Commentary on “Las Casas”
Las Casas makes references to systems of natural and civil, or “Roman” laws. He uses these notions of rights to point out the contradictions and barbarity inherent in the colonial encounter. The conduct of the Spaniards places them outside of the civilized locus they’re supposed to embody and in gross violation of the system of rights they’re supposed to be operating under and assimilating the native community into as part of their divine mission to spread Christianity. There conduct was in “condemnation of all laws known to man.” Las Casas frequently points to the hypocrisy of the encounter and the wickedness of those commanding the slaughter. Although at times it felt as though, should the natives have acted differently (less compliant and submissive), some of these actions would have been legitimized. However, I suspect it was simply the absurdity of his frequent reminder that the natives did nothing to violate the “law” as instituted by the Spanish. Nor did they act in a hostile manner, vengeful, or with hatred, “sins that are properly the province of God.” Under the circumstances of the encounter I hardly think that violating either human or natural law would have been outside their realm of rights.
Las Casas describes how the natives were labeled outlaws and disobedient towards Spanish law and the rule of their King (since Spanish authority encompassed the entire New World) for not acting complacent, when the complacence required of them was as foreign as the religion and the system of law that presided unknowingly over their heads. He asked the question: how can an individual be in rebellion or respite towards a system of royal decree or towards a religion that they do not yet comprehend and to which they do not yet belong?
His notion of rights is crucial to his argument that only the natives had the legitimate right to kill their oppressors. Since their natural freedom was robbed from them in a rain of bloodshed, justice was theirs to deliver.
Las Casas’ narrative frequently returns to the themes of lost innocence and blackened purity. The natives were naturally gentle, humble, peace-loving, already embodying the qualities that were to be cultivated within them through Christianity. The Spaniards traded their duties to their King and God for sin through greed and barbarity. The massacre of the natives symbolizes the loss of innocence and the erosion of both natural and human law. The innocence of all died with the natives while the Spanish “ceased to be men”.
last301
Las Casas makes references to systems of natural and civil, or “Roman” laws. He uses these notions of rights to point out the contradictions and barbarity inherent in the colonial encounter. The conduct of the Spaniards places them outside of the civilized locus they’re supposed to embody and in gross violation of the system of rights they’re supposed to be operating under and assimilating the native community into as part of their divine mission to spread Christianity. There conduct was in “condemnation of all laws known to man.” Las Casas frequently points to the hypocrisy of the encounter and the wickedness of those commanding the slaughter. Although at times it felt as though, should the natives have acted differently (less compliant and submissive), some of these actions would have been legitimized. However, I suspect it was simply the absurdity of his frequent reminder that the natives did nothing to violate the “law” as instituted by the Spanish. Nor did they act in a hostile manner, vengeful, or with hatred, “sins that are properly the province of God.” Under the circumstances of the encounter I hardly think that violating either human or natural law would have been outside their realm of rights.
Las Casas describes how the natives were labeled outlaws and disobedient towards Spanish law and the rule of their King (since Spanish authority encompassed the entire New World) for not acting complacent, when the complacence required of them was as foreign as the religion and the system of law that presided unknowingly over their heads. He asked the question: how can an individual be in rebellion or respite towards a system of royal decree or towards a religion that they do not yet comprehend and to which they do not yet belong?
His notion of rights is crucial to his argument that only the natives had the legitimate right to kill their oppressors. Since their natural freedom was robbed from them in a rain of bloodshed, justice was theirs to deliver.
Las Casas’ narrative frequently returns to the themes of lost innocence and blackened purity. The natives were naturally gentle, humble, peace-loving, already embodying the qualities that were to be cultivated within them through Christianity. The Spaniards traded their duties to their King and God for sin through greed and barbarity. The massacre of the natives symbolizes the loss of innocence and the erosion of both natural and human law. The innocence of all died with the natives while the Spanish “ceased to be men”.
last301
posted by Spencer at 3:40 PM
1 Comments:
What I find ironic about the whole thing is that the Spaniards broke the laws of man and also sinned repeatedly against God, but all in the name of God. They used the values and their "dedication" of God to condemn and massacre the natives. Kind of hypocritical I'd say!
Post a Comment
<< Home