The First (North American) Thanksgiving. (With a shout out to Craig Beard, Canadian historian).

1621,with the Pilgrims and local Natives, right?

Not hardly, buckwheat.

1578 with Marin Frobisher and his men holding a Thanksgiving feast, somewhere in North America, thankful for not dying crossing the Atlantic.  It might have been in Newfoundland, or maybe on the Canadian Atlantic Arctic, or maybe somewhere else on the Canadian Atlantic coast.

Frobisher was an explorer and privateer and, interestingly enough, died in the manner depicted as a danger in Master and Commander. I.e, he was shot in an engagement with the Spanish and the surgeon extracted the ball, but not the patching, which infected.

Doesn't county? Well, some 39 years later, Samuel de Champlain held one in Quebec with the Québécois, probably not called that yet, and the Mi'kmaq. Cranberries were served.  I don't know about turkey, but could be.  Quebec is within the historic range of turkeys.

All of the above courtesy of Craig Beard.

But wait, Don Pedro Menéndez de Avilés had a Mass of Thanksgiving celebrated on September 8, 1565 upon his landing in Florida.  That beats out Frobisher by over a decade.  And if that doesn't count, coming after Frobisher, but before Champlain, was Juan de Oñate in 1598, who led an expedition of 500 people, and 7,000 head of livestock through the harsh Chihuahua to a location that is now El Paso and, on April 30, 1598 dedicated a day of Thanksgiving.

What does all this tell us?  Well, what we've noted before. Thanksgivings are a common thing in Christian cultures.  The "first" Thanksgiving really wasn't, and it wasn't particularly unique.

Western angst and spinning history.

I don't know if it was the anniversary of the raid, or what, but my Twitter feed for some reason picked up a link to a story about a large raid by the Barbary Pirates on the coast of Ireland.  In 1631 the pirates raided Baltimore, Ireland, in the County of Cork.  The town was not large, but between 100 and 300 of its inhabitants were abducted.  Only two made it back to Ireland, in part because the English government had just enacted a law which forbid paying ransom, which was often the goal of such raids.

The article that was linked in was scholarly, and noted that what would have occured is that, for the most part, children would have been separated from their parents and everyone sold into slavery when it became obvious that they would not be ransomed.  The male slavery would have been of the grueling work variety.  Women would have largely been sold as sex slaves, which the articles like to call "concubines".  

The reason that I note this here is that the author, again it was a scholarly article, felt compelled to blame the raids on the Spanish expulsion of the Moors from the Iberian Peninsula.  That process has commenced in 1492, and it was completed, effectively, in 1614.  The entire period wasn't a peaceful one, and in the Mediterranean various nations raided each other.

The final stages of the story are more complicated, in Spain, than might at first be imagined, as by the 1600s the "Moriscos" weren't actually Muslim, but rather Spanish descendants of Berbers and Arabs who were Catholic, but who retained Berber/Arab ancestry. Some claim they were "crypto Islamic", but more likely they were Catholics who retained some folk connection to their ancestor's prior religion.  Indeed, it'd be worth noting that Islam itself has a murky origin connection with Christianity, and this may have been confusing at the street level.  Anyhow, the last stages of this seem to be an ethnic spat, but it did have the effect of expelling Moriscos to North Africa, where they were absorbed ultimately into the local population, or to distribute them across Spain where the same thing occured.

Anyhow, blaming the Baltimore, and other Barbary Pirate, raids on this event is stretching it.  I suppose you could argue that the general belligerency of the Mediterranean contributed to the raiding atmosphere, and both sides did that, but that traces back to the rise of Islam in the first place, which was spread by the sword.  That this process went on, in one fashion or another, for a thousand years, and in some cases to this very day, does not mean that much except that the long arch of history and the fact that events play out over decades or centuries is the rule, and only seems to be odd to us, as we're used to everything occurring rapidly.

Anyhow, the author claimed that the children were treated with "utmost kindness".  Really?  Separating them from their parents, sending their fathers off to early grueling slave induced deaths and selling their mothers as sex slaves?  And then they'd end up slaves themselves, with boys often ending up enslaved soldiers and girls. . . sex slaves.

