Final thoughts

The final days of the Ramonat Seminar were truly incredible. I am over the moon about having turned in a paper I can be proud of and being fortunate enough to win the Ramonat Prize. As a graduating senior, I have had a heightened level of appreciation for events like the colloquium as my time at Loyola dwindles down. The celebratory champagne toast after we all finished giving our presentations was perhaps one of the most euphoric moments of my senior year. I will never forget it!

In my opinion, the best part of the seminar was the small, intimate class size. Having a small class allowed Dr. Karamanski and Marie to give each one of us more attention, fostered a more constructive learning environment, and insured we would have more in-depth discussions and form strong professional relationships within our class. I do wish I had more time to work on my paper, but am happy to announce that I’ll actually be expanding the paper over this summer when I have more time on my hands.  I feel as if I made the most progress with my presentation skills throughout the seminar. While the presentations were only the last two weeks of the course, they were based on the written project I had been working on for months. Connecting the two parts of the seminar–oral and written–was not easy, but definitely where I made the most progress, which will surely assist me in the future.

Coming into the Ramonat seminar last year, I did not know what to expect. However, after finishing up last Saturday I can safely say that the Ramonat was one of the most challenging and, therefore, enlightening parts of my undergraduate career. I could not have imaged a better way to round off my undergraduate experience and historical training at Loyola. Proud to of been a Ramonat Scholar!


Feedback on My First Draft

Upon completing my first draft, I was eager to get feedback so I could straighten out the various loose ends in my paper. After I got my initial feedback from Marie, her and I met in person to discuss my draft at length. One revision we discussed was adding a more in depth description of how visitors visually experience Mission San Juan Capistrano. While adding photos throughout the paper will help, mentioning the layout and most visible features of the mission, such as the elaborate gardens that greet visitors immediately upon entry, will also help readers better understand how specific messages and themes are conveyed at the mission. These are the kinds of details I need to focus on as I begin the revision process.

The biggest challenge so far has been figuring out how to write a sufficient public history paper. Although I believe I am off to a good start, providing more original commentary by eliminating non-essential quotes, adding my own photos of the mission, and elaborating on specific points will strengthen the argument of the paper. One way I intend on doing this is by building off of Michel-Rolf Trouillot’s four-part model without directly quoting or paraphrasing it. Doing so will give me more freedom to tailor Trouillot’s ideas to my own evidence. Another detail that needs to be discussed more is how downtown San Juan Capistrano is branded by the mission. Trash cans and local businesses, for instance, utilize mission architecture and symbols–such as the swallows–in their structure and signage. Though it will take time to add these revisions, I am confident they will strengthen my paper significantly.

Perhaps the strongest point of my paper thus far comes from historian Elizabeth Kryder-Reid, who argues the aesthetic mission gardens posses, “underlying ideologies of identity, power, and privilege” (Kryder-Reid, 17). Kryder-Reid’s argument is one that can be related to several other features of the mission, such as the statues of Fr. Serra and riders of El Viaje de Portolá. Moving forward, I plan on using Kryder-Reid as a bigger jumping off point.



Writing My First Draft

After getting substantial feedback after submitting my outline a couple weeks ago, I was eager to get going on my first draft.  I anticipated to go through the a typical cycle of excitement, nervousness, frustration, and relief that comes along with writing any research paper, which did in fact happen. I both consulted my outline and added entirely new ideas to complete as much as I could of the draft before the deadline closed.
The most satisfying part of writing my first draft was finally getting to see how my initial ideas look on paper. Organizing a paper in an outline is one thing, but writing it in essay format is another. I struggled quite a bit to write an introduction that would both catch the reader and transition smoothly into my thesis. Since my paper is a public history, I keep going back and forth between how to present specific ideas in contrast to a standard social or cultural history paper. I do, however, also find the challenge exciting and look forward to having improved my writing and historical analysis skills by the time my final draft is submitted.
My biggest struggle was figuring out how I would structure my paper. My outline provided a guideline for how I presented general content and evidence, but I did deviate from my original plan and attempted to integrate the first and second halves of my outline–discussing romantic versus revisionist mission narratives. The idea was to make the two become more in dialogue with each other throughout the whole paper, which is still far from perfect. I still have plenty of work to do on my paper’s structure, such as including more transition sentences and clarifying points, but I am glad I decided to change it from my original outline. I also severely struggled finding a medium in my argument. I wish to convey the faults of both the overtly romantic and radically revisionist narratives of the mission by presenting a balanced, impartial history, since that is what I believe the history of the California missions (specifically Mission San Juan Capistrano) is. I, therefore, very much look forward to getting feedback from Dr. Karamaski and Marie. As public historians, their insight and ideas will, undoubtedly, help me drastically improve my paper.

