Small-talk Dialogue: The Liberation of Puerto Rico-Religious Background...

Small-talk Dialogue: The Liberation of Puerto Rico-Religious Background...:                                              The Liberation of Puerto Rico-Religious Background So far, I have attempted to present th...

The Liberation of Puerto Rico-Religious Background

                                             The Liberation of Puerto Rico-Religious Background


So far, I have attempted to present the history of the colony of Puerto Rico by focusing specifically on the peoples' struggle for their self-determination.  Now I wish to briefly trace the role of religion throughout Puerto Rican history. In many respects, the religious history has been blended with the colonial history, but for purposes of clarity, I have separated them. I have done this, realizing that it is difficult to differentiate in an absolute way the colonization and the Christianization of Puerto Rico. This is especially true because ever since Spain established the occupation of Puerto Rico, the religious activity has gone hand in hand with the colonization of the island.

Since the Spanish invaders were Christians, they could not accept the religion of the natives of Boriquen as valid.  They believed that they had the obligation to save the souls of the natives for Christ. It must not have been easy for the natives to throw their traditional beliefs away in order to embrace an unknown religion.  It would not be surprising to find an element of resistance among the natives, especially since the preachers of the new religion had the intention of overthrowing the sovereignty  of the country of the future converts (Loida Figueroa, History of Puerto Rico, New York: Anaya Book Company, 1974, p. 60).

In the initial stages of the colonization of the island, the Roman Catholic Church made an alliance with the Spanish invaders, and thereby fulfilled a very important legitimizing function in the establishment of the new socio-political and economic order.  The cross came with the sword establishing a very intimate and peculiar alliance that still exists to larger or lesser degrees in most of Latin America (Idris Hamid, ed., Out of the Depths, San Fernando Trinidad: St. Andrews Theological College, 1977, p. 164). When Juan Ponce de Leon took control of Boriquen, he distributed lands and indigenous people among the colonists, and the work mining and cultivation began.  The natives had to work for the Spanish overlords in the gold mines and in the fields, and in the construction or roads and houses. In return, they were to receive food and lodging, clothing, and above all, Christian teaching (Tovar, p. 15).

The ethical aspect of colonization became a matter of concern, even in Spain.  The matter was raised in the Spanish dominions by the clergy.  This was to be expected in light of the fact that the majority of the conquerors would not have raised the issue. Fray Antonio de Montesinos raised his voice against the servitude of the natives.  As early as 1511, he preached to the colonists who surely believed that they were not sinning when they arrived in Boriquen and forced the natives to serve them according to the law of conquest.  He questioned this presumed right, especially since the conclusion had been reached that the natives were rational beings who were susceptible to Christianization.  The issue produced a storm of protest from the colonists, who viewed his invective as an attack on their interests.  They immediately sent a proctor to the King to refute Montesinos's charges.  The King, perturbed at the narration of the offences against the natives, established a board of theologians and officials charged with the study of this question and the rendering of a verdict (Figueroa, p. 70). The board recognized the right of the natives to liberty and humane treatment.  It also declared that for the purposes of religious instruction, the natives were to be subject to Spanish dominion.  The debate did not resolve the question of whether the Christian princes had legal title to the natives of the conquered land.  Once again, the Spanish crown ordered various theologians and jurists to present their written opinions.  The decision was that the natives could not be held slaves unless they refused to accept Christianity (Figueroa, p. 71).

Fray Bartolome de las Casas is also remembered in Latin American history as one that raised his voice against the inhumane treatment of the slaves. He affirmed the humanity of all people.  Ironically, however, when faced with the question of how to avoid the sinking of the colonial economy, he recommended that black slaves should be imported to replace the indigenous slaves, since they were not considered to be fully human. Before dying, de las Casas perfected his ideas to include all people as equal, and repented of having accepted black slavery as a good thing (Figueroa, p. 71).

It is rather obvious from what has been said, that religion was another phase of the colonization of Boriquen. One of the principal characteristics of the colonization of Boriquen by the Spanish was their desire to convert the conquered people to Christianity.  The fact that the cross went hand in hand with the sword caused disputes in the conquest.  In some respects, Christianity served to soften the hardships caused by the sword, and to an extent, restrained the cruelty of the Spanish invaders. Due to the insistence of the Church, the natives and the black slaves were converted, and conquerors and conquered were alike in the sight of God (Figureoa, p. 76). However, the notion still existed that the natives and the blacks, politically speaking, were to remain subservient and loyal to the Spanish crown.  In general, the period from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries was marked by the alliance between the Catholic Church and the Spanish government. To be Spanish was considered the same as being Catholic.  This was very true in Puerto Rico.  In spite of the fact that there were some voices raised in protest against the inhumane aspect of colonization, the Catholic Church, as a whole, served to sanction the dominion which Spain was exercising over Puerto Rico. There was no attempt on the part of the Church to either construct "a theology of liberation," that would advocate for the self-determination of the Puerto Rican people, or to become immersed in the struggle of the Puerto Rican people for autonomy.  If the Church did do anything, it was to discourage any attempts that may have been made to decolonize the island.

The takeover of Puerto Rico by the United States in 1898 did not put an end to the religious side of what we can justly call "neo-colonization."  In fact, there appears to be a similarity between the colonizing aspect of religion in both the period of the Spanish invasion and the North American takeover. The one basic difference was that Spanish colonialism was accompanied by Roman Catholicism, and American neo-colonialism was accompanied by Protestantism. In both cases, religion served to legitimize the colonization of Puerto Rico by external powers.