What BS.

The same author claimed that the women were sold into "concubinage", which is sex slavery in this context, and lived lives of "relative luxury", as if this weird image of the Playboy ethos had the women looking forward to this life of chattel status while they still retained their desirability.  The reality of it is that they had value as they were exotic, and bought for their physical attributes alone.

Why this story has to be spun in this fashion is really remarkable. We're supposed to feel some guilt for the story of the kidnappers and slavers, and even look kindly upon some of the grossest examples of slavery that are around.

None of this is to excuse Western conduct, whatever might be sought to be excused. Slavery was common amongst all Mediterranean societies, Christian and Islamic, but what played out with the Barbary pirates was not.  They engaged in slave raids, and forced sex slave status of captured women was endorsed by the Koran, although frankly probably not really in the form that was practiced here (it likely applied to women captured as a result of warfare, not that this makes it a lot better).  Putting a gloss on any kind of slavery, moreover, is bizarre.  When people attempt to do that, as many once did and a few still try to do, in regard to American slavery, we're rightly appalled.  This isn't any better.

The West has had a hard time reconciling an imperial past with its democratic values, and one way it tries to cope with it is by making Westerners always be the baddies.  The story of empire is a complicated one, but the 100 to 300 inhabitants of Baltimore didn't have much to do with it, and neither, really, did the Barbary pirates. Slavery was always bad and this sort of slavery gross.  Kidnapping people is always bad.  There are always bad people.  The Barbary Pirates don't need to be portrayed as if they're Captain Morocco, or something, in a Marvel movie.

In 1920, there were 1,000,000 black farmers in the United States. Now there's only 45,000.

What happened?\

Black Farmer, Erin New York, 1940.  Already at the time of this photograph this farm was the only black owned farm in its area.

February has been declared to be Black History month.  I disregard most such declarations as most of them came after this one and they increasingly have come to mean less and less. Indeed, they've always had a strong political aspect to them, but this has grown to be more the case as they've moved on and the appeal to whatever cause is being given a month is less and less broad.  I don't feel this to be the case for Black History Month.

There are are few items up on this site that specifically relate to African American  heritage, most specifically the examination of the history of blacks in the military.  But I haven't looked at this topic, which is a really remarkable one.

Black farmers in Marshall, Texas, 1940.

For a long time, African Americans have represented about 10% of the U.S. population, but they were 14% of the farm population.  Now they're 2%.  That's a really remarkable decline.  What occured is a legitimate question.

It may particularly be one if we stop to realize that African American association with agriculture was particularly strong, if particularly unwilling, early on.  That is, almost all of the early African immigrants to North American were slaves, and almost all of them were slaves on farms with farming duties.

Indeed, that fact dominated both the early history of blacks in North America and agriculture in North America.  American agriculture rapidly split into two types, one being yeoman farms owned by families that consumed, as a rule, the bulk of their own production and sold the surplus and the second being production "plantations" that were driven for market sales.  A person who had the economic bent to history, perhaps a product of the University of Chicago or one of the members of the Marxist school of historical thought would tend to note, accordingly, that capitalism in American agriculture can be argued to have its roots in slavery, although that's drawing the point too fine and perhaps mischaracterising it.  Still, plantations were production agriculture, which produced their own consumables of all types on the side.  Regular farms, on the other hand, tended to be subsistence farms which sold their excess.  People could and did become rich as yeoman farmers, which is important to note, and oddly enough planters, i.e., those who owned plantations, were usually so heavily in debt that their debts exceeded their assets.  On a day to day basis, however, a planter was more likely to live the life of the genteel than any yeoman was, while the nature of the labor on the respective agricultural units were much more grueling for the actual laborers on a plantation.

