I find his critique on Colonialism in the Paradise text to be very profound. I can see this becoming very controversial for the time. I am curious to hear other students’ perspectives on the matter. Do you think its parallels would have warranted a reaction similar to that of Paradise Lost (A text famous for its critique on the bible, God, and the fall of Lucifer) or other critiques of the religion? I think its main difference with Paradise lost is that it’s not directly critiquing the bible, rather the people who are colonizing their culture and changing their paradise for the worse in the name of God. It does a good job of pointing out the irony of holiness in this type of setting. I could see the lines where he refers to the colonizers as “serpents [who] spoke, forbade the fruit and decided paradise among themselves” could be a particularly divisive statement as a snake is considered to be a representation of the devil. It also indirectly brings to light the idea of religious freedom. As much as it is their right to practice Christianity it is also the right of the “Indio” to freely embrace their paradise in order to embrace their spirituality. Why should religious freedom be only applicable to Christians at the expense of Native Americans? I hope the effect of this poem did manage to provide a meaningful critique that hopefully some Christians at the time took to heart and convinced them to become supporters of indigenous beliefs, despite their differences.
Hi Griffin, lovely text here, I like how you draw parallels between Paradise and Paradise Lost. Furthermore, to answer your question, I too think why Paradise didn’t draw as much criticism/backlash as Paradise Lost was because unlike the latter, Paradise did not direct criticize the central beliefs of Christianity, but instead criticizing the Colonists as a whole – the serpent reference was merely a tiny jab at religion in which many overlooked. Moreover, I believe that the Indigenous should have not only religious freedom, but freedom in general.