Prior to the annexation of Puerto Rico by the United States in 1898, Protestantism was considered a heresy. In the latter part of the nineteenth century, the Spanish crown permitted Protestant churches to be built in Ponce and in Vieques.  This was in response to a plea from Queen Victoria which she made on behalf of some English families who had settled in Puerto Rico.  The request was for Episcopalian churches to be established in order to minister to the needs of the English settlers. Soon thereafter, Presbyterian, Congregationalist, Methodist, and Baptist missions were established in different parts of the island to be followed by diverse sectarian groups. The Pentecostal movement, which was introduced in Puerto Rico shortly after the beginning of the twentieth century, appears to have had the greatest success in recruiting members and organizing churches.  Today the various Pentecostal organizations claim the largest proportion of churches and the greatest membership of all Protestant denominations in Puerto Rico (Vivian Garrison, Sectarianism and Psychosocial Adjustment: A Controlled Comparison of Puerto Rican Pentecostals and Catholics, n.p., n.d., p. 301).

In the initial period of the arrival of Protestantism in Puerto Rico, there was an agreement (Comity Agreement) among the various groups to attempt to avoid to the extent possible,  overlapping with the efforts of other groups in evangelizing the people of the island.  To avoid needless rivalry, these groups "divided up the cake" beforehand and created exclusive territories for proselytizing.  By 1919, a Protestant Council was formed, and some Puerto Rican ministers were trained.  But little impact was made on the rural, poverty-stricken island.  By 1942, the American Protestant hierarchy reported with some chagrin that its ministry was middle class in its orientation and alien to Puerto Rican society, and to the economic structure and life of the community.  Sunday collections were so scanty that the American parent-body was obliged to pay large subsidies (Francesco Cordasco and Eugene Bucchioni, The Puerto Rican Experience , Totowa: Littlefield, Adams, and Co., 1973, p. 99).

At no time during the initial introduction of Protestantism in Puerto Rico can we find attempts on the part of the Protestant churches to become involved in the struggle for the self-determination of Puerto Rico. Quite the contrary was true.  As was the case with the Spanish colonization of the island, Protestantism lent itself to the neo-colonization of Puerto Rico by the United States.  In addition, the nationalistic struggle for self-determination in the early part of the twentieth century has come to be identified with Roman Catholicism. I suspect that the main reason for this is that the chief spokesperson for Puerto Rican nationalism in this period was Pedro Albizu Campos, who himself was a Roman Catholic.  In addition, the Protestants that went to Puerto Rico did so with the intent of "civilizing"its inhabitants.  This, at least, was the thinking of the Protestant missionaries.  The concept of "Manifest Destiny" was in my judgment, the main factor in some slight resistance against the American missionary enterprise.  As a whole, Protestantism as served to "sacralize an imperialist process of political, economic, and cultural penetration rooted in a capitalistic ideology that preaches a gospel of development, democracy, individual progress and well-being at the expense of the exploited masses" (Hamid, p. 164).  In many respects, this version of Christianity has served the same purpose in Latin America as a whole.  It has been only in recent times that, in some sectors of Protestantism, there has been an attempt on the part of some Protestant individuals to articulate a theology that deals with the nature of capitalism and imperialism in Puerto Rico from an ethical and theological standpoint. Those who have been bold enough to do so, have had to do it in such a way as to avoid being called "communists," or false prophets by their more conservative fellow Protestants.  In fact,many of them have made an honest and sincere attempt to integrate a "theology of liberation," including a condemnation of the present political and economic structure of Puerto Rico with a commitment to the historic Christian faith. It is fair to say, then, that generally speaking, religion during the colonial and neo-colonial periods in Puerto Rico has served to preserve the "status quo."  In spite of some of the positive contributions which may have been made, religion as a whole has been a detriment to progress.

The Liberation of Puerto Rico: A Theological Perspective- Colonial and Religious History

                      The Liberation of Puerto Rico: A Theological Perspective

                      Chapter 1-Colonial and Religious History

In order for us to be able to make any ethical or moral judgment on the present political and economic status of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, it is necessary to begin by examining the factors which led to the present situation.  I do not intend to provide a detailed history of Puerto Rico, but rather a general overview that hopefully will provide us with the foundation on which  we can begin to build an ethical assessment of the issue at hand.  I suspect that some well-intentioned people may believe that it is not necessary to speak about history in order to make a moral judgment on a given issue.  I, however, contend that ethical judgments should not take place in a vacuum. This is especially true in the case of Puerto Rico.  It is essential to examine the historical background in order to relate it to ethical concerns.  The combination of the historical and the ethical is the basis on which I advocate the liberation of our beloved island of Puerto Rico.

                                                             Colonial Background

Since liberation and self-determination constitute the central theme of this thesis, it is necessary to realize that Puerto Rico's push towards self-determination goes back to the year 1508 when Juan Ponce de Leon established the Spanish occupation of the island.  From that time to the present, the people of Puerto Rico have not been able to enjoy complete freedom from external powers. Throughout Puerto Rican history, the thrust towards self-determination has been manifested in different ways.  Many Puerto Rican leaders have risen to bring this concern before the world community.  What follows are some of the important events that relate to this thrust for self-determination.

At the time that the Spanish government began to occupy Puerto Rico, the island was relatively poor in resources, especially gold (James Dietz, ed. Puerto Rico: Class Struggle and National Liberation. Riverside: Latin American Perspectives, 1976, p.3).  The indigenous people (Tainos) were used by the Spaniards in order to extract what small amounts of gold the island, formerly known by its indigenous name Boriquen, did have.  Soon afterwards, the economy came to be based on sugar production, and black people were imported from Africa to work for the benefit of the Spaniards.  It should be noted that the main reason for the exportation of slaves into Boriquen was that the native indigenous population was decimated in the effort to extract the gold.

For the next three centuries, Puerto Rico was Spanish in just about every sense of the word.  Spain imposed not only her language as the vehicle of communication, but also her culture and religion.  In that respect, it is safe to say that Puerto Rico, like many other areas of what today is known as Latin America, was an extension of the Spanish Empire.  It could be considered as a Spain in the West.

