples of religious freedom throughout time exist – however, the list of religious bigotries rings louder as savage violences and penalties are levied against those who work against the religious mainstream. The persecution of Afro-Caribbean syncretic religious practitioners is one of the lesser-known and, sadly, most publicly adhered-to examples of anti-religious repression in modern time.

Afro-Caribbean syncretic belief systems are literal “immigrant religions”: Santeria and Vodou would not have come about without the forced immigration of Africans to the New World and their introduction to Catholic Christianity. The American reaction to the immigration of Santeria and Vodou practitioners – most of who were not of common American stock, being either Creole or free black – is in historical tune with the general reaction of the United States to new groups: ethnically-charged suspicion backed by willful cultural ignorance. However, the reaction to Afro-Caribbean practitioners is very poignant in that even the most prestigious figures and news publications, including the New York Times, proclaimed that the religious views of Vodou and Santeria practitioners were barbaric and primitive, fueled by blood sacrifices and Satan worshiping[1]. A worthy lesson for the citizens of the United States to learn would be the histories of these unique religious followers, for their beliefs are quite literally an immigration religion: a concept upon which the United States, a nation of immigrants, must look through heavy sensationalism to glimpse.

The origins of Santeria and Vodou, the two largest Afro-Caribbean belief systems with a major presence in the United States, are twofold: while many beliefs lie within the native practices of the African slaves imported to Caribbean colonies, Santeria and Vodou would not be what they are without missionary-taught Catholicism. Many slaves brought to the New World’s colonies; three major ethnic groups brought to the Catholic colonies of the French and Spanish were the Fon people of Dahomey in West Africa, the Yoruba people of Nigeria and the BaKongo of the modern-day Democratic Republic of the Congo. Large amount of slaves from West Africa made their way to Caribbean colonies as a result of the Egba/Owu Civil War as well as the military victories of Fulani Muslims who captured and enslaved the “Pagan” Africans. These groups and their belief systems would have the most major impact upon the syncretic practices which would eventually become Vodou (impacted equally by all three groups) and Santeria (impacted mostly by the Yoruba)[2]. A notable similarity between the three peoples’ belief systems, as well as many other systems of religion across Africa, is the belief in a supreme being supported by holy agents, known as “vodu”, “orisha” or “loa”. Another similarity between indigenous beliefs and folk Christianity was the use of “charms” in both belief systems. Soaps, beverages, jewelry and other miscellaneous objects were utilized by practitioners of African religions in order to act as “holy conduits”, channeling tribal deities and ancestral spirits to protect or preserve its possessor. Folk Christianity had become popular with Europeans at this point in history; major aspects included a belief of saints as almost minor deities as well an emphasis put on “charms” and spirits. ”. Artifacts such as saints’ bones, shards of the True Cross or martyr’s blood were believed to cure disease or provide safety from evil. African charms even had an impact on folk Christian practices: Kongo symbols can be seen in folk Christian charms from former European colonies and the utilized ingredients of folk Christian charms began to resemble traditional African charms upon the importation of slaves[3].

Another quality that lends ease to the process of syncretism was that Africans were well-versed in the incorporation of new deities and figures into their belief systems: victors in African tribal conflicts had their own deities that were incorporated into the pantheons of conquered peoples[4]. Catholicism also functioned as a shield of cover, so to speak, for the slaves; under the guise of Catholicism and their comparisons between the saints and their African deities, the slaves were able to continue the practice of their religions, albeit with new qualities. “Holy cards” were used to teach slaves about saints through the use of holy figures’ appearances and characteristics; this allowed slaves to make connections with own deities. In Yoruba mythology, Dambala was not similar with St. Patrick outside of an association with snakes. Shango is the Santeria orisha of manly characteristics and thunder but was linked to St. Barbara due to both figures’ association with lightning. Babalu Aye was the orisha of health and disease, leading slaves to compare him to St. Lazarus due to his condition of leprosy[5]. This historical conjuncture of interesting qualities on both sides, African slaves and Catholic masters, made it possible for the creation of Afro-Caribbean syncretic religions[6].

