Who was Bartolome de las Casas and what was his argument?
This tract, a summary of a debate concerning the subjugation of Indians, contains the arguments of Bartolomé de Las Casas, the Bishop of Chiapas, Mexico, and Juan Gines Sepulveda, an influential Spanish philosopher, concerning the treatment of American Indians in the New World.
How did Sepulveda argue against Las Casas?
Sepulveda argued against Las Casas on behalf of the colonists’ property rights. Sepulveda rationalized Spanish treatment of American Indians by arguing that Indians were "natural slaves" and that Spanish presence in the New World would benefit them. Citing the Bible and canon law, Las Casas responded, "All the World is Human!"
What was the effect of the Las Casas debate?
The debate cemented Las Casas's position as the lead defender of the Indians in the Spanish Empire, and further weakened the encomienda system. However, it did not substantially alter Spanish treatment of the Indians.
How did Las Casas feel about the Indians?
This empathetic attitude toward the Indians exposed Las Casas to much criticism from other Europeans. He found himself having to defend his perspective on the conquest often, yet his most noted antagonist was probably Juan Gines de Sepulveda.
What was the Las Casas debate?
A controversial theologian, Dominican friar and Bishop of Chiapas Bartolomé de las Casas, argued that the Amerindians were free men in the natural order despite their practice of human sacrifices and other such customs, deserving the same consideration as the colonizers.
What are de Las Casas main arguments about the Spaniards?
While the Pope had granted Spain sovereignty over the New World, de Las Casas argued that the property rights and rights to their own labor still belonged to the native peoples. Natives were subjects of the Spanish crown, and to treat them as less than human violated the laws of God, nature, and Spain.
What was Sepulveda's point of view towards natives?
1a: Sepulveda's point of view on natives was negative, he saw them as savages and inferior to the Spanish. He compared the two by saying the natives were as inferior as women are to men, and that the men were the Conquistadors.
How are Las Casas views of the Indians different from those of Sepulveda?
Las Casas believed that the natives were real people and deserved to be treated like real people while Sepulveda believed that the natives were animals, thus the treatment of them under the encomienda system was justified.
What did Bartolome de las Casas speak out against?
After participating in the conquest of Cuba, Las Casas freed his own slaves and spoke out against Spanish cruelties and injustices in the empire. He argued for the equal humanity and natural rights of the Native Americans.
What did Bartolome de las Casas believe?
Bartolomé de Las Casas (1484-1566) was a Spanish Dominican friar and former conquistador who revealed the atrocities of the conquests of New Spain and Peru and who strove to protect the basic rights of indigenous peoples in the Spanish Empire. For this reason, Las Casas is often called the 'Defender of the Indians'.
What did Sepulveda believe?
He claimed that the Indians had no ruler, and no laws, so any civilized man could legitimately appropriate them. In other words, Sepúlveda considered the Indians to be pre-social men with no rights or property.
What was Bartolome de las Casas primary concern regarding Spanish settlement of the Americas?
He argued for the equal humanity and natural rights of the Native Americans. Las Casas worked for the conversion of Native Americans to Christianity and for their better treatment.
What major issues does Bartolome de las Casas bring up regarding Spanish expeditions in the Caribbean?
What major issues does Bartolome de las Casas bring up regarding Spanish expeditions in the Caribbean? The Indians were treated very badly. Mother's would even drown their children to spare them from the torture of the Spanish. Identify one early and subsequent motive that drove Columbus to oppress indigenous peoples.
What is the purpose of colonization according to de las Casas?
Las Casas was against the use of brutal force in conversion but agreed with colonisation as a way of expanding the Catholic faith. The Spanish ultimately contributed to the destruction of the Native Americans through violent and unwarranted massacres, and the introduction of religion and disease.
What did the Spaniards do to the natives?
From first contact in the Caribbean, Spaniards uprooted natives from their homelands, forced them to give up their treasures, and placed them in captivity.
What did Sepulveda argue against?
Sepulveda argued against Las Casas on behalf of the colonists’ property rights. Sepulveda rationalized Spanish treatment of American Indians by arguing that Indians were "natural slaves" and that Spanish presence in the New World would benefit them.
When did Charles V end the Encomienda system?
His efforts to end the encomienda system of land ownership and forced labor culminated in 1550, when Charles V convened the Council of Valladolid in Spain to consider whether Spanish colonists had the right to enslave Indians and take their lands.
Who had the right to rule the barbarians of the New World?
The Spanish have a perfect right to rule these barbarians of the New World and the adjacent islands, who in prudence, skill, virtues, and humanity are as inferior to the Spanish as children to adults, or women to men; for there exists between the two as great a difference as between savage and cruel races and the most merciful, between the most intemperate [lacking in self-control] and the moderate and temperate, and, I might even say, between apes and men.
Who freed Indian slaves?
Bartolomé de las Casas, Spanish Catholic priest who freed his Indian slaves before writing his History of the Indies, 1528. [1]
Why is Las Casas hesitant to turn to the moral superiority of Christianity to justify actions that would violate the rights?