In 1812, the Spanish government enacted a constitution that gave the Spanish colonies some representation. This contribution, however, was abolished by King Ferdinand the VII after Spain had been involved in war with France and driven out the French armies.  Subsequent revolt in Spain forced Ferdinand to reinstate the
constitution of 1812.  Puerto Rico was once again given the right to elect representatives to the Spanish Courts.

After several attempts at reaching autonomy through the legal channels (the courts), many Puerto Ricans had become dissatisfied and resorted to other means to achieve their goals.  For the first time in 1838, there was an attempted uprising that had as its chief aim to proclaim Puerto Rican independence from Spain.  The leaders of this uprising were Andres Viscarrondo, Buenaventura Quinones, and several others.  The plan failed because the Governor, Lopez de Banos, learned of the plan and the leaders were arrested.  Soon thereafter, Buenaventura was discovered hanged in a cell in El Morro.

It was not until the latter part of the nineteenth century that the independence movement began to take shape and form.  During this period, the Puerto Rican economy and population expanded rapidly, and the independence movement began to oppose both slavery and the harsh colonial rule (Dietz, p. 4).  Inspired by Dr. Ramon Emeterio Betances, an early Puerto Rican revolutionary, an uprising took place in the town of Lares on September 23, 1868, which claimed the short-lived Republic of Puerto Rico.  This insurrection was was savagely and quickly put down by Spanish troops, but the Grito de Lares ( Cry of Lares) has remained a continuing symbol of the independence movement to the present.

It is correct to say, in spite of its apparent failures, that the independence movement in Puerto Rico in the latter half of the nineteenth century was not without its positive consequences.  In 1869, the promulgation of a new constitution in Spain gave Puerto Rico the right to elect deputies to the Spanish Courts.  Then in 1873, slavery was officially abolished on the island.  Finally, in 1897, under the pro-autonomy party of Luis Munoz Rivera, a new government was formed.  Under that charter, Puerto Rico became a sovereign nation which Spain could neither cede nor sell without the consent of the Puerto Rican people.

In 1898, the United States went to war against Spain.  Spanish troops in Cuba, at that time a colony of Spain, were defeated.  American troops began to occupy the Philippines, which were also under Spanish control.  Then in July, American troops occupied Puerto Rico. In September of that same year, Spain and the United States signed the Treaty of Paris by virtue of which Spain ceded Puerto Rico to the United States.  An American general was named by Washington to govern the island. In this sense, Puerto Rico became "war booty" for the United States (National Division Board of Global Ministries, United Methodist Church. Puerto Rico's Search for Self-Determination. Philadelphia: 1979, p.1).

Immediately thereafter, the United States government passed the Foraker Act which resulted in the setting up of civil government.  Charles H. Allen became the first civilian governor under the colonial rule of the United States in 1900.  Although the Puerto Rican House of Delegates sent to Congress a memorandum making clear their opposition to American citizenship, this overture was ignored by the government of the United States. In fact, what the American government did in 1917 was to pass the Jones Act, by which the people of Puerto Rico became citizens of the United States.  It is most ironic that this act was passed a month before the United States became engaged in the First World War.  Because of the act, Puerto Rican young men became eligible for military conscription.

Note should be taken of the fact that the Jones Act granted the island a two-chamber legislature which was elected by universal male suffrage and consisted of a nineteen-member Senate and a thirty-nine member House of Delegates.  However, the President of the United States and the Governor appointed by him still held veto powers, and the United States Congress still retained the power to override acts of the island legislature.  The island, in other words, continued to be an unincorporated territory of the United States, and its final status was still to be determined.  The fiscal and economic provisions of the Foraker Act remained virtually intact, but the powers of the United States were separated and individual rights were guaranteed.  The Federal government reserved all powers relating to defense, immigration, the customs,the post office, and certain other governmental functions (Federico Ribes Tovar, A Chronological History of Puerto Rico. New York: Educational  Publishers,  1973, p 431).

It was rather clear by this time that the government of the United States had no intention of returning the island to its people.  The shape of the island in terms of its social, political, and economic structures was beginning to be manifested through the steps which the United States government was taking to maintain colonial rule.  Undoubtedly, the United States was preparing itself, even at this early stage, to subject the people of Puerto Rico to subjugation.  In other words, the mechanism by which Puerto Rico would become a perpetual colony of the United States was already at work.

In March of 1915, the Socialist Party of Puerto Rico was founded in Cayey.  This took place at a worker's congress which was presided over by the labor leader, Santiago Iglesias.  This organization demanded worker's rights.  There was a very loose affiliation between this organization and the Socialist Party of the United States, but the link disappeared between 1920 and 1924.  It has been conventionally accepted that Iglesias initiated the organization of labor in Puerto Rico.  However, militant organizations were active before the arrival of Iglesias in 1896.  Strikes had taken place, and groups of urban handicraftsmen-printers, tinsmiths,carpenters, cigar makers, painters, shoemakers, and others had been introduced clandestinely. Iglesias's role was more catalytic than fundamental, accelerating and consolidating elements already in motion (Dietz, p. 19).

In 1922, the Nationalist Party was organized in Rio Piedras as at a constituent assembly held at the New Theatre. This party was formed as a result of the break that the independence-oriented wing of the Union Party made when that party adopted the Free Associated State formula for Puerto Rico and dropped the alternative of independence from its program.  Some of the dissidents called an assembly of the Nationalist Association which was held in Ponce in April of that year.  It was there that the new organization was planned.

The new party's program was the overthrow of the American colonial regime, immediate independence, and the proclamation of the Republic of Puerto Rico.  The Nationalist Party was seeking to establish in Puerto Rico a free, sovereign, and independent republic.   Under the leadership of Pedro Albizu Campos in 1930, the Nationalist Party adopted a more militant policy and carried out armed revolutionary acts. Albizu is always remembered in Puerto Rican history as the great symbol of Puerto Rican nationalism.