It should be noted that folk Christianity was primarily a Catholic practice in the New World and that Protestant Christians such as the British did not allow for much religious syncretism to occur in their colonies. One reason for this was that the Protestant Reformation heavily criticized the use of relics and “charms”; in Protestant eyes, they were a way of achieving what could only be accomplished through lengthy service to God[7]. Instead of using the indigenous beliefs of the Africans as a means of speedily converting slaves to Christianity, the Protestants labeled the African religions as blatant Satanism. Slave masters saw African cultural or religious activities to be primitive, outlawing music and prayer outside of strict Protestant religious activity. Protestantism eventually replaced the majority of the religious beliefs of Protestant-owned Africans as the slaves were forced to acculturate themselves into the society (and religion) of their masters[8].

(TBC)

---

[1] Miguel A. De La Torre, Santeria: the Beliefs and Rituals of a Growing Religion in America (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Company, 2004), 209.

[2] Carolyn M. Long, Spiritual Merchants: Religion, Magic and Commerce (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 2001), 4.

[3] Long, 15.

[4] Long, 14.

[5] Long 18.

[6] Long, 5.

[7] Long, 12.

[8] De La Torre, 166.

---

Hope you enjoyed that. If not - well - don't read the second part when it goes up.

I've spent months researching this topic and although this paper doesn't do justice for the amount of time I spent on research, I enjoyed the process and got to know some very interesting people. I'll get back to work on the second part in order to either edit this entry or just slap another post onto the blog sometime soon.

Until then, enjoy yourself.

An Intro

My name is Sean. I was advised to start a blog, so here it is. This post is a placeholder, so it will have some substance if someone Googles my name - I'd like to bore them a little bit. Nothing juicy here. Sorry, folks. My goal for this blog is to achieve a return to constant writing, a state everyone should achieve. Write everyday, it's as good as apples.

What follows is a piece of work I had to do for a Russian Identity assignment pertaining to the works of Berdyaev, who I consider atrociously biased and Slavophilic. If you have any interest in what I said, read on.

I wrote it while in a bad mood, and I guess it shows - I didn't really hate the guy despite his almost humorous admiration of very dead and otherwise overworked Russians. Enjoy.

---

Berdyaev’s argument is that since the time of Kiev’s position as the seat of power for the people of Russia, the lands of the Rus have always been torn between eastern and western influences. His statement that Russia has been a place of pain and has developed a timeline of tumultuousness throughout the ages immediately sets the tone for his description of the five different Russia’s: Kievan Rus, Mongol Russia, Muscovite Russia, Imperial Russia and Soviet Russia. Kievan Russia was a time of culture beyond those of Europe as Russia was superior in the categories of art and architecture. Under Muscovite rule, an intellectual culture never flourished; this period of Russia was bereft of “thought and speech”. Russia has a primordial disposition toward nature; it was strictly religious under Orthodoxy and under influence from the West, specifically the late Roman-Byzantine Empire. Peter himself was a supporter of western ideals, removing from power the pious Muscovites. This leads to a comparison between Peter and Lenin’s respective revolutions; while both were brutal and executed to sharply change Russia, Lenin’s revolution inspired the common man to take part in history while Peter’s revolution thickened the lines between Russia’s classes. This led to a continuing struggle between the incorporation between western ideals and eastern lifestyles.

Berdyaev’s approach to the subject of Russia’s identity being torn between East and West seems fairly slanted against what he calls the “Latin” West. The first comparison Berdyaev makes is that the near-ancient realm of Kievan Russia produced a level of culture greater than contemporary Europe. In that statement, Berdyaev shows his outright bias toward the subject of Russia’s superiority over its western neighbors and sets the stage for the rest of his piece. Berdyaev’s blanket summation that Kievan Russia’s production of iconography and architecture surpassed all of the West seems like a statement one may make in an attempt to start an argument due to how unnecessarily pretentious it seems; after all, what of even ancient Roman architecture that survives to this day? Past that, European architecture in places such as Germany with its monumental Gothic architecture certainly does not deserve a snubbing. In addition, the many historical pieces of Christian art in Italy (specifically Rome) are a notable aspect of the West’s skills with iconography. Depending on Berdyaev’s definition of the West and his possible inclusion of Al-Andalus, the architecture of southern Spain’s Moorish occupants during medieval times is still considered a landmark in architectural history as quite magnificent. Berdyaev also explains, at length, Russia’s kinship with nature being a major aspect of why it is unique from the West. While possibly not as major, why does he fail to even mention the severe historical importance of the forests to the Germanic people, who avoided being conquered by the vastly powerful Roman Empire and eventually ending the reign of the Western Roman Empire due to their reliance on the black forests of northern Europe? An appreciation and involvement with nature, while special in Russia’s case, is not a historical quality belonging solely to Russia. Finally, Berdyaev criticizes the overall major impact of the West as a blow against the common Russian citizen and an emboldening of the Russian nobility, separating the country to an extreme point. While the West may have had an impact upon the social structure of Russia with the possible influence of feudalism and serfdom (which would eventually become huge aspects of the Russian social crisis), Berdyaev already admits earlier in his piece that in order to control the mighty amount of lands under the Russian flag a despotic leader is almost a necessity. Undoubtedly, Russia would have found its social classes greatly separated despite the impact of the West due to the harsh reality of survival and superiority.

