Mika

JBM <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<Pine.GSO.4.44.0208311938210.26420-100000@godzilla1.acpub.duke.edu>...
    > On 30 Aug 2002, Mika wrote:
    > In neither case (Argentina or the US), not (or not really) during the conquest; in
    > Argentina, mostly post-independence.
Yes, of course.

Still think that Mexico is a particular case in this respect. The 'church' that tried
to elimiate their culture in the beginnng, eventually turned out to be quite
protective of the native population, at least at the local level. In the sense that
the church naturally owned a lot of land and allowed the indigenas to use it. The
"success" of the revolution of 1910 - "tierra y libertad" -, which removed the power
of the church, effectively resulted in a big loss for the indigenas also. The land
was redistributed to some extent, but the indigenas lost all rights of usage. Graham
Greene describes this somewhat in his early Mexico novels. ALthough not really in an
unbiased way, he was apparently more interested in the fate of the catholic clergy
back then.

M