It'd be temping just to write the history of blacks in American farming from there, but that would be inaccurate.  Black slaves on southern farms principally learned farming as a trade and, moreover, they learned a lot about farming that an average yeoman wouldn't.  Typical yeoman farms were multi production units driven towards family consumption and the finishing of a product was only partially market oriented.  Yeomanry learned an incredibly diverse set of skills, but they weren't as diverse as those that existed on a plantation.  For one thing, given the nature of plantations, they included subsistence farming in addition to production farming as the slaves were expected to feed themselves and their owners.  Indeed, while rarely noted, slaves were typically lightly armed by their owners so that they could supplement their tables with small game, which saved the owner from having to slaughter production animals for their sake.  Given all of this, slaves learned, by force of course, the same skills that yeomanry did in subsistence farming, but also learned production farming and for that matter the finishing of many agricultural products that plantations generated.  In other words, the typical southern slave at the time of the American Revolution learned how to grow food plants, such as yams, onions and the like, but also learned how to harvest and mill grain, brew beer, harvest, cultivate, dry and process tobacco.  Only that latter crop, at that time, was a production crop.  In later years, of course, cotton would be added, which wasn't processed locally, and which is a legendarily back breaking crop to cultivate and harvest.  Indeed, the labor is so great that it was cotton that kept American slavery from passing away in the early 19th Century and which accordingly lead to the Civil War.

Anyhow, with that background its tempting to suppose that as soon ast he Union Army came through that slaves took off for the North, but they didn't.  The United States was overwhelmingly agricultural in the 1860s and yeomanry was every bit the factor in the North that it was in the South. The real difference was that in the South the  yeoman class, which made up the overwhelming majority of hte population, was poorer than it was in the North, which was itself a byproduct of slavery.

Freed slaves wanted to become freeholders.  The dream of early liberated slaves was to own "40 acres and a mule", the American Agrarian equivalent of Chesterton's later Distributist "3 acres and a cow".  40 acres of land meant freedom and self sufficiency and the American black population, cultivating American ground since 1619, was well aware of that.  The Radical Republican thought was to bust up the plantations and distribute the ground, Emiliano Zapata style, to those who worked it.

It should have been done.

The fact that it wasn't done provides the beginning of the answer to the question posed above.  African Americans were overwhelmingly farmers in 1865 and they lacked the means to purchase farms or move for the most part. Some who had them moved, and already by the late 1860s black cowboys, recently freed men who had driven cattle in the forests of the south, were a prominent feature in Western ranching.  But the fact of the matter was that for the most part blacks couldn't purchase ground.  They had to hire themselves out, and in hiring themselves out, they were guaranteed to be required to work for the lowest wages possible, often in conditions that mimicked slavery.

Over time, those who could did purchase ground and many became tenant farmers, or sharecroppers.  Black sharecroppers became a major feature of the South, but in fairness black farmers did as well.  They were always outnumbered by white farmers to be sure, but they were a definite presence throughout the South and even spread into other regions.  The  number of acres owned by black farmers in the United States was 3,000,000 acres. By 1900, it was 12,000,000.

After 1890, however, some significant changes in the US began that would reverse the trend.  By 1890 the nation's transportation infrastructure had advanced to where moving long distance had become much easier.  At the same time the end of Reconstruction in the 1870s had caused blacks to steadily lose rights in the South after that time on a year by year basis.  By the 1890s it was becoming very notable and the first strong efforts to push back started to occur.  Those early efforts weren't successful however and African Americans simply began to pull up stakes and move from Southern farms to northern cities.

Map showing concentration of African American population in the United States in 1900.

What began as a trickle in in the 1890s expanded to a flood in the mid 1910s.  As a black population base formed in northern cities, African Americans who were sick of the prejudice and poverty they faced in the South left for the north and left agriculture behind them.  The process continued on all the way into the 1970s.

As this occurred, the relief laws of the Great Depression came into and accelerated the decline in black farming.  Much Southern farm land remained owned by descendants of the planter class who leased it out to black sharecroppers.  In an effort to arrest the deflation of agricultural products the US government encouraged farmers to plow crops under and idle land giving no thought to the fact that, in much of the South, the land being idled was farmed by one person and owned by another.  Planters participated in the Government' idling of their land and benefited economically by doing so. Sharecroppers simply lost their livelihoods.

