Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 693 views

    05 Bartolomé de Las Casas, in Defense of The Indians

    Uploaded by

    Elmehdi Mayou
    1. Bartolomé de Las Casas argues against Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda's position that Spain had the right to enslave Indigenous peoples in the Americas because they were inferior and less civilized. 2. Las Casas rejects Sepúlveda's argument based on his own experience in Spanish America, where he witnessed the devastating human impact of colonization. 3. Las Casas asserts that many Indigenous peoples had important kingdoms, large populations, great cities, kings, laws, and commerce - demonstrating that they were capable of self-governance and should not be subjugated or stripped of their liberty.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    05 Bartolomé de Las Casas, in Defense of The Indians

    Uploaded by

    Elmehdi Mayou
    693 views3 pages
    1. Bartolomé de Las Casas argues against Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda's position that Spain had the right to enslave Indigenous peoples in the Americas because they were inferior and less civilized. 2. Las Casas rejects Sepúlveda's argument based on his own experience in Spanish America, where he witnessed the devastating human impact of colonization. 3. Las Casas asserts that many Indigenous peoples had important kingdoms, large populations, great cities, kings, laws, and commerce - demonstrating that they were capable of self-governance and should not be subjugated or stripped of their liberty.

    Original Title

    05 Bartolomé de Las Casas, In Defense of the Indians

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. Bartolomé de Las Casas argues against Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda's position that Spain had the right to enslave Indigenous peoples in the Americas because they were inferior and less civilized. 2. Las Casas rejects Sepúlveda's argument based on his own experience in Spanish America, where he witnessed the devastating human impact of colonization. 3. Las Casas asserts that many Indigenous peoples had important kingdoms, large populations, great cities, kings, laws, and commerce - demonstrating that they were capable of self-governance and should not be subjugated or stripped of their liberty.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    693 views3 pages

    05 Bartolomé de Las Casas, in Defense of The Indians

    Uploaded by

    Elmehdi Mayou
    1. Bartolomé de Las Casas argues against Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda's position that Spain had the right to enslave Indigenous peoples in the Americas because they were inferior and less civilized. 2. Las Casas rejects Sepúlveda's argument based on his own experience in Spanish America, where he witnessed the devastating human impact of colonization. 3. Las Casas asserts that many Indigenous peoples had important kingdoms, large populations, great cities, kings, laws, and commerce - demonstrating that they were capable of self-governance and should not be subjugated or stripped of their liberty.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3
    At a glance
    Powered by AI
    The document discusses the debate between Sepúlveda and Las Casas over whether the Spanish conquest and treatment of Amerindians was justified. Sepúlveda argued Amerindians were inferior and could be enslaved, while Las Casas rejected this view and defended Amerindian civilization.

    The document discusses a debate held in 1550 at the University of Valladolid to evaluate the positions of Sepúlveda and Las Casas on the Spanish treatment of Amerindians. Sepúlveda argued Amerindians were inferior and could be enslaved, while Las Casas rejected this view.

    Las Casas rejects Sepúlveda's argument based on his own experience in Spanish America, where he witnessed the devastating human impact of colonization. He was also swayed by local Dominicans' campaign against mistreatment of Indians. Las Casas argues Amerindians had properly organized states and good laws before the Spanish arrived.

    Bartolom de Las Casas, In Defense of the Indians (c.