On the other hand, the duality Berdyaev employs is an interesting and nominally informative method of informing the reader about Russia’s patchwork identity. His most striking initial comparison between the East and West’s impacts upon Russia is that of religion as Berdyaev explains the “Russian spirit”. As stated, Russians are a paradoxically spiritual people; although they have the influence of pagan naturalism from the East instilling a hardy appreciation for natural life, the influence of the West in the form of Orthodox Christianity instills a strict system of faith in the Russian people. Berdyaev’s statement that the Russian people were molded by a combination of an appreciation of nature and the Orthodox Church into who the Russians are historically known to be is a striking statement. Also, Berdyaev goes on to explain another unique aspect of Russia in its territory; while the West is steeped in formulation and categories in terms of organizing a nation, Russia has a nigh-boundless landscape which would be extremely hard to manage unless under the fist of a strong, despotic leader. This factor is particularly important when one consider Berdyaev’s later quoting of Russian historian Kluchevsky who stated that as ‘the state expands, the people grow sickly.’ Berdyaev’s claim that the East and West’s unique impact on Russia’s religion instilled in its people a sense of dogmatism and the ability to put up with earthly suffering to exist in the afterlife, two factors that are certainly true after noting the material for the course; the Russian people have endured a harsh, back-breaking existence. Yet another note of importance would be the author’s claim that no matter what the professed religious views of a Russian, due to the hardships they must endure, they are “always apocalyptic or nihilist”, lending credibility to the impact of Russia’s roughness on its own people.

A portion of Berdyaev’s piece that is of particular interest is that of his commentary on Peter the Great’s own dualism between East and West. He compares Peter to the Bolsheviks, even going as far as to address him as such. Berdyaev states that Peter wanted to “destroy the old Muscovite Russia”, which had been mostly untainted by western ideals and had remained fairly alone in its practices. In his description of Peter, Berdyaev seems to infer that Peter’s attempt to modernize (and effectively westernize) his people was a savage attack upon the Russian spirit itself and a traitorous act against the Russian people. He is mentioned as executing his own son for believing in the heart and soul of Muscovy and cracking down and any Russians in positions of religious power despite their faith, comparing him to the Bolsheviks once more (more specifically, the Society of the Godless, a militant atheist organization). He compares Peter’s revolution to the October Revolution of 1917 as barbaric, violent, authoritarian and ultimately detrimental to the Russian people, making one major note of difference: while the Bolsheviks’ acts forced the involvement of the common man into the realm of history-making, Peter’s revolution drew further lines between the Russian people and benefitted only the highest in Russian society. Berdyaev makes another backhanded comparison concerning the West, calling Peter’s actions reminiscent of enlightened absolutism, as Peter had secularized the Russian Orthodox Church and empowered it as just another branch of his government.

Overall it seems that through his beliefs on the subject of Peter and his constant comparisons of the Imperial leader to the Russian communists of the 20^th century, Berdyaev seems to simply have a grudge against the West and any attempts at tweaking Russia even slightly toward western ideals. Although he admits Peter’s actions were “unavoidable”, Berdyaev seems more like an imperial apologist as opposed to a critic of the West. Despite his avoidance of many facts absolving the West of the sins it has apparently committed against the Russian spirit and people, Berdyaev’s employment of duality does do quite a job of explaining the tumultuous history of Russia and how it has come to be what it currently represents. Without a doubt, the West did indeed play quite a role in the advancement of the Russian people through the ages. Berdyaev seems to be highly negative toward Western influence, instead seeming to believe that Russia would have been better off without it. Whether or not this is true is very much up for argument, although this humble student disagrees vehemently with Berdyaev’s rhetoric.

---

There'll be more here soon. Unless I abandon it immediately - which I hope to avoid doing.