200 Anthro Assignment 3
Revised December 5, 2007 Section 5
In Debate of the Indians: de Las Casas vs. Sepulveda In 1550, half a century after the discovery of the "New World," a classic debate raged in Spain regarding the Spanish treatment of Native Americans. Juan Gines de Sepulveda, a Spanish historian and theologian, and Bartolome de Las Casas, a priest and eventual bishop in southern Mexico, were the foremost figures in this debate. Sepulveda "defended armed expeditions against the Indians," (de Las Casas 11), while de Las Casas proposed that Indians are not barbaric and should not be violently conquered by the Spanish settlers. While these men's opinions of how to treat the Indians differed, both agreed that the Native Americans should be Christianized by the Spanish. Their debate concerning the Spanish treatment of the Native Americans can teach us a great deal about modern cultural diversity. Although this debate took place over 500 years ago, its basis of cultural differences and the concept of forced encompassment has many lasting lessons. Throughout history, the idea of cultural superiority has been consistently present. Many groups have sought to encompass other groups which they thought to be inferior. In the Americas, Europeans were trying to force their culture, specifically their religion, on the native people. The lack of success of this movement should strive to teach us of the dangers of forcing our culture and our way of life on other groups which may not necessarily function the way our groups do. If we do so, we may damage or destroy other cultures as the Europeans effectively destroyed Native American cultures.
1
Juan Gines de Sepulveda, although he had never traveled to the Americas, vehemently supported the submission of the Indians because of their barbaric and immoral tendencies. Sepulveda thought that the Indians were "barbaric, uninstructed in letters and the art of government, and completely ignorant, unreasoning, and totally incapable of learning anything but the mechanical arts; that they are sunk in vice, are cruel, and are of such character that, as nature teaches, they are to be governed by the will of others" (11). Sepulveda wrote that, because of their barbaric customs, Indians "are obliged by the natural law to obey those who are outstanding in virtue and character" (11). Because the Indians communicated in unintelligible tongues and had no written language, Sepulveda thought that they were most certainly stupid and incompetent. He thought that barbarians were not descendants from Adam and Eve, as were Europeans. Furthermore, he proposed that some people were destined to be slaves and serve others. He wrote that "if the Indians, once warned, refused to obey this (Spanish) legitimate sovereignty, they can be forced to do so for their own welfare by recourse to the terrors of war" (12). Sepulveda attempted to support this claim by citing sources including Aristotle and Saint Paul (12). Furthermore, Sepulveda continued to imply that the Indians must "accept the Spanish yoke so that they might be corrected and punished" for their sins, especially for idolatry and human sacrifice (13). Sepulveda cites evidence from the Bible that "pagans who do not observe the natural law may be punished by Christians" (13). It was a "duty" of the Spanish, he continued, to save the innocent among the Native American people who were offered as human sacrifices and were brainwashed in their Christ-less ways. He also stated that the Church must "compel unbelievers to the faith" (14). Thus,
2
Sepulveda believed that killing en masse in the name of progress of Christianity was an acceptable and a worthy cause. Sepulveda cited various examples from the Bible and from historical events which he believed support his view. Sepulveda concluded that "it is totally just, as well as most beneficial to these barbarians, that they be conquered and brought under the rule of the Spaniards, who are worshipers of Christ" (15). He asserted that the Pope, the head of the Christian religion himself, "declared armed expeditions against the Indians to be just" and allowed the King of Castile the right to conquer them, while he forbade other national leaders from attempting to conquer the Native Americans (15). In 1552, Bartolome de Las Casas published his work entitled In Defense of the Indians as a rebuttal to the claims of the historian Sepulveda. De Las Casas sailed with Columbus on his third voyage and received an encomienda in the Americas, which was a plot of land that the Spanish government gave to settlers along with all the native people living on the land. De Las Casas had a spiritual awakening when he heard a priest preaching that the slavery and slaughtering of Indians was a grave sin. De Las Casas immediately renounced his encomienda and dedicated his life to ending the Spanish persecution of Native Americans. He became a priest and spoke out against Spanish wrongdoings in the Americas. While de Las Casas strongly opposed Sepulveda's opinions, he agreed with Sepulveda that the final goal of Spanish settlers in the Americas should have been to Christianize the native people. In spite of the fact that de Las Casas' argument was undoubtedly more humane and logical than that of Sepulveda, one must not lose sight of the fact that he, too, wanted to Christianize the Native Americans. Thus, he also supported encompassment to some
3
