Valladolid debate

"Wild Men" depicted on the facade of the Colegio de San Gregorio

The Valladolid debate (1550–1551) was the first moral debate in European history to discuss the rights and treatment of a colonized people by colonizers. Held in the Colegio de San Gregorio, in the Spanish city of Valladolid, it was a moral and theological debate about the colonization of the Americas, its justification for the conversion to Catholicism and more specifically about the relations between the European settlers and the natives of the New World. It consisted of a number of opposing views about the way natives were to be integrated into colonial life, their conversion to Christianity and their rights and obligations.

A controversial theologian, Dominican friar and Bishop of Chiapas Bartolomé de las Casas, argued that the Amerindians were free men in the natural order despite their practice of human sacrifices and other such customs, deserving the same consideration as the colonizers.[1] Opposing this view were a number of scholars and priests including humanist scholar Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda, who argued that the human sacrifice of innocents, cannibalism, and other such "crimes against nature" were unacceptable and should be suppressed by any means possible including war.[2]

Although both sides claimed to have won the disputation, there is no clear record supporting either interpretation. The affair is considered one of the earliest examples of moral debates about colonialism, human rights of colonized peoples and international relations in history. In Spain, it served to establish de las Casas as the primary, though controversial defender of the Indians.[3] He and others contributed to the passing of the New Laws of 1542, which limited the encomienda system further.[4] Though they did not fully reverse the situation, the laws achieved considerable improvement in the treatment of Indians and consolidated their rights granted by earlier laws.[4] More importantly, the debate reflected a concern for morality and justice in 16th century Spain that only surfaced in other colonial powers centuries later.

Background

Bartolomé de las Casas was the principal defender of the Indians in the Junta of Valladolid

Spain's colonization and conquest of the Americas inspired an intellectual debate especially regarding the compulsory Christianization of the Indians. Bartolomé de las Casas, a Dominican friar from the School of Salamanca and member of the growing Christian Humanist movement, worked for years to oppose forced conversions and to expose the treatment of natives in the encomiendas. His efforts influenced the papal bull Sublimis Deus of 1537 (which established the status of the Indians as rational beings). More significantly, Las Casas was instrumental in the passage of the New Laws (the Laws of the Indies) of 1542, which were designed to end the encomienda system.[4]

Moved by Las Casas and others, in 1550 the King of Spain Charles V ordered further military expansion to cease until the issue was investigated.[4][5] The King assembled a Junta (Jury) of eminent doctors and theologians to hear both sides and to issue a ruling on the controversy.[1] Las Casas represented one side of the debate. His position found some support from the monarchy, which wanted to control the power of the encomenderos, and within the Catholic Church. Representing the other side was Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda, whose arguments supported the interests of the colonists and landowners who benefited from the system.[4]

Debate

Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda, supporter of the war "jousts" against the Indians

Though Las Casas tried to bolster his position by recounting his experiences with the encomienda system's mistreatment of the Indians, the debate remained on largely theoretical grounds. Sepúlveda took a more secular approach than Las Casas, basing his arguments largely on Aristotle and the Humanist tradition to assert the Indians were naturally predisposed to slavery, and could be subjected to bondage or war if necessary.[1] Las Casas objected, arguing that Aristotle's definition of the "barbarian" and the natural slave did not apply to the Indians, who were fully capable of reason and should be brought to Christianity without force or coercion.[4]

Sepúlveda put forward many of the arguments from his Latin dialogue Democrates Secundus sive de justi belli causis,[6] to assert that the barbaric traditions of the Indians justified waging war against them. The Spaniards, according to Sepúlveda, were entitled to punish other peoples for performing such vicious practices as idolatry, sodomy, and cannibalism. Wars had to be waged "in order to uproot crimes that offend nature".[7] This was an obligation to which every Spaniard, whether secular or religious, had to conform.

