In Sepulveda, Democrates comments on the Indians saying that these people are "born to slavery and not to civic and liberal life" because they do not take advantage of the death of a king in order to obtain a freer state. However, I don't think meekness is a bad thing or indicative that they are naturally slaves. If the people are prospering in their current state then why should they need more freedom when they are already having happy lives? Democrates is trying to convince Leopold, who thinks war is unlawful, by arguing that because the Spaniards have the perfect right to rule over these barbarians because he thinks sovereignty should always be in the hands of the wisest, and that true realm is governed by prudent men and looks after the welfare of the people - he then goes on to use the exact word "prudent" (and talented) to describe the Spaniards. He says the Indians are "half-men" who are illiterate and lack intelligence, regardless of the artisanship they show since this is not a proof of cleverness, because even animals and insects can make structures that humans cannot. Essentially, his argument is that the Indians are barbarians because they fit the bill of Aristotle's idea of a natural slave - unfit to govern themselves because they lack intelligence and would be better (in Democrates' perspective at least) under someone else's rule. He also believes that baptism should not be forced or demanded (in response to the question posed in Vitoria - is it lawful to baptise children of unbelievers against the wishes of their parents?). Rather, he thinks the Indians should be shown the way of truth - he then says that the reason there needs to be war is that war is the only way to subject the Indians to the Spaniards' rule, and only after this can they send their few apostles to preach to them and convert them to Christianity.
De Las Casas stance is different; he says that Indians are misunderstood to not have reason simply because they are gentle, patient, and humble. It turns out that the Indians are wise, shown by various actions. First, they did not know of God but elected their most virtuous men as gods, which is wise because God is king because he is the best, and these people chose the best that they knew of since they didn't know God. They choose their wisest, most virtuous, and most worthy of ruling to be their gods, and their description of a good ruler is sound - one who subordinated all natural and sensual affection, and is clean of repugnant ambition and all private interest. Their prince is kindhearted, assisting and providing for the poor. This demonstrates that these Indians have good reasoning, simplicity of heart, and are naturally better adjusted to the world and easier to convert to Christianity.
Second, they have good values that we still follow today, such as honouring marriages and showing respect to our elders and superiors. They are very well governed and their military is disciplined and orderly. They are organised, keeping a frequent census on the births and deaths of their population, and making sure everyone has a profession and can provide for themselves. They even have good and impressive infrastructure - which is the artisanship Democrates might have been referring to - De Las Casas describes the highways built by the Indians to be even better than those built by the Spaniards.
If De Las Casas account is true and these Indians were governed so well, there is no reason or incentive why the Indians should overthrow their government when the king dies. They are living under good leadership and everyone is able to provide for themselves. This is not a show of strange obedience but satisfaction with their living conditions. Because of these arguments we must think twice about Democrates' conclusion that these people are born to slavery. This is why De Las Casas does not think of the Indians as barbarian in the sense of ferocity and harshness; rather, he thinks they could be defined as barbarian in that they don't believe in God and they are illiterate (though that means the Spaniards were also barbarian in the Indian perspective since they are illiterate in each other's languages). Question 4 of the study questions mentions that De Las Casas was there personally - I feel that though we shouldn't rely on only one source in their defence, the fact that De Las Casas was able to observe virtuous qualities in an unfamiliar group of people must mean that the Indians must not be as barbaric as the other texts make them sound, especially since by nature it can sometimes take extra effort to be understanding and compassionate toward unfamiliar people and customs who have grown up in a different environment than yourself.
(Oh no.. this ended up being half the length of our papers - sorry for the long post!!!!)
No comments:
Post a Comment