Menu
header photo

Project Vision 21

Transforming lives, renewing minds, cocreating the future

Blog Search

Blog Archive

Comments

There are currently no blog comments.

History and hypocrisy sometimes meet at unusual places

Last week I attended an excellent lecture by Virginia Sanchez, a historian with the Colorado Society of Hispanic Genealogy. Sanchez spoke about Cuchara, a small and forgotten town in southern Colorado that 150 years ago was a prosperous place where Hispanics, Natives, and people from other races and nationalities lived together.

During her lecture, Sanchez brought up an issue that immediately caught my attention: the presence of “criados” (adopted household members) in Hispanic families. Those “criados” were non-Hispanics, mainly Native children, legally adopted as members of their new families.

It was interesting for me to learn that, according to current historical trends, those “criados” should no longer be called by that name. The new name should be “captives,” to reflect the fact they lost their culture and identity after being adopted by Hispanics.

The reasoning of the historian regarding this change in terminology from “criado” to “captive” is sound and correct and its conclusions are undeniable.

It’s true that “criados” or “captives” were mostly orphan or abandoned Native children who, after being baptized, received a new name and eventually lost the traditions of their ancestors.

For that reason, according to modern historians, those children should be called “captives,” to clearly express that, even if they were not slaves, they couldn’t leave the family because there were almost no opportunities for them outside the family.

In short, the persons who we use to call “criados” now should be called “captives” because they lived separated from families, the beliefs, the religion, the language, and the heritage of their ancestors and because they have few opportunities in life.

But, what happened to those Hispanics families in southern Colorado with adopted Native children? According to Sanchez’ historical research, after the arrival of a railroad company in 1872 and after Colorado became a state in 1876, many Hispanic families were forced to sell their lands and to stop speaking Spanish.

For example, the only two streets in Cuchara were called “Bustos” and Valdez”. But soon after the arrival of the railroad in August 1874, the names were changed to “Main” and “Miller.” And contracts and documents began to be redacted only in English and no longer in Spanish.

In other words, if we are to call “captives” those adopted by Hispanic families because, as a result of the adoption, they lost their identity, language, and opportunities, which word should we use to describe the situation of the Hispanic families who, after the arrival of Anglo businessmen and officials also lost their identity, language, and opportunities?

Somebody may argue that what happened in southern Colorado 150 years ago is irrelevant for us today, but that’s not the case.

Hispanics had been living in southern Colorado for 250 years when, after the Mexican-American War, the area became part of the United States. Then, only half a century after the arrival of a new technology (railroad), Cuchara and its inhabitants were all but just a memory.

Who, then, are the captives? History and hypocrisy meet at unusual places

Go Back