    15481550)
    Indigenous peoples in the Americas suffered heavily under Spanish colonization. Millions died as the result of
    war and disease, and many who remained were used as forced labor. The Amerindians' fate did not go
    unnoticed in Europe, where the ethical and legal basis of their harsh treatment became the subject of significant
    debate. Charles V, king of Spain and the Holy Roman Emperor, added fuel to the fire. In 1550, he ordered a
    panel of lawyers and theologians at the University of Valladolid to evaluate the positions of two prominent
    opposing voices on the issue, Juan Gins de Seplveda (14901573) and Bartolom de Las Casas (1474
    1566). Drawing heavily on Aristotle's notion that hierarchy was natural, Seplveda argued that the Spanish had
    the right to enslave Amerindians because they were an inferior and less civilized people. Las Casas, whose
    response is excerpted below, rejected Seplveda's position, based in part on his own experience living in
    Spanish America. Here he witnessed firsthand the devastating human impact of colonization and was ultimately
    swayed by the local Dominicans' campaign against the mistreatment of Indians. He joined the order and
    thereafter was a vocal advocate for Amerindians until his death in 1566. Although the Valladolid panel did not
    declare a winner, in the end, Las Casas's views did not hold the day in the New World.
    From Bartolom de Las Casas, In Defense of the Indians, trans. Stafford Poole (DeKalb: Northern Illinois
    University Press, 1974), 4146.
    As a result of the points we have proved and made clear, the distinction the Philosopher [Aristotle]
    makes between the two above-mentioned kinds of barbarian is evident. For those he deals with in the first book
    of the Politics, and whom we have just discussed, are barbarians without qualification, in the proper and strict
    sense of the word, that is, dull witted and lacking in the reasoning powers necessary for self-government. They
    are without laws, without king, etc. For this reason they are by nature unfitted for rule.
    However, he admits, and proves, that the barbarians he deals with in the third book of the same work
    have a lawful, just, and natural government. Even though they lack the art and use of writing, they are not
    wanting in the capacity and skill to rule and govern themselves, both publicly and privately. Thus they have
    kingdoms, communities, and cities that they govern wisely according to their laws and customs. Thus their
    government is legitimate and natural, even though it has some resemblance to tyranny. From these statements
    we have no choice but to conclude that the rulers of such nations enjoy the use of reason and that their people
    and the inhabitants of their provinces do not lack peace and justice. Otherwise they could not be established or
    preserved as political entities for long. This is made clear by the Philosopher and Augustine. Therefore not all
    barbarians are irrational or natural slaves or unfit for government. Some barbarians, then, in accord with justice
    and nature, have kingdoms, royal dignities, jurisdiction, and good laws, and there is among them lawful
    government.
    Now if we shall have shown that among our Indians of the western and southern shores (granting that
    we call them barbarians and that they are barbarians) there are important kingdoms, large numbers of people
    who live settled lives in a society, great cities, kings, judges and laws, persons who engage in commerce,
    buying, selling, lending, and the other contracts of the law of nations, will it not stand proved that the Reverend
    Doctor Seplveda has spoken wrongly and viciously against peoples like these, either out of malice or
    ignorance of Aristotle's teaching, and, therefore, has falsely and perhaps irreparably slandered them before the
    entire world? From the fact that the Indians are barbarians it does not necessarily follow that they are incapable
    of government and have to be ruled by others, except to be taught about the Catholic faith and to be admitted to
    the holy sacraments. They are not ignorant, inhuman, or bestial. Rather, long before they had heard the word
    Spaniard they had properly or ga nized states, wisely ordered by excellent laws, religion, and custom. They
    cultivated friendship and, bound together in common fellowship, lived in populous cities in which they wisely
    administered the affairs of both peace and war justly and equitably, truly governed by laws that at very many
    points surpass ours, and could have won the admiration of the sages of Athens. . . .

    Bartolom de Las Casas, In Defense of the Indians (c. 15481550)


