Homework for January 30
Considering the text below by Bartolomeu de las Casas (excerpt from Brevíssima Relação sobre a Destruição das Índias, 1552), and researching a little about the Controversy of Valladolid, comment on the "alternative history" that could have taken place if the position of Las Casas had won.
Bartolomeu de Las Casas argued something that would only become a reality centuries later. If his argument (i.e. Native American peoples being considered human beings, and, therefore as the colonizer’s equals) had been considered, History would differ very much. His take on religion, and his defense that the Natives are only different from the European colonizers in terms of it, and not in their faculties, implies a premature way of thinking. Perhaps “all men are equal” could have seen the reality of day some years before it did. And this is only the tip of the iceberg, as many people might not have been exposed to slavery, mistreatment, and death. What also seems to be implied is that the ones acting beastly are the European colonizers and not the ones coined as barbarians, this is, the Natives. Bartolomeu de Las Casas was debating Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda, who was in favor of colonization as well as ethnocentrism. Moreover, he argued that “the indigenous peoples of America were ‘natural slaves’, incapable of self-government, and it was Spain’s moral duty to wage war on them, as a prelude to subjugation and Christianisation. ‘They are as inferior to the Spaniards as children to adults, women to men’, he wrote: almost ‘as monkeys to men’”. (Lyons, 2023).
ReplyDeleteTo respond to Sepúlveda, Las Casas went as far as defending human sacrifice.
“‘Nor is human sacrifice – even of the innocent, when it is done for the welfare of the entire state – so contrary to natural reason that it must be immediately detested’, he wrote. Sacrifice – offering up ‘the greatest and most valuable good, that is, human life’ – was a mark of religious feeling, not irrationality.” (Lyons, 2023).
The possibility of a different turn in History is a very interesting one, especially since people capable of defending Native people’s rights existed. Unfortunately, economic interest was the colonizer’s ultimate goal. Therefore, the spread of the catholic faith was but a minor interest, as the church also benefitted economically from colonization. Thus, although Bartolomeu de Las Casas argued well, the fact that not many agreed ultimately led to the path History took.
Works Cited:
Lyons, Matthew. (2023). The Valladolid Debate on the Rights of Indigenous People. Vol.73 (Issue 8). (2023, August 8). The Valladolid debate on the rights of Indigenous People. History Today. https://www.historytoday.com/archive/months-past/valladolid-debate-rights-indigenous-people.
If the position of Bartolomeu de las Casas' had won, it would have likely resulted in a very different outcome for Natives. Las Casas was a defender of the rights and dignity of indigenous peoples and strongly opposed their exploitation and abuse by Spanish colonizers. If his views prevailed, it's conceivable that Spanish colonial policies would undergo major reforms. This could’ve included measures to protect the rights of indigenous peoples, such as banning forced labour, promoting fair treatment and encouraging for their conversion to Christianity through peaceful means rather than coercion.
ReplyDeleteIn this alternative history, we might imagine a more peaceful relationship between indigenous peoples and Spanish settlers. Much of the colonial period was marked by rampant violence, exploitation and cultural destruction and so, greater efforts at understanding, cooperation and mutual respect could have been made. Also, Las Casas' influence may have extended beyond Spanish colonies, possibly influencing the attitudes and policies of other European powers towards indigenous peoples of the Americas. His ideas may have helped shape international norms regarding the treatment of indigenous peoples, setting a precedent for fairer and more equal interactions between colonizers and indigenous peoples.
However, this hypothetical situation would not completely eliminate the injustices and inequalities inherent in the colonial project. The historical forces, economic interests and power dynamics that drove European expansion still pose significant challenges to the full realization of Las Casas’ ideals. Nonetheless, considering this alternative history provides us with valuable insights into the complexities of colonialism and the critical role that individuals like Las Casas played in challenging systems of oppression and advocating for social justice.
If Las Casas' position had won in the Controversy of Valladolid, a debate that took place in 1550-1551 between Las Casas and Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda regarding the treatment of indigenous people, it could have led to a different approach to colonization and the treatment of native populations. The controversy focused on whether the indigenous people had the natural right to rule themselves or if they were naturally subordinate and required Spanish intervention for their own good.