Combined with all of this is the decline in the number of farmers in general, something American society, which is welded to the concept of market forces being benighted, has done nothing to arrest.

The overall result has been a sort of tragedy, particularly if you regard farming as having a special merit in and of itself, as we do.  Beyond that, which we won't go into but which is part of the mysticism of the agrarian ideal, African American culture had particularly strong roots in agriculture, with not all of those roots being exclusively one of oppression.  Even well into the Great Migration much of the odds and ends of African American culture in the United States, from food to music, had really deep agricultural roots.  That's effectively been lost with the loss of African Americans to farming.

Lex Anteinternet: Sunday Morning Scene: Churches of the West: San Miguel Church, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

And in the same year that slavery was introduced into British North America:

Lex Anteinternet: Sunday Morning Scene: Churches of the West: San M...: Churches of the West: San Miguel Church, Santa Fe, New Mexico : This church is the oldest church in the United State...

August 20, 1619. Slavery comes to British America

The date isn't known with precision.  Only that it occurred in August.  But this date, August 20, is used as the usual date for the event when a slaver arrived off the port at Port Comfort, Virginia, carrying 20 to 30 African who were held in bondage and sold into slavery.

The event marked the return of the English to being a slave owning society.  Slavery had been abolished by the Normans after conquering Anglo Saxon Britain in 1066 and while it's common to see claims of other types of servitude, including involuntary servitude, equating with slavery, they do not.  Slavery is unique.

And late European chattel slavery, which commenced with the expansion of European powers into African waters and into the Americas, was particularly unique and in someways uniquely horrific.

Slavery itself was not introduce to African populations by Europeans; they found it there upon their arrival, but they surprisingly accommodated themselves to participating in it very rapidly.  Europeans had been the victims of Arab slavers for a long time themselves, who raided both for the purposes of acquiring forced labor, and fairly horrifically, for forced concubinage, the latter sort of slave having existed in their society for perhaps time immemorial but which had been licensed by Muhammad in the Koran.  Arab slave traders had been quite active in Africa early on, purchasing slaves from those who had taken them as prisoners of war, an ancient way of dealing with such prisoners, and the Europeans, starting really with the Portuguese, seemingly stepped right into it as Europe's seafaring powers grew.

Having waned tremendously in Europe following the rise of Christianity, European powers somehow found themselves tolerating the purchase and transportation for resale of Africans for European purchasers by the 15th Century, with most of those purchasers being ultimately located in the Americas.

The English were somewhat slow to become involved.  It wasn't clear at first if slavery was legal under English Common Law and the English lacked statutory clarification on the point such as had been done with other European powers.  Early English decisions were unclear on the point. However, starting with the 17th Century, the institution worked its way into English society, even as opposition to it grew from the very onset.

The importation of slaves to English populations was not limited to North American, but it was certainly the absolute strongest, in the English speaking world, in England's New World colonies.  While every European seafaring power recognized slavery by the mid 17th Century, the really powerful markets were actually limited to the Caribbean, English North American, and Portuguese Brazil.  European slavery existed everywhere in the New World, and no country with colonies in North America was exempt from it, but it was strongest in these locations.

And slavery as reintroduced by Europeans was uniquely abhorrent.  Slavery, it is often noted, has existed in most advanced and semi advanced societies at some point, but slavery also was normally based in warfare and economics nearly everywhere.  I.e., it was a means of handling conquered armies, conquered peoples, and economic distress.  The word "servant" and "slave" in ancient Greek was the same word for this latter reason.  In eras in which resources were tight and there was little other means of handling these situations, slavery was applied as the cruel solution.

But it wasn't raced based.  The slavery that the Europeans applied was. Even Arab slavery, which was ongoing well before the Europeans joined in and continued well after, was not based on race but status.  If a lot of Arab slaves were black in the 17th Century, that was mostly due to an environment existing which facilitated that. Earlier, a lot of forced concubine Arab slaves, for example, were Irish.  The Arabs were equal opportunity slavers.