degree. While he defended the preservation of Native American culture and rituals, he still that believed they needed to be Christianized. It may be argued that this fact essentially nullified de Las Casas' entire stance on the issue because he contradicted his argument by supporting the encompassment of Native Americans into the European's Christian ways. Surely, if Las Casas' plan were executed exactly as he wished, the European religions adopted by the Native Americans would eventually lead Native Americans to adopt many aspects of European culture. Was not the prevention of this imminent cultural mutation one of the most important things de Las Casas wanted to prevent? De Las Casas preached that, while the Indian culture was different and somewhat mysterious, this did not make them barbarians as Sepulveda defined them. De Las Casas suggested that there were four kinds of barbarians (27). The first kind of barbarian is any "cruel, inhuman, wild, and merciless man, acting against human reason" (27). Second, was any person who belonged to a society which did not have a written language and therefore its members had no way to express themselves (28). The third type of barbarian according to de Las Casas included those who are "cruel, savage, sottish, and strangers to reason" (32). Finally, were those who have no knowledge of Christ or who did not accept Christ's teachings (33). De Las Casas argued that no one culture has the supreme right to declare another culture barbaric. He stated, "If we believe that such a huge part of mankind is barbaric, it would follow that God's design has for the most part been ineffective" (36). He admitted that Native American culture is very different, but that there was no way for one nation to declare itself the superior of another. However, he did not deny that the Indians are a
4
type of barbarian. For example, de Las Casas writes, "From the fact that Indians are barbarians it does not necessarily follow that they are incapable of government and have to be ruled by others" (42). Thus, de Las Casas admitted that the Indians are, indeed, a kind of barbaric people, most likely because they did not have a written language and because they had never been exposed to the teachings of Christ. Nonetheless, de Las Casas continued to attack Sepulveda by citing examples of when the Spanish themselves were perceived as "barbaric and wild" by other cultures (43). He accused Sepulveda of misinterpreting history based on his ideas of superior authority. De Las Casas contended that the Native Americans were not stupid or incompetent. They were "skilled in every mechanical art" and were "easy to teach and very talented in learning" (44). De Las Casas declared "it is clear that the basis for Sepulveda's teaching that these people are uncivilized and ignorant is worse than false" (46). De Las Casas continued to say that Sepulveda's justification of war based on the Indians' crimes of idolatry and human sacrifice is wrong (54). The main argument of de Las Casas was that "unbelievers who had never embraced the faith of Christ" are not subject to Christian laws and cannot be punished by Christians "no matter how atrocious it may be" (55). Thus, while de Las Casas desperately wanted to Christianize the Indians, (as Sepulveda also did), he did not believe that the Spanish should punish the Indians for what they considered to be sins. Rather, it was the job of the Spanish settlers to instruct the Indians in the ways of Christianity and convert them peacefully (58-59). As stated earlier, the debate between Sepulveda and de Las Casas over how to deal with Native Americans is very applicable to modern cultural issues. For example, one might compare the current war in Iraq with the arrival of Spanish settlers in the so-
5
called "New World." There are several striking similarities between these two situations which are separated by nearly 500 years. In both cases, cultural incongruities led one group to attempt to force its culture on another group. Sepulveda and de Las Casas argue about the justness of imposing their religion on the peoples in the New World through violent, forceful measures. Today, many people argue that the United States is imposing its form of government, democracy, on the people of Iraq. While there are obvious differences between a religion and a method of government, this concept of imposing a way of life on a foreign culture is still evident. Obviously, few people will argue that democracy is not the best method of government known to man. However, I would still pose the question: Does that make it acceptable to force democracy on other cultures? Why is it any less oppressive than how the Spanish imposed Christianity on the Native Americans? Why should we not try to preserve Iraq's own method of government? What gives the United States the supreme authority to decide which form of government is best for a foreign culture? Do our cultural differences and our assumed superiority justify the imposition of our way of life on others? We must remember today what was, in my opinion, the main lesson from the debate between Sepulveda and de Las Casas: just because a culture may seem less organized, inferior, mysterious, or in any way different does not grant someone the right to impose their way of life on the people of another culture. We, as members of the human race, must find a way to accept, tolerate, and learn from other cultures in a peaceful manner.
6
Works Cited
Las Casas, Bartolome de. In Defense of the Indians. Northern Illinois University Press. DeKalb, Ill.: 1992, 7-62.
7