ReplyDeleteThe recognition of indigenous societies as organized, cultured, and capable of self-governance would likely have resulted in a more respectful interaction between the Spanish colonizers and the native populations. This could have led to cooperative efforts rather than the exploitation and oppression that characterized much of the colonial period.
Las Casas' advocacy for the protection of indigenous rights could have influenced colonial policies, leading to legal frameworks that respected the autonomy and culture of native societies. The sharing of knowledge and ideas between the Spanish and indigenous populations could have occurred in a more cooperative and mutually beneficial manner.
He believed that indigenous people were ready to embrace Christianity once introduced to its teachings in a respectful manner. An approach focused on dialogue and understanding rather than forceful conversion might have led to a more harmonious coexistence between the two cultures.
Also, with a recognition of the advanced political and social structures of indigenous societies, efforts might have been made to preserve and integrate certain aspects of native cultures into the evolving colonial society, leading to a more diverse and inclusive Spanish-American culture.
Bartolomeu de las Casas's excerpt from "Brevíssima Relação sobre a Destruição das Índias" stands as a testament to his fervent advocacy for the humane treatment of indigenous populations in the Americas during the era of Spanish colonization. Had Las Casas's perspective triumphed in the Controversy of Valladolid, the historical trajectory could have taken a markedly different course.
ReplyDeleteLas Casas vehemently rejected the notion of inherent inferiority or barbarism among indigenous peoples, countering the views of Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda. He argued that these communities possessed well-organized societies with their own governments, laws, and customs. A victory for Las Casas's stance might have led to a greater acknowledgment and respect for the social structures existing within indigenous communities.
The emphasis on peaceful coexistence and collaboration between Spanish colonizers and indigenous populations was a cornerstone of Las Casas's position. His belief in the capacity of indigenous peoples to embrace Christianity without coercion could have fostered a more harmonious cultural exchange, promoting mutual understanding and cooperation between the two groups.
Las Casas's condemnation of mistreatment and violence against indigenous populations underscored a commitment to protecting their rights. A triumph for his perspective might have catalyzed stronger efforts to safeguard the well-being of indigenous communities, potentially leading to a more just and equitable treatment.
Crucially, Las Casas envisioned the preservation of indigenous cultures without the need for forceful subjugation. This could have resulted in the retention of languages, traditions, and ways of life, mitigating the significant cultural disruption caused by forced assimilation and colonization.
In advocating for a compassionate missionary approach, Las Casas proposed a paradigm where the conversion of indigenous people to Christianity would be characterized by education, understanding, and voluntary acceptance. In an alternative history shaped by Las Casas's vision, missionary efforts might have prioritized dialogue over coercion.
Such an alternative history could have seen an encounter between European colonizers and indigenous peoples characterized by greater cultural exchange, respect for diversity, and a more humane treatment of native populations. This could have paved the way for a more inclusive and cooperative development of the Americas, challenging the exploitative and oppressive practices that marred much of the colonial period.
In “Brevíssima Relação sobre a Destruição das Índias”, Bartolomeu de Las Casas defended a point of view different from many of those who lived during his time: he believed that Indigenous peoples were not barbaric or ignorant. He argued against the subjugation of the Indigenous peoples, giving many arguments that showed how they had the capacity to learn and have organized states. The Controversy of Valladolid, that took place in the 16th century, consisted of a series of discussions between Las Casas and Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda. Las Casas and Sepúlveda had very different perspectives and beliefs regarding the native people.
ReplyDeleteOn one hand, Las Casas believed the native peoples were fully human, capable of learning the liberal arts and observing the Christian religion. He argued that the Indians had organized states, with law, religion and traditions, showing they are not savages or ignorant.
Moreover, he defends that Indigenous peoples deserved respect and dignity, saying that “Indians are our brothers, and Christ has given his life for them” (Brevíssima Relação sobre a Destruição das Índias). Las Casas goes as far as defending human sacrifice, as it being part of the Indigenous peoples’ culture and spirituality.
On the other hand, Sepúlveda was in favor of the subjugation of the Indigenous peoples, in America. He claimed that the Indians were uncivilized and inferior to the Europeans, saying “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” (Democrates II, or Concerning the Just Causes of the War Against the Indians). Sepúlveda defended that Indigenous peoples were “natural slaves” and that the Spanish had the right to “civilize” them.
