Catholics and Indians

While reading these texts, one of the first places of comparison that stood out to me was the ways in which these authors demonstrated their arguments; while all three authors write towards a similar audience and draw from similar ideological roots, seeking to either justify or criticize the violence against Native American peoples, they use distinctly different forms of Christian thought to construct their positions. For example, de las Casas refers back to Jesus Christ's teachings in the Gospels, as well as God's own words in the Bible, to illustrate his arguments. In attempting to deconstruct the dominant paternal, oppressive perspective of the colonizers and illustrate the humanity of the Native people, de las Casas tries to not judge or characterize their societies on the basis of European or Christian standards, but rather by describing them without bias, primarily by deconstructing the word and meaning of "barbarian". This culminates in the ending of an "Apologetic History", where he describes similarities between the Native peoples and Europeans, comparing their lack of a written language to that of the English, describing their social structure, and, finally, claiming that if the Native people are to be considered barbarians based on their lack of familiarity with the standards of European civilization, then the colonizing Europeans can be considered barbarians for the same reasons. In the last section before the epilogue, as well, de las Casas compares the Native people to the Gentiles described in the Bible; similarly, he seems more invested in celebrating the unique qualities of their cultures, such as when he says "We should not marvel at [their] vices and brutalities [...] but rather at those which they do not have" (de las Casas, 6). In these ways, his way of understanding the world reminds me of Jesus in the Gospels, when he describes following the spirit of the laws rather than the letter; in other words, while for de las Casas these Native people can still be considered a type of barbarian, behaviors that would otherwise be considered sinful can be excused and understood both because the forebears of European people had been submerged in much worse histories and because they have not had access to the teachings of God. Moreover, he even argues throughout the essay that these Native peoples surpassed many European civilizations in the goodness of their laws and customs, demonstrating his belief that their good actions, even in the absence of formal allegiance to God, are worth consideration.

While de las Casas' paternal, conversion-centered tone still makes me uncomfortable, it was a large departure from the tone that Vitoria takes in his writing, where he argues for the subjugation of the Native people. Vitoria focuses much more on using Thomas Aquinas' methods of argument in order to push his points. He outlines St. Thomas' divine, human, and natural laws in order to understand the situation of the Native people. I feel like this approach is fundamentally problematic. Reading Vitoria is like listening to someone have an argument with themselves, on their own terms, trying to convince themselves the damage they've caused is justified, without that other person being in the room/even speaking the same language/navigating the world with the same culture. Similarly to de las Casas, he tries to argue his points by using a step-by-step method, beginning with what he believes is the most fundamental and basic question (whether or not the Native people had dominion over their lands), but even starting there is really unhelpful! Wrapped up in that question of dominion, and subsequent questions, are layers of assumptions, including that these Native people conceive of property in the same way that the Europeans do, that there is a separation between private and public property, that rule, or power, or governance apply to Native communities in the same way they do to these Catholic colonizers. I wonder if this method of organizing and governing the community can be considered an import of the colonizers; the sense that rights tied to property override the individual rights of human beings, and justifying this hierarchy with belief in constructs like organized religions, states, etc.