Las Casas also rebuttals Sepúlveda’s second claim: the Indians need intervention because of their use of barbarous society and practices. First off, Las Casas analyzes whether or not Spain has jurisdiction to intervene in this matter. He claims that under temporal jurisdiction, spiritual matters are not matters of the state for idolaters living in the Christian kingdom. Moreover, idolaters living outside the Christian kingdom are neither problems of the state nor the church. Even when looking at the Indian’s written language, although it is in special characters, Las Casas believed it was proof of a functioning society where the natives were capable of governing themselves at the time, meaning the Christian kingdom has no legitimate reason
…show more content…
When doing a comparison of their arguments, it would seem that they are drastically opposed to one another. However, it seems apparent that they are both merely offering different outlooks within the same dominant structure. In the film Even in the Rain, the dominant actors are seen eating dinner and having a heated conversation regarding Bartolomé de las Casas. As some venerate Las Casas as being a radical pro-Indian liberation, Anton provides viewers with a different perspective. Conceding to the fact that Las Casas was looking for the humanization of the indigenous people, he also did seek to limit their freedom by making them answer to the Spanish Crown. Las Casas argues for the integration of the natives as equals to their Spaniard counterparts, assimilating to the dominant culture. It is for this reason that I believe Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda and Bartolomé de las Casas are not as different as they may seem, where the difference lies in the level of oppression for the conquered people. Sepúlveda called for the outright deprivation of the Indian’s rights, using them as a commodity to help the Spaniards. Las Casas called for giving the Indians rights, but forcing them to still abide the Spanish Crown. The oppression of the Indians is still prevalent in both views, because neither Sepúlveda nor Las Casas believe the Indians should be the sovereign entity they once were before the Spaniards invaded. Both still holding onto natural law, their claims are rooted in the idea that the Spaniards and Christianity are superior to anything else in the New World, which is why I would not label Las Casas as the “Protector of the Indians”. Colonization is still the end goal of both debaters, and neither really call for the Indians making their own choice on whether or not to become loyal to this colonial power but rather assume the Indians will become part of their
When doing a comparison of their arguments, it would seem that they are drastically opposed to one another. However, it seems apparent that they are both merely offering different outlooks within the same dominant structure. In the film Even in the Rain, the dominant actors are seen eating dinner and having a heated conversation regarding Bartolomé de las Casas. As some venerate Las Casas as being a radical pro-Indian liberation, Anton provides viewers with a different perspective. Conceding to the fact that Las Casas was looking for the humanization of the indigenous people, he also did seek to limit their freedom by making them answer to the Spanish Crown. Las Casas argues for the integration of the natives as equals to their Spaniard counterparts, assimilating to the dominant culture. It is for this reason that I believe Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda and Bartolomé de las Casas are not as different as they may seem, where the difference lies in the level of oppression for the conquered people. Sepúlveda called for the outright deprivation of the Indian’s rights, using them as a commodity to help the Spaniards. Las Casas called for giving the Indians rights, but forcing them to still abide the Spanish Crown. The oppression of the Indians is still prevalent in both views, because neither Sepúlveda nor Las Casas believe the Indians should be the sovereign entity they once were before the Spaniards invaded. Both still holding onto natural law, their claims are rooted in the idea that the Spaniards and Christianity are superior to anything else in the New World, which is why I would not label Las Casas as the “Protector of the Indians”. Colonization is still the end goal of both debaters, and neither really call for the Indians making their own choice on whether or not to become loyal to this colonial power but rather assume the Indians will become part of their