4. De las Casas was there in the 'Indies'. Does that give his
observations more weight?
I think that
simply being physically present in the New World would not be enough to give de las Casas more authority than some other colonialist living in his time, with
his ideals, and his goals. Even so, de las Casas provides a much more balanced
and objective depiction of the interactions between the indigenous population
and the European colonists than one might expect to come from a man whose
primary aim is to convert as many “non-believers” to Christianity as possible.
He draws attention to the disorder of society only to point out that colonial
forces were at the root of this appearance of disorganization and inferiority
of customs. Additionally, de las Casas suggests his audience consider the
possibility that not only may indigenous people tag many of the same negative
attributes onto the colonists that the Europeans give to them, but also that
the Europeans have behaved in such a manner that they would be justified in
doing so. I think de las Casas’ knowledge of the New World before colonialism
began to destroy the preexisting societies and populations, which gave him the
ability to see their existence from an outsider’s perspective before and after
it became inextricably tied to colonialism, is the biggest factor that sets his
writings apart from others. His awareness of the role he and other colonists
played in a shift in the lives of the indigenous peoples in turn makes the
reader more conscious of the type of narration he is capable of and ends up providing.
I disagree with the assertion that being physically present in the New World does not give one’s observations more weight. Although I believe that being physically present does not make one’s observations definitively right, I think that its importance cannot be underestimated. Sepulveda and Vitoria and probably many more of the Spaniards supporting the domination of the New World most likely held those views because they had never set foot there; they were familiar with war and slavery, but they were not capable of fathoming the real atrocities occurring in the Americas, as well as the similarities between themselves and the “Indians.” I believe that if these men had been physically present, they would have been endowed with empathy and understanding, which were obviously lacking from the their accounts. I think these attributes are crucial for purporting an objective and complete argument, without which, gaping holes in their logic are evident. I am not convinced that Sepulveda could have so defended an argument for the subjugation on natural superiority or inherent barbarism if he had witnessed firsthand the subjugation, nor could Vitoria could defended an argument on economic grounds.
ReplyDeleteTo revisit this: I'd like to push back against the fact that "many more of the Spaniards supporting the domination of the New World most likely held those views because they and never set foot there; they were familiar with war and slavery." Across the New World, Europeans continued to support slavery for hundreds of years after this text was written (Spain didn't abolish the slave trade in the Spanish Empire until 1817, and as we know, the United States didn't abolish slavery until 1865) even if they had witnessed the atrocities occurring in the Americas—and many did, having lived there. Unfortunately, seeing an oppressed group be oppressed does not automatically elicit empathy, and it certainly doesn't compel people to action. (The atrocities that are basically being livestreamed in Aleppo right now are a good example of this, on a more sober note.) Yes, perhaps de las Casas changed his mind after seeing the horrors of slavery. But many Europeans saw these horrors and didn't change their minds—rather, they went on to participate in the slave trade and the colonization of the Americas themselves. So basically I don't think that a trip to the New World would guarantee that Sepulveda and Vitoria change their minds.
ReplyDelete