Unfortunately, Sepúlveda was declared the winner of the debate, which reflects the colonial mentality of the time. If Las Casas had won, things would have, probably, unfolded in a different way, in the US History. The perspective of Las Casas would have reached out to more people, which could, gradually, create a change in the way that Europeans thought of Indians. Maybe this would have led to a more tolerant and humane way of treating the Indigenous peoples. However, I do not think these changes would have been immediate or generalized, since, those who had the power, “the highnesses”, would always put their own interests and the interests of the Empire first. The victory of Sepúlveda shows the greediness of the colonizers and that the economic interests and the expansion of Christianity have always been a priority to Europeans, even if that means disregarding the rights of other humans, in this case, Indigenous peoples.
Although we cannot change History, it is interesting to reflect about how things would have unfolded if Las Casas had won. It is important to analyze the impact that Sepúlveda’s victory had in American History, and how that helped to perpetuate the dehumanizing of Indigenous peoples and the disregard for their culture, which last until today. If we look at the History of Lakota Nation and how, until today, they are fighting to get their land back, we can see how the mentality of the US Government has not changed that much since the colonial times. Just like Pearl Buck said: “If you want to understand today, you have to search yesterday”.
- Beatriz Bicudo Cunha
The Controversy of Valladolid was a moral debate that discussed the treatment and rights of the Indigenous people by the European’s colonizers. There were two opposites: Bartolomé de Las Casas stood for the Natives’ rights. Las Casas was a Dominican friar who saw first hand how the situation was in the New Word. He believed that “The Indians are our brothers, and Christ has given his life for them” like he wrote in “Brevíssima Relação sobre a Destruição das Índias”. On the other side stood Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda. “Sepúlveda, Spain’s royal historian who had never been to the New World. A translator of Aristotle, Sepúlveda cited Aristotle’s theory of natural slavery. He said that the difference between the natives and the Spaniard was as great as that “between apes and men”. He asked, “How are we to doubt that these people, so uncultivated, so barbarous, and so contaminated with such impiety and lewdness, have not been justly conquered?”. The judges, divided, failed to issue a decision. The conquest continued. Broken spears clattered to the ground and the walls ran red with blood.” (Lepore, Jill, 2018).
ReplyDeleteIf Las Casas had won this debate, Natives would have been considered equals to the White Man, which would impact both the New World and Europe, and possibly the future of the Imperialism. Indigenous people would have had rights to their land and consequently Europeans colonizers would have had acquired less of it. Natives would have had legal rights. If the Indigenous people were considered European’s equals, then they would not have been sent to the residential schools. Thus avoiding traumatizing a whole generation. Something that still impacts them to this day. They would have had the right to have their own religion practices and to speak their own language. European colonizers would have not had the right to force them to learn the colonizers’ practices.
“Taking possession of the Americas gave Europeans a surplus of land; It ended famine and led to four centuries of economic growth, growth without precedent, growth many Europeans understood as evidence of the grace of God.” (Lepore, Jill, 2018). These were reasons still used centuries later in the Victorian Era to justify the Victorian Imperialism in Africa and Asia. Europeans have used the ideological and religious motives to justify the economic and political gains for centuries. With less economic growth, maybe there would not have been funding for more expansions.
Works cited:
Lepore, Jill (2018). These Truths. A History of the United States. W. W. Norton & Company.
There can be no doubt that Las Casas’ position and courage are admirable, considering his role and commitment to this situation, although I would agree that his perspective is also idealized/utopian. The native americans were divided within multiple and diverse population groups with different cultural and social beliefs. It is probably true to say that, even if they were religiously subjugated in a pacific way, it would have been impossible for some of those tribes to remain subjugated and pacific, while seeing people taking away ancestral lands to which they are extremely attached to.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, I would personally question if making people abandon their own identity is not the same as dehumanizing them, since spirituality was a crucial component that defined the tribal identity itself. In addition, it is unknown what would happen if some of the populations did not cooperate in this pacific direction.
Certainly, Bartolomeu de Las Casas’ view raises multiple questions of importance. However, at the same time, it promotes an alternative and, above all, critical thinking about attempts to cohabit with the natives. No-one would dispute the fact that this is a perfect example of the debate and counter argumentation that is needed in society in order to have progress.