During this period, the push for worker's rights and self-determination continued.  In 1925, Santiago Iglesias was appointed Secretary of the Pan American Labor Federation.  Since the offices of the Federation were in Washington,  Iglesias had to leave Puerto Rico for a time; nevertheless, he continued to advise and assist the Socialist Party of Puerto Rico and the island labor party.  He also vigorously supported measures of interest to Puerto Rico and its workers before the Congress of the United States and the Federal government.

The Nationalist Party carried forward the demands for Puerto Rican independence  throughout the twenties and thirties.  Political independence was a non-negotiable demand for the Nationalist Party and was, in fact, its expressed reason for existence.  Many in this party, including Albizu Campos, advocated for armed struggle against American colonialism.  Albizu and other Nationalists, not willing to abide by the "rules of the game," were subject to escalating repression beginning in October of 1935 with the Massacre of Rio Piedras, where the Nationalists were viciously attacked.  Albizu Campos, was in fact, to spend many years imprisoned in the United States and Puerto Rico for various "crimes" (Dietz, p. 5).

On October 24, 1935, a general student meeting was called at the University in Rio Piedras in order to protest certain remarks which Albizu Campos was said to have made about the University students.  The Nationalists called a meeting in Rio Piedras to prevent the student meeting.  A clash took place between the Nationalists and the police.  One policeman and four Nationalists were killed, and forty persons were wounded.  At the funeral of the Nationalists, Albizu Campos made a passionate speech against the police, against Carlos A. Chardon who was then the Chancellor of the University, and against the Liberal Party. The Puerto Rican Liberal  Party had been founded in 1932.  Its major goal was to establish the recognition of Puerto Rico's sovereignty in the most rapid and practical manner possible (Tovar, p. 454). They, however, were making these demands within the framework of the existing colonial relationship.  In other words, they advocated for a peaceful transition to self-termination, unlike the Nationalists who supported armed struggle as a means of overthrowing the colonial regime.  In his speech, Albizu accused Chardon, the police, and the Liberal Party of making plans to assassinate the Nationalists.  At the end of his speech, Albizu asked those who were present to swear that assassinations would not be allowed to continue in Puerto Rico (Tovar, p. 466).  At its general assembly on December 8, 1935, the Nationalist Party, under the leadership of Albizu, decided not to participate any longer in the "colonial" elections, but to boycott them and demands were made that the United States withdraw peacefully from Puerto Rico, and declared that it would "appeal to the arms" if   America didn't do so; and also declared that every militant of the Nationalist Party had to be on military service; and that the party would float a loan in the island and abroad in order to cover the costs of the struggle (Tovar, p. 467).

On February 13,  1936, Colonel Francis E. Riggs, Chief of the Puerto Rican Police was assassinated by two young Nationalists, Hiram Rosado, and Elias Beauchamp.  This was part of a Nationalist policy of "revolutionary justice."  Rosado and Beauchamp were arrested and slain within a few days.  The police explanation of their deaths were unconvincing.  The assassination of Colonel Riggs brought about a certain change in U.S. policies.  It was decided to gradually replace Americans with Puerto Ricans in certain posts.  But they were required to take firm actions against the Nationalists (Tovar, p. 468).

The Nationalist Party had announced a commemorative parade for Palm Sunday of 1937 and had received the necessary permit from Mayor Jose Tormos Diego.  One hour before the parade was scheduled to start,
the Mayor informed its organizers that he was revoking the permit.  The atmosphere was tense.  The police brought reinforcements from other places in the island.  The Nationalists started their parade all the same, unarmed; the men in their black shirts and white pants, the women in white, some bringing their children.  They were opposed by one hundred and fifty armed policemen.  When the Nationalists began to march, singing La Borinquena, the Puerto Rican national anthem, the police opened fire, killing nineteen persons and wounding more than a hundred, including bystanders.  The Mayor of Ponce had been willing to grant the permit for a peaceful demonstrated, but the Governor, Blanton Winship had ordered him to cancel the permit and had ordered the police to adopt extreme security measures (Tovar, p. 421).

An investigation by the American Civil Liberties Union proved that the police were responsible for the killings. It also established that the Puerto Rican government had violated the citizens' civil rights.  It is still not certain who fired the first shot.  But the police had fired at the crowd with machine guns for fifteen minutes. The number of the dead finally reached twenty-one persons.  According to some reports, more than one hundred and fifty persons were wounded.  About one hundred and fifty demonstrators were arrested.  Several years later, Rafael V. Perez, the District Attorney, exposed in a lecture the guilt of Governor Winship.  Acting under orders from the Governor, the Ponce Police Chief, Colonel Orbeta, had prevented the Mayor of Ponce from acceding to the Nationalists request and had adopted a "tough" policy, although the Mayor had felt that the permit should have been granted,  since the Nationalists had told him their members, including their corps of nurses, had already come from the countryside and wee already assembled for the march (Tovar, p. 472).

As the above developments indicate, a great period of nationalist and ant-imperialist agitation had begun in Puerto Rico, and especially in the wake of the Great Depression which hit the island in 1929.  The crisis had profound repercussions in the society of the colony, and nationalist sentiment as well as socialist teachings developed apace. The Nationalist Party presented a thoroughly economic program whose clear essence was the recovery of the national wealth from the jaws of foreign capital.  Albizu Campos and the Nationalist Party had chosen to have a direct confrontation with imperialism rather than to capitulate to it.  The results were the following: isolation from the Puerto Rican masses, recurrence of the personalistic leadership syndrome, massive imperialist repression, and the eventual dissolution of the Nationalist Party as a political force within the social reality of the colony.

It is worth noting that the nationalism of this period was a combination of radicalism and conservatism.  Albizu Campos had lent to Puerto Rican nationalism a thoroughly anti-imperialist character.  But at the same time, Puerto Rican nationalism had a Catholic, conservative component which was reflected in its notions about the family, religion, etc.  As such, we might say that this contradiction was simply a reflection of the class which it represented.  That is, the strategy of this nationalism was geared to achieving its goal without the support of the Puerto Rican masses, which undoubtedly was the greatest inadequacy and failure of this movement.