Europeans were not.  European slaves were nearly always black, and even examples of trying to note occasions in which Indians were held as slaves are very strained.  And because it was raced based, it took on a unique inhuman quality.  Slavery wasn't justified on the basis that the slaves were prisoners of war that had fallen into that state, but that the state was better than death, nor were they held on the basis that they had sold themselves or had been sold into servitude due to extreme poverty, and that was better than absolute destitution.  It wasn't even justified on a likely misapplied allowance granted by Muhammad for slaves that were held due to war, and could be used for carnal purposes, reinterpreted (I'm guessing) for convenient purposes.  It was simply that they were black and, therefore, something about that made them suitable for forced labor.

And forced labor it was.  Servants in the ancient world had often been servants and even tutors.  While it did become common in North America to use slaves as household domestics, most slaves in North America performed heavy agricultural labor their entire lives.  It was awful and they worked in awful conditions.

And it tainted the early history of the country in a way that's ongoing to this day.  With opposition to its reintroduction right from the onset, but the late 18th Century it was clear that its abhorrent nature meant it was soon to go out everywhere.  Almost every European country abolished it very early in the 19th Century, which is still shockingly late.  It was falling into disfavor in the northern part of the British North American by the Revolution, in part because agriculture in the North was based on a developed agrarian pattern while in the South the planter class engaged in production agriculture (making it ironic that the yeoman class would be such a feature of the American south).  The pattern of agriculture had meant that there were comparatively few slaves in the north.  This is not to say it was limited to the South, however.  Slavery even existed in Quebec.

With the Revolution came the belief that slavery would go out, but it didn't.  By that time the American South had a huge black slave population.  Slavery would if anything become entrenched in the South, where most of the American black population lived, and it would take the worst war in the nation's history to abolish it.  So horrific was that war that even today the descendants of those who fought to keep men slaves sometimes strain the confines of history to find an excuse for what their ancestors did.  And following their Emancipation, the nation did a poor job of addressing the racism that had allowed it to exist.  It wasn't until the second quarter of the 20th Century that things really began to change, with the Great Migration occurring first, followed by a slow improvement in status following World War One, followed by a rapid one after World War Two that culminated in the Civil Rights Era of the 1950s, 60s, and 70s.

But the stain of slavery lingers on in innumerable ways even now.  Having taken to slavery in 1619, and having tolerated it for over two hundred years thereafter, and having struggled with how to handle the residual effects of that for a century thereafter, we've still failed to really absorb the impact of the great sin of our colonial predecessor.

I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.

Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of captivity.
But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself in exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatize an shameful condition.
In a sense we've come to our nation's Capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.
This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check; a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds."
But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check- a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.
We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism.
Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.
It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.
But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.
The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone.
And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?"
We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality.
We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities.
We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one.
We can never be satisfied as long as our chlidren are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating "for whites only."
We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote.
No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.
I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.
Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair.
I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, that one day right down in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exhalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.
This is our hope. This is the faith that I will go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood.
With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.
This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with new meaning, "My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the Pilgrims' pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring."
And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania.
Let freedom ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado. Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California. But not only that; let freedom ring from the Stone Mountain of Georgia. Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee.
Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.
And when this happens, and when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

Rev. Martin Luther King, August 28, 1963.

Sunday Morning Scene: Churches of the West: San Miguel Church, Santa Fe, New Mexico

Churches of the West: San Miguel Church, Santa Fe, New Mexico:

This church is the oldest church in the United States.  Built between 1610 and 1626, the church is still an active Catholic church offering two Masses on Sundays.

This church serves as a reminder that our concepts of North American settlement are often somewhat in error.  This church in is the American Southwest and has been in active use for over 400 years, a figure longer than any church in the American East, and a demonstration that much of what we associate with European civilization in North America was already further West at an early stage than we sometimes credit, and that what became the North American civilization was already less European, in significant ways. This church, for example was constructed by regional natives.