    Now if they are to be subjugated by war because they are ignorant of polished literature, let Seplveda
    hear Trogus Pompey:
    Nor could the Spaniards submit to the yoke of a conquered province until Caesar Augustus, after he had
    conquered the world, turned his victorious armies against them and organized that barbaric and wild people as
    a province, once he had led them by law to a more civilized way of life.
    Now see how he called the Spanish people barbaric and wild. I would like to hear Seplveda, in his
    cleverness, answer this question: Does he think that the war of the Romans against the Spanish was justified in
    order to free them from barbarism? And this question also: Did the Spanish wage an unjust war when they
    vigorously defended themselves against them?
    Next, I call the Spaniards who plunder that unhappy people torturers. Do you think that the Romans,
    once they had subjugated the wild and barbaric peoples of Spain, could with secure right divide all of you
    among themselves, handing over so many head of both males and females as allotments to individuals? And do
    you then conclude that the Romans could have stripped your rulers of their authority and consigned all of you,
    after you had been deprived of your liberty, to wretched labors, especially in searching for gold and silver lodes
    and mining and refining the metals? And if the Romans finally did that, . . . [would you not judge] that you also
    have the right to defend your freedom, indeed your very life, by war? Seplveda, would you have permitted
    Saint James to evangelize your own people of Crdoba in that way? For God's sake and man's faith in him, is
    this the way to impose the yoke of Christ on Christian men? Is this the way to remove wild barbarism from the
    minds of barbarians? Is it not, rather, to act like thieves, cut-throats, and cruel plunderers and to drive the
    gentlest of people headlong into despair? The Indian race is not that barbaric, nor are they dull witted or stupid,
    but they are easy to teach and very talented in learning all the liberal arts, and very ready to accept, honor, and
    observe the Christian religion and correct their sins (as experience has taught) once priests have introduced
    them to the sacred mysteries and taught them the word of God. They have been endowed with excellent
    conduct, and before the coming of the Spaniards, as we have said, they had political states that were well
    founded on beneficial laws.
    Now if Seplveda had wanted, as a serious man should, to know the full truth before he sat down to
    write with his mind corrupted by the lies of tyrants, he should have consulted the honest religious who have
    lived among those peoples for many years and know their endowments of character and industry, as well as the
    progress they have made in religion and morality. . . .
    From this it is clear that the basis for Seplveda's teaching that these people are uncivilized and ignorant
    is worse than false. Yet even if we were to grant that this race has no keenness of mind or artistic ability,
    certainly they are not, in consequence, obliged to submit themselves to those who are more intelligent and to
    adopt their ways, so that, if they refuse, they may be subdued by having war waged against them and be
    enslaved, as happens today. For men are obliged by the natural law to do many things they cannot be forced to
    do against their will. We are bound by the natural law to embrace virtue and imitate the uprightness of good
    men. No one, however, is punished for being bad unless he is guilty of rebellion. Where the Catholic faith has
    been preached in a Christian manner and as it ought to be, all men are bound by the natural law to accept it, yet
    no one is forced to accept the faith of Christ. No one is punished because he is sunk in vice, unless he is
    rebellious or harms the property and persons of others. No one is forced to embrace virtue and show himself as
    a good man. . . .
    . . . Therefore, not even a truly wise man may force an ignorant barbarian to submit to him, especially by
    yielding his liberty, without doing him an injustice. This the poor Indians suffer, with extreme injustice, against
    all the laws of God and of men and against the law of nature itself.

    Bartolom de Las Casas, In Defense of the Indians (c. 15481550)


    Document questions:
    Answer the following questions for discussion in class on the day specified by the syllabus.
    Be sure to note where the information to answer the question is located in the document (i.e., Highlighting
    or notes in the margin) but, DO NOT copy and paste parts of the document for your answer. (This is
    plagiarism)
    Answer the questions in your own words. You may hand write or word process your answers.
    1. What type of document is this? (Primary/Secondary and what IS it?) ________________________________
    __________________________________________________________________________________________
    2. What is the bias of this Author, as it relates to this topic? What might account for this bias?
    __________________________________________________________________________________________
    __________________________________________________________________________________________
    3. Why does Las Casas reject Seplveda's argument? What is the basis of his reasoning?
    __________________________________________________________________________________________
    __________________________________________________________________________________________
    __________________________________________________________________________________________
    4 How does Las Casas depict Amerindian civilization? What attributes does he highlight and why?
    __________________________________________________________________________________________
    __________________________________________________________________________________________
    __________________________________________________________________________________________
    5. Why does Las Casas cite the example of Rome's conquest of Spain under Caesar Augustus to support his
    point?
    __________________________________________________________________________________________
    __________________________________________________________________________________________
    6. Despite Las Casas's vigorous defense of the Indians, what prejudices and assumptions of his own did he bring
    to bear in this work?
    __________________________________________________________________________________________
    __________________________________________________________________________________________
    __________________________________________________________________________________________

    You might also like