A new movement was born under the banner of nationalism in 1938.  It was the populist movement which resulted in the founding of the Popular Democratic Party in 1940 by Luis Munoz Marin.  It was a movement of the masses that became part and parcel of the two great currents of Puerto Rican nationalism of the twentieth century; on the one hand, the current whose goal was solely independence for the island, on the other, the socialist current, a result of class struggles carried out by the workers' movement since the turn of the century.  The Popular Democratic Party was able to preserve for a time the unity between these two basically antagonistic currents.  The one dealt more with the national question, while the other was more concerned with the social question.  In the case of Puerto Rico, the difference between the two questions was that one had to do with whether Puerto Rico would be able to determine its own national destiny or whether the national destiny of Puerto Rico was to be determined by the United States.  The other had to do with what were to be the economic conditions of Puerto Rico, especially in regard to the working class.

It was during this time that Franklin D. Roosevelt had attempted to extend the policy of federal minimum wages to Puerto Rico.  This move was met by resistance on the part of presidents of farmers associations, bankers and industrialists.  The reasoning behind this was that the imposition of federal minimum wages would ruin the Puerto Rican industries such as the needle trades and the sugar industry (Tovar, p. 475).

Concerning the Popular Democratic Party, its greatest opportunity came in the wake of the purge of the top leadership of the Nationalist Party by the United States government, which charged them with "conspiring to overthrow the government of the United States by force and violence (Dietz, p. 40). The road thus became wide open for the new party, which in addition to a pseudo-revolutionary rhetoric, had from its inception the support of the government in Washington. The party became, in effect, the imperialist substitute for the radical nationalism of Albizu Campos (Dietz, p. 40). I use the word "imperialist" to refer to this party in that it basically represented the interests of the government of the United States in regard to Puerto Rico.  The effectiveness of this movement was to be demonstrated by the colonial elections of 1944.

By 1945, the leaders of the independence movement had begun to reemerge within the Popular Democratic Party.  But in that same year, many of these nationalists were being expelled from the party because of its colonial orientation.  Many of those who were expelled came together in 1946 to form the Puerto Rican Independence Party (PIP). Ironically enough, the PIP advocated for independence through peaceful means. including participation in the elections. By this time, Albizu Campos, having been incarcerated in Federal Prison for his revolutionary activities in the 1930's, returned to Puerto Rico and reaffirmed his revolutionary position.  He also began to organize a resistance which culminated with the frustrated Nationalist revolution of 1950.

In the elections of 1948, the Popular Democratic Party became entrenched in Puerto Rican politics when Luis Munoz Marin became the first elected Governor of Puerto Rico. The party was to dominate political life in Puerto Rico until 1968.  From 1948 to 1950, Munoz initiated a campaign to bring United States industries in Puerto Rico on a tax-free basis.  This program was called "Operation Bootstrap."  It was designed to bring economic development to Puerto Rico. The program depended on the input of American investments. The large scale of light industry went hand in hand with a rapid decline in the sugar industry.  For Munoz, at least at that particular time, the question of Puerto Rico's political status was a secondary one to that of the goal of economic development.  It was his understanding that Operation Bootstrap provided, or at least represented, the solution for Puerto Rico's economic problems.  His aim was to establish a system that would provide for Puerto Rico a kind of autonomy that would give it the greatest degree of self-government  within the colonial framework.

On March 14, 1950, Dr. Fernos Isern, Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico in Washington, submitted a bill to Congress for the establishment of a constitutional government by the people of Puerto Rico.  The proposed government would be one which would operate within the framework of a colonial relationship with the United States.  The Senate released a favorable report on the bill, emphasizing that it was neither a statehood nor an independence bill,  The Senate unanimously approved the report. The House of Representatives also approved the bill by making it known that the basic provisions of the Jones Act concerning Puerto Rico's political, social, and economic relationships to the United States would remain unchanged.  The bill became Federal Law 600 and was signed by President Harry Truman on July 4, 1950 (Tovar, p. 509).

The passage of Law 600 added one more factor to the growing discontent in Puerto Rico over the issue of the political status.  The mere fact that the bill was approved in Congress was a confirmation that the government of the United States had no intention of changing the colonial nature of its relationship with Puerto Rico.  As a result, a Nationalist insurrection erupted.  Nationalists launched attacks and were engaged with the military in Jayuya, Utuado, Arecibo, and Mayaguez.  The Republic of Puerto Rico was proclaimed in Jayuya which the Nationalists held for several hours before they were overcome by the National Guard in tough house-to-house fighting.  The revolt resulted in twenty-five deaths, hundreds of injuries, and at least one thousand arrests.  This revolt had taken place on October 30, 1950.

On November the 1st,  Oscar Collazo and Griselio Torresola made an attack on Blair House, the residence of President Harry Truman,  One of the Secret Service men was killed, and another wounded.  Torresola was also killed, and Collazo was wounded.  Governor Munoz Marin expressed indignation at the Nationalist act of violence which had occurred two days after the Nationalist revolt in the island. Collazo was subsequently tried and sentenced in 1952 to life imprisonment.

In March of 1952, a Commonwealth Constitution was approved by a vote of 374,000 to 84,000. Many of the Puerto Rican voters abstained to protest.  It is interesting to note the the word "Commonwealth" was translated into Spanish as "Estado Libre Asociado."  The literal translation of this would be "Free Associated State," but that did not reflect the full reality of what Puerto Rico came to be.  In terms of Puerto Rico, this term came to mean a state in which power resides unalterably in the people and which is not independent, but "associated with a larger political system"(Tovar, p. 518).  The truth of the matter is that Puerto Rico was not associated with the United States because of the will of the Puerto Rican people.  This association was the combined  result of the United States government usurping the island on the one hand, and on the other, a small group of people, namely those in the Popular Democratic Party, who did not in reality represent the interests of the Puerto Rican people, but rather sought to establish and maintain this kind of relationship because of the advantages that it offered them.

