Embedded Files
Background
Background
In 1492, Christopher Columbus bumped into the continent we now know as America. He was followed by many voyagers looking to ‘discover’ new lands and make their fortune.
Before long, the indigenous populations of the Americas were overwhelmed by disease, their bodies unable to fight off the European germs. This disease combined with the alliances that many European invaders made with some local people and their more destructive weapons meant that soon many of the indigenous people were subjugated by the Europeans in what was known as the Encomienda system.
The encomienda system meant that anyone who conquered lands on behalf of the Spanish crown were to be rewarded with the labour of the conquered non-Christian people. The justification for this was that the conquered would then benefit from the military protection of the conquerors but also from the education provided to them - especially in the ‘one true faith’.
In effect, the encomienda system made the conquered people little more than slaves working for the conqueror.
However, many campaigners such as former landowner and priest Bartolomé de las Casas (1484 - 1566) petitioned the Spanish Crown to end the encomienda system. In 1542, Carlos I of Spain introduced the New Laws which were intended to restrict the encomienda system and prevent exploitation of the conquered people. Inevitably, however, this resulted in a backlash from the American landowners who hired people like Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda (1494 - 1573) to make their case to the crown.
A formal debate, called a disputation, was arranged to be held in the Colegio San Gregorio in Valladolid.
Aristotle’s concept of a Natural Slave
Aristotle’s concept of a Natural Slave
A commonly held view of the time, that both Sepúlveda and de las Casas relied upon, was that of natural slaves. The idea came from Aristotle who thought that some people are incapable of rational thought, incapable of making decisions or choices - and therefore the only work that they can undertake is physical labour. Aristotle describes such people as natural slaves. He thought that such people could not be treated as anything other than slaves for they are incapable of anything else.
Initially, Aristotle’s view may sound ridiculous to you, but then think - you are considered incapable of making the decision as to whether or not to go school. Is this right? Are you incapable of making this decision?
Just War
Just War
Another question central to the debate was whether or not the Spanish were engaged in a Just War. The idea of a Just War was developed by Thomas Aquinas and discussed by the School of Salamanca. What’s relevant here is that a war was only considered just if it was waged for a just cause - i.e. because the attacked party had committed some wrong, and to promote good and avoid evil. The school of Salamanca added that it is necessary that the response be commensurate with - proportionate or equal to - the evil; use of more violence than is strictly necessary would constitute an unjust war.
Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda’s argument
Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda’s argument
Firstly, Sepulveda argued that the indigenous people of the Americas were incapable of rational thought. He argued that cannibalism and human sacrifice were evidence of this. Therefore he believed them to be natural slaves. He thought the Spanish are vastly superior to the indians and therefore had the natural right to dominate them and give them what is good:
Virtue, humanity and true religion are worth more than gold or silver
Secondly, he argued that because the indigenous people were engaged in cannibalism and human sacrifice, Spain and the conquerors were certainly engaged in a just war. It was important to prevent these evils and convert the population to Christianity
(It is perhaps relevant to note that Sepúlveda had never been to the Americas.)
Bartolomé de las Casas’ objections
Bartolomé de las Casas’ objections
Covnersely, de las Casas argued that there was plenty of evidence that the indigenous people were capable of reason and therefore not natural slaves: they had language, complex legal systems, great buildings and beautiful architecture. To de Las Casas, who had actually lived there, the notion that they were not capable of rational thought seemed absurd.
Neither did de las Casas consider the war to be just. Yes of course cannibalism and human sacrifice were evils, but he did not think that the violence and slavery of the people was commensurate with the evil being avoided. He also argued that forced conversions were worthless. He thought that people should only be brought to faith through reason - the idea that you can force someone to believe is nonsense. (Someone can say that they believe, but that doesn’t mean that they do.)
Discussion
Discussion
Some people have criticised de las Casas. At one point, the Spanish business owners were complaining that ending the encomienda system would mean that they didn’t have enough workers, and de las Casas responded by saying that they should bring in workers from Africa - as the Portuguese were doing. He later renounced that idea and was embarrassed about having said it.
De Las Casas was also very patronising about the indigenous people - and at one point said that the practice of human sacrifice showed how devout they were. Some people also argue that he was an essentialist about the indigenous people, treating them all as one homogenous block.
Tasks
Tasks
Outline the arguments presented by Sepúlveda.
Outline de las Casas' objections to these arguments.
Is the power of rational thought a good basis for human rights?
Page updated
Report abuse