Writing My Outline

Despite being a history major, I have never written extensive outlines for my essays. The template given out during class a couple weeks ago gave me a general sense of what was expected, but actually writing the outline was still a challenge. I began by consulting my notes and writing down what I envisioned as key sections of my paper. This became my first section, titled “Summary,” which I used as a reference for my next sections: “Creation of the romantic narrative,” “Rise of the counter-narrative,” and “Need for Reconciliation.” These sections each contain subsections and bullet points that provide brief commentaries and relevant evidence, including specific sources in laid out in footnotes. The outline was finished once each part of the “Summary” section was touched on in subsequent sections. Although feedback on the structure, content, and argument in my outline is necessary before moving forward, I am pleased to have significantly more direction going into writing the first draft of my paper.
I feel as if the proposed structure for my essay is the strongest part of my outline. Utilizing a four-step model–pulled from Michael-Ralph Trouillot’s Silencing the Past–for analyzing the creation of the California missions’ public history will be a good way to blend Mission San Juan Capistrano into my paper. For instance, the first step, or “moment,” will explore how the Acjachemen had no direct role in writing primary accounts, such as annual mission reports composed by missionaries, which were among the earliest primary sources that established ‘facts’ regarding Mission San Juan Capistrano. However, I do still need to consider other kinds of primary sources, such as mission art or artifacts, that could encompass a broader view of potential neophyte involvement in the creation of primary ‘facts’ or sources.
I was extremely surprised by how long my outline turned out to be. My writing in the outline is may be less precise and polished as it will be in my first draft, but I am glad I can now take a step back to reorganize and correct my initial paper outline while writing my first draft. For example, I now see that specific terminology and points raised in my outline are too condemnatory of modern mission administrators. Making this mistake in my outline will allow me to compose clearer and more concise arguments in the first draft of my paper. My experience writing this paper outline has convinced me to start composing outlines for all of my future writing assignments.

Primary Sources

Researching for a public history of the California missions has required gathering primary accounts from mission visitors, administrators, neophyte decedents, information distributed by the mission, and observing the mission’s historical presentation. The most useful primary sources I have gathered thus far include an interview I conducted with a Mission San Juan Capistrano (SJC) administrator and books sold by Missions SJC and San Fernando Rey de España.
To get insights on the mission’s memory from its administrators, I interviewed Megan Dukett—the Education and Interpretive Program Director at Mission SJC. She has worked at the mission for nearly ten years and oversees a variety of operations at the mission, including all educational programs and the mission audio tour script. Unfortunately the interview only lasted about twenty-five minutes over the phone since its the mission’s high season, but within that time I was able to gather enough information to assess her pro-mission bias. For instance, when discussing the controversy over the canonization of Fr. Serra, she explained, “it’s complicated and you have to put yourself in the shoes of the [priests] that were there.”  Her answer is one of the most common explanations used to defend the legacy of Fr. Serra. Although understanding the society and culture Fr. Serra and his contemporaries lived in, a controversial history deserves a better answer than ‘it’s complicated.’
Other sources I have found incredibly beneficial to my research are the mission biographies sold in the mission gift shops. Front and center in Mission SJC’s gift store is the Mission San Juan Capistrano: Official Commemorative Guide— a book published in 2015 written by Megan Dukett. The forty-seven page guide provides an chronological history of the mission with sections such as the Founding Period (1769-1834), Life at the Mission (1776-1834), Secularization (1834-1844), and Mission Preservation (1941-present). The book is a literal example of how mission administrators, who favor advertising the positive parts of the mission’s history, influence the history told to the public. While discussing neophyte life at the mission, the book lists disease and a change in lifestyle as the most pressing hardships Native Americans face. These two features were undoubtedly legitimate hardships and are rightly mentioned, but not elaborated on within the book. The book fails to elaborate on any potentially damning details of the latter hardship, such as how neophytes were physically punished if they tried to leave the mission without the head priest’s consent. This is an excellent example of how the public memory of the missions have yet to provide a wholistic picture of the mission’s history.
One of the most difficult parts of working with my primary sources is that useful information is rarely explicitly stated. Analyzing what is not said is equally, if not more so, important in a public history project. The absence of controversy is, after all, the issue at hand.