It is very easy to interpret the approval of the Constitution as an indication of the people's consent. However, those figures could quite well be indicative of something else.  They could be a reflection of apathy on the part of the people who did not vote.  Or they could also be an indication that those who did not vote did not do so because they knew full well that the elections were being carried out under a process that was designed to perpetuate the colonial relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States.  It is also possible that those who did vote did so on the basis of being misled into thinking that the government of the United States had the best interests of the people of Puerto Rico at heart. Whatever these figures indicated, it was quite clear by this time that the United States had no intention of relinquishing control of Puerto Rico,  at least not in a total sense.

In spite of what was taking place, the Nationalist movement refused to die. In other words, while the government of the United States was doing everything in its power to solidify its control over Puerto Rico, the Nationalist movement was doing everything in its power to move the colony towards self-determination. On March 1, 1954, four Nationalists from New York unfurled a Puerto Rican flag at the visitor's gallery of the House of Representative.  They were Lolita Lebron, Andres Figueroa Cordero, Rafael Cancel Miranda and Irving Flores.  Shouting "Long Live Free Puerto Rico,"  they shot at members of Congress and wounded five. They were arrested, tried, found guilty, and all were sentenced with each one, except Lolita Lebron, receiving twenty-five to seventy-five years in prison.  Lebron received a sixteen to fifty year term.

In the meantime, the economic development of the island was continued under the administration of Luis Munoz Marin. This large-scale development of Puerto Rico's economy by North American industry had a profound impact upon the whole society.  In the 1960's advanced technological industry came to the island. A large number of labor-intensive businesses were set into place.  Many of these were highly mechanized, highly polluting techniques, and required little labor power to function. While this was going on, the sugar industry continued to decline.  As a result, Puerto Ricans began to migrate in large numbers from the countryside to the cities and from the island to the United States.

In December of 1960, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a resolution about "independence for colonial peoples and countries (National Division Board, p. 31). Through this resolution, the General Assembly proclaimed the need for the speedy and complete abolition of colonialism in all its forms.  During the session, the Assembly also approved a resolution defining self-government within an independent state, emphasizing that the associated territory should have the right to determine its internal constitution without external interference.  The Puerto Rican Constituent Assembly had in its draft of the Constitution reserved the people's right to amend this charter and the right to ask for changes in the relationship between the United States and Puerto Rico.  This would supposedly be done on the basis of mutual consent, but the Congress of the United States had, in advance, prohibited any amendment that would be in contradiction with legislation governing the relationship between the Federal government and Puerto Rico ((Tovar, p. 548).

In 1967, a referendum was carried out to determine the attitude of the Puerto Rican people towards the political status of the island. The government of the United States had already declared that they were not bound to accept the results of the referendum as the criteria for which to determine the future relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States.  At that time, there were 1, 067, 349 registered voters. Of these, 707, 293 participated in the referendum.  425, 132 voted for the Commonwealth, 60.41 percent of those who participated.  274, 312, i.e. 38. 08 percent voted for statehood.  4, 248 (0.60 percent), voted for independence.  360, 056 electors, 33.73 percent of the electorate , abstained from voting (Tovar, p. 563). These results seem to indicate that the campaign waged against the referendum by those who favored independence was rather effective and that the great majority of those who advocated for independence abstained from participating.

What began to take place in Puerto Rico after 1967 was what I would call an intensification of the rivalry among the various movements, each calling for some kind or other of political status.  The Popular Democratic Party had begun to lose much of its popularity with the people on the island. In 1968, Luis A. Ferre and the pro-statehood New Progressive Party won the elections.  During this time, unrest continued in Puerto Rico.  Many American corporations suffered damages from sabotage.  Puerto Ricans continued to organize against American military presence on the island.  University students organized against the draft to serve in the armed forces of the United States.  The rural poor began taking over land, erecting shanty towns to protest inadequate housing.  This was truly a period of ferment in regard to the political life in Puerto Rico.

In November of 1971, the Puerto Rican Socialist Party was organized.  This party was, in reality, a continuation of the Pro-Independence Movement founded in 1959.  The prominent spokesperson for this party was Juan Mari Bras.  Besides espousing a Marxist ideology, it also became involved in the recruitment of working class people in order to gain a following.  The party had been known to give support to various worker's strikes.

In August of 1972, at the request of the Cuban government, the Decolonization Committee of the United Nations declared the right of Puerto Rico to be independent.  The resolution had been introduced by Cuba's Ambassador to the United Nations, Ricardo Alarcon.  Juan Mari Bras of the Puerto Rican Socialist Party, and Ruben Berrios of the Puerto Rican Independence Party both considered the resolution "a tremendous step towards independence (Tovar, p. 584)." It was in that same year that the Popular Democratic Party under the leadership of Rafael Hernandez Colon.  This return to power, however, was to last for only four years, as during this period, the economic situation in Puerto Rico began to deteriorate. By January of 1975, inflation was already at 30 percent. According to official statistics, 17.1 percent of the population was unemployed.  By mid-1976, 70 percent of families on the island were eligible to participate in the food stamps program which had been instituted in 1974 by the United States Department of Agriculture. With the return of Puerto Ricans from the United States, the economic situation worsened.  Militant strikes by workers became more frequent.  Labor protest increased. In the meantime, international support for Puerto Rican independence continued to mount steadily.

In 1976, the New Progressive Party returned to power under the leadership of Carlos Romero Barcelo.  He reaffirmed his party's commitment to statehood. In the meantime, Gerald Ford, who was about to complete his term of office as President of the United States, introduced a bill calling for the annexation of Puerto Rico as the fifty-first state.  Two years later, the United Nations Decolonization Committee held a hearing at which all the major Puerto Rican political parties made a presentation of declarations.  The result of this hearing was the adoption of a resolution on decolonization which called for the full transfer of power to the people of Puerto Rico so that they could be free to choose their future without external interventions or control.  The following August, this same committee reaffirmed the 1978 resolution and requested the United States to begin to implement the resolution.