This specific text would have had success on its primary attempt in the Controversy of Valladolid (to make people think of ways to avoid the violence that had been committed), if many more people would have taken Las Casas’ example to promote arguments over the indians’ “humanity” and engage in coming up with new solutions to the problem.
ReplyDeleteThe Valladolid Debate was largely about the Encomienda System, with De Las Casas being against it, and Sepulveda being for it. Sepulveda, naturally, won this. But considering another reality where De Las Casas won this morality debate, thinking this would change many of the abuses done to not only the native americans but all the subsequent oppression still ongoing to this day is very difficult. While this text admits the humanity and seemingly equality of the natives to the European colonizers, it does not remove the fact that De Las Casas was still a believer in colonization and a believer in the spreading of the Christian religion to the population of the Americas. What differs, however, is that this view of equality of natives is the reason he claims teaching them the religion is righteous and useful, and wouldn’t be forced, as they “are easy to teach” and take interest in it. Although there aren’t many positives, the main belief of seeing the natives as humans, even brothers and sisters, might have resulted in greater degrees of cooperation, fewer abuses, and a different society than what we have in present times. Yet, it is hard not to be skeptical, considering the US now has, on paper and in-laws, equality for every man and woman, yet when we see the blatant violations of civil rights still happening to this day, it makes me wonder if the mindset of the action of colonization could have been so easily swayed by a win of a much more progressive side. We just cannot know for sure, perhaps there even would have been more debates where the people would have decided against forceful colonization altogether and gone for a more cooperative approach like the first fur trappers and hunters of Canada living amongst the native tribes as equals. (post by Mason)
If Bartolomé de las Casas's position had prevailed during the Controversy of Valladolid, it's not impossible to say that the Spanish colonization might have been characterized by more equitable and respectful gaze towards the Natives. Such mentality could undeniably have resulted in a better (even if slower) integration of indigenous cultures (not only in their own land, but around the globe), in the preservation of hundreds (according to “The Enduring Vision, A History of the American People”) of languages and traditions, and more sustainable economic practices that respected (or at least diminished the actual damage) the land and resources of the Americas. Furthermore, such attitude would surely have paved the way and set an example on how other powerful global empires should have dealt with later relationships with distant lands, for instance, Australia and New Zealand. In essence, the course of history would definitely have been a zillion times different if it was not met by such power driven forces, and surely would have met a little bit more of peace and cleared the way for a growing kindness.
ReplyDeleteCarla Alves (I’m very sorry for the delay.)
“The excerpt from Bartolomeu de las Casas' seminal work offers a compelling vision of an alternative history that could have transpired had his enlightened perspective triumphed in the Controversy of Valladolid. In this imagined narrative, the indigenous peoples of the Americas would have been accorded the respect and recognition they deserved, not as "barbarians" to be subjugated, but as sophisticated societies with well-established kingdoms, laws, and customs. Las Casas' impassioned defense of the inherent dignity and capabilities of the native populations challenges the prevailing Eurocentric views of the time and advocates for a more equitable and humane approach to cross-cultural interactions.
ReplyDeleteHad Las Casas' advocacy for the rights and autonomy of indigenous peoples prevailed, the history of European colonization in the Americas might have taken a drastically different course. Rather than being subjected to brutal conquest, forced labor, and cultural assimilation, the indigenous communities could have been empowered to govern themselves, preserve their traditions, and engage in mutually beneficial exchanges with the European settlers. The emphasis on mutual respect, understanding, and cooperation, as espoused by Las Casas, could have laid the foundation for a more harmonious and inclusive society where diverse cultures coexisted and thrived.
By rejecting the dehumanizing rhetoric of conquest and exploitation, and instead advocating for dialogue, education, and mutual enrichment, Las Casas envisioned a world where the inherent worth and agency of all individuals were respected. His plea for compassion, justice, and reconciliation serves as a poignant reminder of the enduring legacy of colonialism and the ongoing struggles for equality and recognition faced by marginalized communities worldwide. In revisiting Las Casas' words, we are prompted to reflect on the power of empathy, understanding, and solidarity in shaping a more just and compassionate world for all.”
By Bárbara Soares