From the Archives: Anthony Ivins Arrives in Mexico
Upon taking the reigns of the Mexican mission in 1896, Anthony Ivins, future Apostle and First Presidency member, traveled by stage to the mission headquarters. This snippet from his journal for April 23 gives a glimpse into Ivins’ views on his culture vis a vis that of the Mexican people.
The team of little Mexican mules were started out on the run, and kept running as long as possible by the driver. a vigorous application of the whip then kept them on the trot until they could trot no farther, about which time we reached reached Plan del Alamo where a short stop was made for a change of team. We had traveled 25 miles.
This Mexican Hacienda is typical of others in Mexico, a group of adobe buildings, built around the inner side of a square, surrounded by a high wall, with only one entrance. As we approached this gate a lot of mangy degenerate dogs came barking… They were the personification of what in breeding and degeneracy can accomplish, but they barked just as loud, looked just as brave, and seemed to have fully as much assurance as any thoroughbred
Inside the gate a flock of very inferior looking chickens scratched in the trash which had accumulated from the house, like the dogs they showed degeneracy [257] to the last degree. A rooster strutted to the top of a dung hill, looked at us defiantly, flapped his wings and crowed The commotion brought people to several doors. The men looked at us with indifference, the women curiously, the children with open eyed wonder. I looked at them and thought, the people, the chickens, the dogs are all alike, degenerate, ignorant, debased. And yet they assume all of the airs of civilized and educated and refined. They have never seen nor read of other people, dogs or chickens, and knowing nothing better regard themselves as the worlds aristocracy. They are happy in their present state because they know of nothing better. Will they be happier when we teach them their true condition, and offer them an ideal which they probably can never reach. Who can answer [?] [1]
__________
[1] Anthony W. Ivins. Journal. Utah State Historical Society.
I wonder how much of his musing was sincere concern over whether it was fair to offer an unattainable ideal, and how much of it was pure Romantic bunk about noble savages and man-in-a-state-of-nature? Still, it’s pleasing to see a missionary considering potential consequences instead of just sweeping in, determined to remodel an old world into his own new image.
Comment by Ardis Parshall — December 1, 2007 @ 4:42 pm
People are *so* much more complex than most other people assume. Thanks for the fascinating quote.
Comment by Ray — December 1, 2007 @ 6:42 pm
The men looked at us with indifference, the women curiously, the children with open eyed wonder. I looked at them and thought, the people, the chickens, the dogs are all alike, degenerate, ignorant, debased. And yet they assume all of the airs of civilized and educated and refined. They have never seen nor read of other people, dogs or chickens, and knowing nothing better regard themselves as the worlds aristocracy. They are happy in their present state because they know of nothing better. Will they be happier when we teach them their true condition, and offer them an ideal which they probably can never reach. Who can answer [?]
Ivins’s description of the people is indeed fascinating. His language creates a large distance between himself, the American, and the Mexicans he’s observing (whom he compares to animals). At first he seems to say that their degeneracy is due not to their nature but to their lack of contact with other cultures. But he then concludes by claiming that the majority of the Mexicans he sees can not live up to the ideals that he’s offering (the Gospel, I presume), suggesting that in Ivins’s view, Mexicans are by nature inferior.
I find it interesting that Ivins, at least in this quote, does not utilize a Lamanite discursive device to explain the “debased” condition of the people. Perhaps in other parts of the diary he does?
Comment by David Grua — December 1, 2007 @ 8:36 pm
David, I don’t find much of that in his writings. He’ll talk about the Indians and the Gospel, but really doesn’t bring the Lamanite factor in it that I can see. For example:
“During the journey we passed near the Laguna and Acuna Indians, as well as the Tunis [108]
All are semi civilized and very interesting people. They reside in towns, till the ground and appear to be very industrious. They have sheep, goats, horses, donkeys, and some few cattle. They were universally kind to us and always seemed interested in the Book of Mormon & the Gospel as we explained it to them.”
Comment by Jared — December 1, 2007 @ 9:24 pm
Jared: At least in that passage he doesn’t equate the Indians with Lamanites. Do you find that he does so elsewhere?
Comment by David Grua — December 1, 2007 @ 9:26 pm
I don’t recall any place where he does, and in doing a quick skim I can’t find anything to that effect.
Comment by Jared — December 1, 2007 @ 9:35 pm