In November of 1980, Carlos Romero Barcelo was reelected as Governor of Puerto Rico. Once again, the party's commitment to statehood was affirmed.  Several months later, Vice-President George Bush, in a visit to the island, declared publicly that the Puerto Rican  people should begin to think in terms of statehood.  The mood of the Republican Party has been the same as that of the New Progressive Party, i.e. that Puerto Rico should be annexed to the United States by becoming the fifty-first state.

Though it is hard to say what percentage of the people of Puerto Rico favor independence, it seems to me that those who favor the alternatives do so for the most part, on the basis of not having sufficient information as to the nature of colonialism and imperialism.  In fact, I would venture to say that the majority of the Puerto Rican people are not as concerned with the political question as much as they are concerned with the issues of "bread and butter."  By this I mean that it seems that the average Puerto Rican seems to be more concerned with having food on the table and a roof over the head for the family.  If it is difficult to demonstrate that the people of Puerto Rico would prefer political independence, then it is possible to see by observation and interaction, that they favor cultural and religious independence.  As an example of what I am saying, the music which one hears upon entering the home of a Puerto Rican family would indicate that the Puerto Rican people, as a whole, desire to preserve their culture.  Additional evidence of this is that when Puerto Rican people come from the island to the United States, they make every attempt to affirm the culture by speaking to their children in Spanish and reminding them that they are to be true to the cultural heritage that they have received.  Even in the area of religion, one can easily detect the desire to maintain the culture intact.  For example, in many of the predominantly Puerto Rican Pentecostal churches in the United States, the young members (youth and children) are being constantly reminded that they should not accept the "modernistic" lifestyles of the "American" churches.  While cultural and political independence are not necessarily one and the same, I suspect that the desire for cultural independence is a manifestation of a subtle desire for political independence.  In that respect, it is appropiate to say that the people of Puerto Rico have been and are still struggling for emancipation.

The Liberation of Puerto Rico: A Theological Perspective

                                                 The Liberation of Puerto Rico: A Theological Perspective

                                                 Preface


The aim of this thesis is to set forth in writing my conviction that the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico should be an independent and sovereign nation. I am writing as an ordained Christian minister who has a theological commitment to the pursuit of social justice.  I am also writing as a Puerto Rican who believes that the people of Puerto Rico have an inalienable right to determine their own national destiny.  Because of my theological commitment to social justice, I believe that this project can have significance for the Christian involved in the social and political arena.  People who are engaged in the professional practice of ministry are called to lead the Church in working for the creation of a society in which justice will prevail.

I will begin by presenting a history of the struggle of the people of Puerto Rico for their self-determination. This will not be a history of Puerto Rico as such, but rather a general overview focusing on those movements  whose aim has been to achieve a free and sovereign nation.  In the final chapter of this book, I will be identifying the two  sources that I consider the basis for my conviction that Puerto Rico should be independent. These two sources are the Scriptures of the Judaeo-Christian tradition, and Liberation Theology as developed and expressed in Latin America. The reason that the Scriptures are being used is that they constitute the primary source of what most professing Christians believe to be right and true.  In that regard, it is possible to derive convictions from the Scriptures that concern the issues of the structures of society.  I will be using those Scriptures which, in my judgment are directly or indirectly related to the issue which is being raised in this thesis.

In addition, I will be making use of Liberation Theology because I believe that there is enough substance in its content from which to establish a valid argument for the liberation of Puerto Rico.  While I do not intend to deal exhaustively with the nature of Liberation Theology, I will be making use of those concepts in that stream of thought which I believe to be of relevance to the issue that is the theme of this project.  In this thesis, Liberation Theology will be treated as a secondary source of Christian beliefs.  In other words, I do not consider Liberation Theology to have the same canonical status as the Scriptures.  Esther and Mortimer Arias, Hugo Assmann, Leonardo Boff, Jose Miguez Bonino, and Gustavo Gutierrez are the major Latin American theologians quoted in this thesis.

I would like to express my gratitude to my adviser, Dr. Kenneth Smith (deceased).  He offered many helpful suggestions to me concerning the formulation of this thesis.  I would also like to thank Dr. Kenneth Cauthen who served as a member of my advisory committee.  His comments and suggestions were very valuable.  I am further grateful to Dr. Gayraud Wilmore, who also served as a member of my advisory committee. He provided some very helpful insights for this thesis with suggestions which he made in regard to the study of the relationship between Caribbean theology and Latin American Liberation Theology.  I would especially like to thank Dr. James H. Evans, who joined my advisory committee due to Dr. Wilmore's extended absence.  I also express my thanks to Mrs. Beverly Maville who assisted me in typing the final manuscript of this dissertation.  The end notes  and the bibliography are located at the end of this thesis.

I would like to dedicate this thesis to my former and now deceased wife Luisa, and to my children, Geoffrey, Jennica, and Jessica.  I am extremely grateful to them for the patience and tolerance which they demonstrated during the time that I was engaged in study and thesis research.

Since writing this book, two of my three children have graced me with three grandchildren, i.e. Geoffrey's daughters Gloria Belen and Abigail Nhaomi, and Jennica's son Benjamin.  I am very grateful to God for them, and glad that they are a very important part important part of my life.

I also dedicate this book to my dearly beloved wife Ruth.  She has been my cheerleader and motivator in my continued writing career, and also the driving force of my authorship of two subsequent books, "Liberation Theology: Under Arrest (Theology from the Prison Standpoint)," and "The Puerto Rican Diaspora: A Model Theology."  I thank her so much for her love and support, and also for being both my cheerleader and my biggest critic.

