Discussion – February 20th
Elissa Schlueter
Who was Las Casas and what enabled him to have a voice in imperial policy?
Las Casas was a priest, which actually gave him more power since they respected the Church. This role also gave him an audience that he would not have had otherwise. We also discussed that the reason Spain was going into the new world to convert the native people. This legitimated the land claims. Las Casas based his arguments on what would be best for the Church and what would bring more converts and he did not criticize the kings or the kingdoms, but the conquistadors and their methods. We also looked at what was going on in Spain previous to this and discussed the Spanish Inquisition. At this time, any conflict with the Church was serious business. With this in mind, Las Casas challenged the conquistadors and not the Church. The conquistadors kept what they took and were motivated by duty and got rich in the process.
What political restraints limited the effectiveness of Las Casas’ pleas? How were Charles V’s hands somewhat tied in changing imperial policy to bring it more into line with Las Casas’ arguments?
Charles wanted it to be different but the conquistadors were not going to change their mind. The people in new world refused to follow what he was telling him to do. He changed laws and everybody refused to follow him and so he said it wasn’t going to be enforced. Las Casas went to an extraordinary extent to stand up for the rights of the native individuals, but we discussed the question of what did indigenous people think of him? Berger only told us pieces of the story and we discussed what was left out.
What were the arguments presented by Las Casas and Sepulveda? Who did each man draw on to support their arguments? In what ways does Berger suggest that Las Casas and Sepulveda share common beliefs?
Las Casas did not want to just say we should all leave and he still agreed with European superiority. He also still agreed with saving souls, although he wants to do it in a more ethical manner and he believed European culture was superior because of the church, but not that the Europeans are a better race. He believed that he had a moral responsibility to raise these people up in their religious beliefs and that they were not just barbarous savages. Sepulveda believed in hierarchy of races and that Europeans are the masters. He believed that the natural order is to enslave other people and that they rule if they can’t defend them. He justified this by saying that Europeans were bringing agricultural technology and steel to the new world and that they transformed the stone age people to iron age people. Both agreed that these people needed some type of support and belief and that the Spanish should occupy the territory, but on different means of getting there. We discussed that the Europeans almost would have respected them more if the natives could have defended themselves. Finally the spanish won not just because of disease but because of all the Indian allies that helped them fight the Aztecs. Then the Spanish wrote that it was all about them and that they did it, this distorts the view of what really happened.
Berger suggests that these debates have continued on to this day. In what ways do you see these same issues playing out in relation to disputes over natural resources and Indian rights?
In what ways does Berger suggest that disease shaped the way colonization occurred? What impacts did these diseases have on Indian communities? How did Europeans perceive the outbreaks of these diseases? What advantages did it give them? Do you agree with Berger’s interpretation of the impact of disease on Spanish colonization?
The disease preceded the conquistadors and the natives were weakened before they even had a chance and without even knowing it. The Spanish made it easier for themselves to conquer the natives and it was final proof that their destruction was inevitable and they knew it would happen ahead of time. Smallpox is remarkably swift and devastating and the bubonic plague was nothing compared to small pox amongst the natives. We also discussed more about the actual disease and its’ effects.
How does Berger link government assimilation programs to the social problems and modern illnesses in Indian communities today? What, if any, solutions does he see to this problem?
In both of these chapters Berger draws heavily from secondary sources to support his arguments. While he points out the discrepancy between some of his sources (particularly over population statistics), how might this limit the usefulness of his work? Would it have strengthened his work to have incorporated more primary sources
"The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the page author. The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by the
Date created: January 10, 2000
Last modified: February, 2008
Copyright © 2008, George R. Spangler