Questions I Hope to Answer

How have the missions influenced the public culture and memory of California?

What are the most important messages and themes presented to visitors of the missions?

Why does the story of the missions overlook the more controversial aspects of their history, such as the mass Indian graves?

How have past and present administrators shaped the history displayed at the missions?

Are the missions really an appropriate symbol of California identity and culture?

Visit to Mission San Juan Capistrano

“Memory not only conserves the past but adjusts recall to current needs.” – Kenneth E. Foote, Shadowed Ground, 5.


This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Mission San Juan Capistrano prides itself on being the “Jewel of the Missions.” Both past and present administrators deserve credit for revitalizing the cultural, historical, and religious significance of the mission. Father John O’Sullivan, for instance, is hailed for reconstructing the mission both physically and spiritually in the early 20th century. Two of his most important ventures included the restoration of the Serra Chapel—the last standing chapel Fr. Serra practiced mass in—and the popularization of the Legend of the Swallows.

The Legend of the Swallows is celebrated with two annual community celebrations, St. Joseph’s Day and San Juan Capistrano’s Feast Day, which respectively commemorate the return and departure of the American Swallows. The swallows are introduced to mission visitors in a welcome video playing on loop inside the museum. In the video, the swallows are quickly deemed one of the mission’s main attractions. Everyday the mission offers the “Swallows Walk and Talk Tour” to draw in guests curious about the acclaimed history and celebrated tradition of swallow migration to the mission ( The legend was constructed by Fr. O’Sullivan, who published a series of articles and a book romanticizing the spectacle of swallow migration. By presenting the swallows as unique to the mission, Fr. O’Sullivan’s efforts helped raise money for the mission’s restoration and preservation. Inspired by Fr. O’Sullivan’s message, singer and songwriter Leon René—writer of the famous song “Rockin’ Robin—wrote his hit song “When the Swallows Come Back to Capistrano” in 1939. The song nearly topped the U.S. music charts and earned the mission national recognition. It should, therefore, come as no surprise that the Legend of the Swallows is one of the most advertised features of the mission. However, in promoting the swallow legend, Fr. O’Sullivan inadvertently veiled the mission’s more tragic history.

Having gone through several different eras throughout its life—the Mission Period (1769-1834), Secularization (1834-1844), U.S. Statehood and Decline (1865-1895), and Preservation (1895-1940)—the mission has developed a layered history only briefly covered at the mission today. During the Mission Period, thousands of Indians became baptized neophytes at the mission and radically changed their lives forever. While some good came out of missionizing the local Acjachemen people, the mission’s exhibits fail to recognize the more controversial aspects of the mission process. For instance, in the two rooms dedicated to the life and culture of the Acjachemen, only one museum label discusses native hardships. The label mentions how native food shortages and the spread of disease resulted from missionization, but in limited form and without mention of the complex relationship between Franciscan and neophyte residents of the mission. Once the Acjachemen entered the mission, they were dominated by Franciscan authority and had little control over their own lives. Neophytes were also strictly prohibited from ever leaving the mission.

Changes and Challenges for the Acjachemen People

The romanticized history of the swallow migration dominates the narrative at San Juan Capistrano. An annual parade, daily “Swallows Walk and Talk” tours, and various signs throughout the mission all commemorate the tradition. The mission also displays an overwhelmingly positive image of the Spanish Franciscans. At the same time, a mass Indian grave in the mission cemetery houses the bodies of approximately 3,000 mission Indians. The mission placed a cross statue overlooking the grave of Fr. O’Sullivan and a single plaque to honor the fallen neophytes. The little attention given to the massive burial in comparison to other features of the mission is representative of how the public memory of the mission has been perhaps undeservingly complementary of such a complex history.


This slideshow requires JavaScript.