While Las Casas is clearly hesitant to turn to the moral superiority of Christianity to justify actions that would violate the rights of the Other because he has faith that the Other will simply choose the “universal” truth, he does recognize that the moral high ground is imbued with political force to mold the identity of the Other to fit his view of the human. The Other does not have a say in setting the conditions of the good or the limits of respected identity, but must eventually conform to a specific image that fits the Las Casasian image. Being Other in his world thus provokes sentiments of compassion coupled with the desire to help those who are invincibly ignorant or in probable error by leading them to the good (the vast majority of cases), benign tolerance for the harmless Other, but disdain and hostility for those rare groups who violently refuse the Truth and defend their right to remain Other. In looking at the other Other, one can thus see how, despite Las Casas's emblematic defense of the “innocent” Indians, the perception of cultural superiority continues to play a divisive role in channeling alterity, how failed assimilation can result in conflict and exclusion, and how the Other perceived to be menacing becomes “barbaric scum.”
What is Leopold's argument about the Indians?
At this point of the argument, Leopold accepts the hierarchal logic delimited by the natural law and is convinced that the irrationality of the Indians (demonstrated by their customs) is a valid justification for subordinating them. In other words, he is persuaded to accept that the international world is not defined by the equal rights of the Other. Once he accepts this logic, the question becomes: what are the political consequences? The answer demonstrates how claims to moral superiority become the basis for legitimizing political inequality.
Who was the most adamant defender of the Indians during the first century of conquest?
Bartolomé de las Casas was perhaps the most adamant defender of the Indians during the first century of conquest. The way he defended the Indians therefore deserves our deepest attention. I focus on his arguments in his Argumentum apologiae adversus Genesium Sepúlvedam theologum cordubensem, or In Defense of the Indians (henceforth Defense ), which he composed for the Valladolid debates. Las Casas, like Sepúlveda, believed in the universality of the Christian view of the good, but rejected the inegalitarian conclusions Sepúlveda deduced from this position of moral superiority. In the face of alterity, he posits a view of humanity which has been heralded by some scholars as the foundation of the modern conception of human rights.#N#Footnote#N#31
Why did Leopold embrace the exclusion and marginalization of the Indians?
Leopold was led to embrace the exclusion and marginalization of the Indians because he accepted the logic that moral hierarchy translates into permanent political inequality. From the observation that the Other's mores violated the immutable natural laws all rational beings should know, he deduced they were incapable of knowing the good, and hence permanently unequal. But when we start to question the boundaries of the category of barbarian, as did Las Casas, and even recognize our own barbarity, then the propensity to exclude the radically different is diminished, though not extinguished.
What did Las Casas argue about?
Sepúlveda took a more secular approach than Las Casas, basing his arguments largely on Aristotle and the Humanist tradition to assert that some Indians were subject to enslavement due to their inability to govern themselves, and could be subdued by war if necessary. Las Casas objected, arguing that Aristotle's definition of barbarian and natural slave did not apply to the Indians, all of whom were fully capable of reason and should be brought to Christianity without force or coercion.
Who played Las Casas in the Valladolid debate?
The novel was filmed for television under the same name. The director — Jean-Danielle Veren, Jean-Pierre Marielle played Las Casas, Jean-Louis Trintignant acted as Sepúlveda. The drama was played on a stage in Spokane, WA in January 2019
What was the significance of the Las Casas affair?
The affair is considered one of the earliest examples of moral debates about colonialism, human rights of colonized peoples, and international relations. In Spain, it served to establish Las Casas as the primary, though controversial defender of the Indians. He and others contributed to the passing of the New Laws of 1542, which limited the encomienda system further. Though they did not fully reverse the situation, the laws achieved considerable improvement in the treatment of Indians and consolidated their rights granted by earlier laws. More importantly, the debate reflected a concern for morality and justice in 16th-century Spain that only surfaced in other colonial powers centuries later.
What did Las Casas' criticism of the Encomienda system contribute to?
Las Casas’ criticism of the encomienda system contributed to its replacement with reducciones. His testimonies on the peaceful nature of the native Americans also encouraged nonviolent policies concerning the religious conversions of the Indians in New Spain and Peru.
What did the New Laws of 1542 do for Indians?
He and others contributed to the passing of the New Laws of 1542, which limited the encomienda system further . Though they did not fully reverse the situation, the laws achieved considerable improvement in the treatment of Indians and consolidated their rights granted by earlier laws.
What was the first moral debate in European history?
"Wild Men" depicted on the facade of the Colegio de San Gregorio. Church of San Pablo, adjacent to Colegio de San Gregorio. The Valladolid debate (1550–1551) was the first moral debate in European history to discuss the rights and treatment of an indigenous people by European colonizers.
What was the Black Legend of Spanish colonization?
In Brevísima relación de la destrucción de las Indias (1552), Las Casas’ critique of the Spanish military forces in the New World, was one of the starting points of the Black Legend of Spanish colonisation. The black legend was an anti-Hispanic anti-catholic historiographic tendency which painted a highly negative image of Spanish colonisation. This text became highly popular in the Netherlands and Great Britain, where it was used to present Spain as a backwards and obscurantist country. Translations of Las Casas’ work were subsequently confiscated by the Spanish Council of the Indies in response to their use as anti-Spanish propaganda. But the fact that the Valladolid debate took place shows that the Spanish were concerned about the ethical consequence of their conquests, often more so than the invading forces in North America where the extermination of the native Americans was publicly accepted until much later.