In Part A, The Native Americans, one will read about two very different ideas regarding the nature of the American Indians. The first read is based off the views of Juan Gines de Sepulveda (Sepulveda) and how he views the Indians as inferior to the Spaniards. The other view is from Bartolome de Las Casas and how he views the Indians as equal to the Spaniards. They are both quick to argue whether or not the Indian people are barbarians, whether or not they can form a government, and if they are smart enough to have their own faith. Sepulveda was a Spaniard who studied in Italy. He was a theologian, historian, astronomer, and a philosopher. Since Sepulveda was a student of Aristotle, he heavily believed the idea of ‘civilized’ vs ‘barbarians’.
…show more content…
Although Sepulveda might be heavily biased off of his studies from Aristotle, Las Casas might be a little influenced as well by his own beliefs from the Bible. [Chapter 4 C1 vs …show more content…
In South Carolina in 1739, a majority of the population was made up of black slaves. So when a group of Africans banded together to murder slave owners, although cruel and inhumane, some could justify it as equality. Although the text states that they did not kill Mr Wallace because he was a good man and kind to his slaves, they murdered many people leaving nobody behind, including women and children. As i’ve stated, some can call this justice considering how many millions of lives were taken for sake of superiority. In both of these texts, they have similar points, both include murder or the action of sending masses to their deaths, but they share two completely different stories. One is of a man who is considered ‘superior’ to most of the world simply because his skin has formed from a genetic mutation, who felt guilty for himself because of a deed that he knows was wrong. The other story is of injustice, and violence due to the millions of their own being brutally murdered. However, all together they seem to shed tears for this horrible event that has happened, even if they had dealt with it in their own different ways. Together I think that Philips and others would have agreed that they had no justice. And although I believe Philips is feeling guilty for himself, it was that guilt in many other Europeans/Americans that allowed for the Africans to eventually become ‘free’ which is a very important
Although Sepulveda might be heavily biased off of his studies from Aristotle, Las Casas might be a little influenced as well by his own beliefs from the Bible. [Chapter 4 C1 vs …show more content…
In South Carolina in 1739, a majority of the population was made up of black slaves. So when a group of Africans banded together to murder slave owners, although cruel and inhumane, some could justify it as equality. Although the text states that they did not kill Mr Wallace because he was a good man and kind to his slaves, they murdered many people leaving nobody behind, including women and children. As i’ve stated, some can call this justice considering how many millions of lives were taken for sake of superiority. In both of these texts, they have similar points, both include murder or the action of sending masses to their deaths, but they share two completely different stories. One is of a man who is considered ‘superior’ to most of the world simply because his skin has formed from a genetic mutation, who felt guilty for himself because of a deed that he knows was wrong. The other story is of injustice, and violence due to the millions of their own being brutally murdered. However, all together they seem to shed tears for this horrible event that has happened, even if they had dealt with it in their own different ways. Together I think that Philips and others would have agreed that they had no justice. And although I believe Philips is feeling guilty for himself, it was that guilt in many other Europeans/Americans that allowed for the Africans to eventually become ‘free’ which is a very important