Sepúlveda issued four main justifications for enslaving Indians. First, their natural condition deemed them fit for slavery, and it was the responsibility of the Spaniards to act as masters. Second, Spaniards were entitled to prevent Indians from engaging in cannibalism as they saw fit. Third, the same went for Indians who sacrificed innocents to their Gods. Fourth, slavery was an effective method of converting Indians to Christianity.[8] He drew on Aristotle's theory of natural slavery and the Humanist tradition to argue that the Indians were predisposed to slavery, and could be subjected to bondage or war if need be.[1]

Mendoza Codex showing in the same drawing the kind of arguments used by both sides, advanced architecture versus brutal killings

Las Casas was prepared for part of his opponent's discourse, since he, upon hearing about the existence of Sepúlveda's Democrates Secundus, had written in the late 1540s his own Latin work, the Apologia, which aimed at debunking his opponent's theological arguments by arguing that Aristotle's definition of the "barbarian" and the natural slave did not apply to the Indians, who were fully capable of reason and should be brought to Christianity without force.[9][10]

Las Casas pointed out that every individual was obliged by international law to prevent the innocent from being treated unjustly. He also cited Saint Augustine and Saint John Chrysostom, both of whom had opposed the use of force to punish crimes against nature. Human sacrifice was wrong, but it would be better to avoid war by any means possible. The Indians had to be converted to Christianity without resorting to force.[11]

The arguments presented by Las Casas and Sepúlveda to the junta of Valladolid remained too abstract, with both sides stubbornly clinging to their opposite theories that ironically relied on similar, if not the same, theoretical authorities, which were interpreted to suit their respective arguments.[12]

Aftermath

In the end, both parties declared that they had won the debate, but neither received the desired outcome. Las Casas saw no end to Spanish wars of conquest in the New World, and Sepúlveda did not see the New Laws' restricting the power of the encomienda system overturned. The debate cemented Las Casas's position as the lead defender of the Indians in the Spanish Empire,[3] and further weakened the encomienda system. However, it did not substantially alter Spanish treatment of the Indians.[4]

Reflection in art

In 1938 there was published the story of the German writer Reinhold Schneider "Las Kasas and Charles V" ("Las Casas vor Karl V. Szenen aus der Konquistadorenzeit").

In 1992 the Valladolid debate became an inspiration source for Jean-Claude Carier who published the novel "La Controverse de Valladolid" ("Dispute in Valladolid"). The novel was filmed for television under the same name. The director — Jean-Danielle Veren, Jean-Pierre Marielle played Las Kasas, Jean-Louis Trintignant acted as Sepúlveda.

See also

Notes

  1. 1 2 3 4 Crow, John A. The Epic of Latin America, 4th ed. University of California Press, Berkeley: 1992.
  2. ↑ Ginés de Sepúlveda, Juan (trans. Marcelino Menendez y Pelayo and Manuel Garcia-Pelayo) (1941). Tratado sobre las Justas Causas de la Guerra contra los Indios. Mexico D.F.: Fondo de Cultura Económica. p. 155.
  3. 1 2 Raup Wagner, Henry and Rand Parish, Helen (1967). The Life and Writings of Bartolomé de Las Casas. New Mexico: The University of New Mexico Press. pp. 181–182.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Bonar Ludwig Hernandez. "The Las Casas-Sepúlveda Controversy: 1550-1551" (PDF). Ex Post Facto (San Francisco State University) 10: 95–104. Retrieved September 13, 2011.
  5. ↑ Hanke, Lewis (1974). All Mankind is One: A study of the Disputation Between Bartolomé de Las Casas and Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda in 1550 on the Intellectual and Religious Capacity of the American Indian. Illinois: Northern Illinois University Press. p. 67.
  6. ↑ Anthony Padgen: The Fall of Natural Man: The American Indian and the Origins of Comparative Ethnology, page 109. Cambridge University Press, 1982.
  7. ↑ Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda: Tratado sobre las Justas Causas de la Guerra contra los Indios, Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1941.
  8. ↑ Losada, Angel (1971). Bartolome de las Casas in History: Toward an Understanding of the Man and His Work. The Northern Illinois University Press. pp. 284–289.
  9. ↑ Angel Losada: The Controversy between Sepúlveda and Las Casas in the Junta of Valladolid, pages 280-282. The Northern Illinois University Press, 1971.
  10. ↑ Silvio Zavala: Aspectos Formales de la Controversia entre Sepúlveda y Las Casas en Valladolid, a mediados del siglo XVI y observaciones sobre la apologia de Fray Bartolomé de Las Casas, pages 137-162. Cuadernos Americanos 212, 1977.
  11. ↑ Bartolomé de Las Casas, In Defense, pages 212-215
  12. ↑ Brading, D.A.: The First America: the Spanish Monarchy, Creole Patriots, and the Liberal State 1492-1867, pages 80-88. Cambridge University Press, 1991.

References

External links

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Tuesday, April 05, 2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.