In marrying Ruth, I have come into a blended family.  Subsequently, I also dedicate this book to her children Cinnamon, Jeremiah, and Adora-rae. I also dedicate it to her grandchildren Briana Joi Ramos, Elliot Davis, Kendrick Davis, Kiana Ramos, Salvatore Ramos, and Isaiah (Choo Choo) Muniz-Ramos.

To all my family, biological and blended, I dedicate this work to them as member of the Puerto Rican community. My hope and prayer is that they will be committed to the struggle of our Puerto Rican people for self-determination.

The Liberation of Puerto Rico: A Theological Perspective- 2nd Edition

                                                    Abstract

                                                   The Liberation of Puerto Rico: A Theological Perspective

This thesis is designed to make a case for the political and economic independence of Puerto Rico.  Historical and theological sources have been used to provide a foundation for the arguments for independence and self-determination.

The historical sources have been used in order to provide sufficient information concerning the exploitation of Puerto Rico by Spain and the United States. Puerto Rico's history was examined in the context of the quest of these two countries from imperial power in the Western Hemisphere.  Spain and the United States are the countries that have been responsible for the colonization of Puerto Rico.

A knowledge of history is essential to a proper understanding of theology.  That is why the historical and theological sources have been combined. The theological sources have been used to give validity to the case for independence.  In conjunction with the historical sources, they constitute the basis on which the advocacy for liberating Puerto Rico is made.

The Bible has been treated as a theological source.  It is the primary source of the Christian's understanding of God, humanity and the world.  The use of Scriptures and Latin American Liberation Theology leads one to the definite conclusion that the present political arrangement in Puerto Rico requires change. This is so because Puerto Rico is part of Latin America.


                                              The Liberation of Puerto Rico: A Theological Perspective

                                              A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of

                                              Colgate Rochester Divinity School

                                              Bexley Hall

                                              Crozer Theological Seminary

                                              In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

                                              Doctor of Ministry

                                              By

                                             Juan A. Carmona

                                             April 1982




                                           Preface to the 2nd Edition
                                           




                                         

This second edition is being written and submitted to my readers 34 years after the original writing and submission to the faculty of the Colgate Rochester Divinity School/Bexley Hall/Crozer Theological Seminary. There have been changes in both Puerto Rico and in my personal life since the writing of the first edition. Different people have served as Governors of the island.  The two political parties, i.e. the Popular Democratic (Commonwealth) Party and the New Progressive (Statehood) Party have each had their turn in having governors from their particular party presiding over the government of the island.

In November of 2009, my wife of thirty five years (Luisa) and I were divorced.  That same year, my present wife (Ruth) and I were married.  My former wife (Luisa), passed away on March 8, 2016.  My three children Geoffrey, Jennica, and Jessica are now grown adults exercising their respective professions in different geographical locations.  I am honored and privileged to be a grandfather to three children: Gloria Belen, Abigail Naomi, and Benjamin.

As in the first edition, I dedicate this dissertation to my three children, and also to the memory of their mother who was with me at the time of writing. My children, in their own way, have been committed to the struggle of our Puerto Rican people for self-determination, and also for the democratic rights of Puerto Ricans in the Diaspora of the USA.  I trust that they will continue in that struggle. My hope and prayer is that my grandchildren will also be engaged in that struggle.

I dedicate this book to my dear childhood friend and present wife Ruth who has been my cheerleader and motivator in continuing my writing and publishing career.  I thank her for her love and ongoing support.

Juan A. Carmona

July 2016


                                                     





                                                 

                                             
                                       


                                           

 

A Theological Conundrum: Liberation Theology vs. Western Theology

                 A Theological Conundrum: Liberation Theology vs. Western Theology

                 By Dr. Juan A. Carmona


One of the major complex issues that I have faced as a Puerto-Rican minister and theologian, is how to balance or integrate the theology that I grew up with (even in the Hispanic Church) with the theology that has become my own since my seminary days in the late 1970's and early 1980's. In the predominantly Puerto Rican/Hispanic circles that that I grew up and ministered in, the biblical hermeneutics and theology were actually importations of Western (Euro-American) theology that came to our Latin American countries through the Protestant Missionary Enterprise.  Our doctrines were based on translations from English to Spanish, and reflected the theological outlook of the missionaries from Europe and the USA.  Even some of the hymns that we sang in the Hispanic Church were translations of hymns that were originally written in English.  Both the liturgy and theology in our Hispanic churches were colonial importations.

Some may want to ask as to whether this applies only to the so-called "conservative/evangelical" theology. The answer is absolutely "No!"  While the Hispanic-American Church as a whole operates with the theology of the so-called "conservative/evangelical" orientation, even the so-called "liberal" theology which came from Europe and has made some inroads into the Hispanic Church community, was constructed independently of the experience of the oppression and suffering of Hispanic and other people whose origins are in the so-called "Third World."  We can include in this the "Social Gospel" component of liberalism. These theologies, for the most part, did not address our situation as a colonized and subjugated people or community in the USA.  If anything, the theology, intentionally, or unintentionally, served to project the notion that anything which came out of Euro-America, be it philosophy or theology, was inherently superior and universally valid in all times and in all places.  The Social Gospel, though intended to address the evils of society, was not oriented towards structural and systemic change, but rather towards a "reformation" of the social, economic, and political structures.

Liberation Theology, emerging out of Latin America, called attention to the economic, social, and political chaos in Latin America, and eventually a Liberation Theology of the Hispanic Diaspora in the USA was developed in order to address the secondary class status that Hispanic-Americans are subjected to.

As a Puerto Rican/Hispanic theologian who is preparing to teach Latin American theology in an Asian context, I can't help but wonder what baggage do I bring with me?  Do I seek to bring a mixture of Euro-American and Latin American Liberation Theology?  Do I limit myself to lecturing exclusively on Latin American theology?

There are no easy answers to these questions.  The task of theology is continuous one. There are so many issues to take into consideration.  New discoveries and insights come into play.  All theology is tentative. But the struggle to find clarity of thinking and action continues.

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona