Here's what I'm enjoying right now on pp. 26-27 (as the file is numbered):
The right to conquer, coercively convert, govern, and enslave the natives of the New World was subjected to intense criticism in a series of lectures in 1539 at the University of Salamanca by the great Dominican scholastic philosopher Francisco de Vitoria. In international law based upon the natural law, insisted Vitoria, the native peoples as well as European peoples have full equality of rights. No right of conquest by Europeans could result from crimes or errors of the natives, whether they be tyranny, murder, religious differences, or rejection of Christianity. Having grave doubts of the right of the Spaniards to any government of the natives, Vitoria advocated peaceful trade, in justice and in practice, as against conquest, enslavement, and political power, whether or not the last mentioned were aimed at individual profit, tax revenue, or conversion to Christianity. Although the Spanish government prohibited further discussion of these questions, the Vitoria lectures influenced the New Laws of 1542, which gave greater legal protection to the natives in America.
Nevertheless, there were defenders of imperialism in Spain who rejected internation law and scholastic individualism and returned to the slave theories of the classical authors. Based on the theory of natural servitude--that the majority of mankind is inferior and must be subdued to government by the ruling class, of course in the interest of that majority--these imperial apologists proposed that the natives be taught better morals, be converted, and be introduced to the blessings of economic development by being divided among the conquistadores, for whom they must labor.
The serfdom of the Indians was most strongly and zealously opposed by the Dominican missionary Bishop Bartolome de Las Casas. Tireless in working to influence European public opinion against the practices of Spanish officials in America, Las Casas argued that all men must have freedom so that reason, which naturally inclines men to live together in peace, justice, and cooperation, can remain free and unhampered. Therefore, concluded Las Casas, even pursuit of the great objective of conversion to Christianity cannot be used to violate these rights. Not only was all slavery evil, but the natives had a right to live independently of European government. The papacy, in 1537, condemned as heretical the concept that natives were not rational men or were naturally inferior persons. These progressive views were also reflected in the abolition of conquistador feudalism in the New Laws of 1542; however, this abolition was revoked by the Spanish Crown three years later.
I've gotta quit now. I'll edit the errors tomorrow.
11/26: editing done. Sorry, I was busier than I expected to be.
Here is a corroborating essay by Lewis Hanke. Here are a couple of 'graphs:
Disputes over baptism increased in number and intensity as the conquest proceeded. Las Casas opposed easy baptism [that is, baptism without instruction in the catechism] so strenuously that the quarrel was taken from Mexico across the ocean to Spain for resolution. Charles V decided to refer the issue to the Dominican Francisco de Vitoria and a group of other notable theologians at the University of Salamanca, who in 1541 supported unanimously the view that Indians should indeed be instructed before baptism. Vitoria, in his famous lectures at Salamanca which showed him to be one of the soaring thinkers of the century, also defended the Indians from the charge of irrationality.
There must have been a number who applied Aristotle's doctrine of natural slavery to the Indians, for Vitoria in De Indis analyzed and refuted it long before Sepúlveda espoused it. "The Indian aborigines . . are not of unsound mind." asserted Vitoria, "but have, according to their kind, the use of reason. This is clear, because there is a certain method in their affairs; they have polities which are carefully arranged and they have definite marriages and magistrates, overlords, laws, and workshops, and a system of exchange, all of which call for the use of reason; they also have a kind of religion."
I'll find more. I haven't even looked at Rothbard's endnotes yet. [Sorry I left them out of my quote.]
No comments:
Post a Comment