Talk:Bartolomé de las Casas

Two of them

I have been exasperated by the fact that, when I search the net, I find that there are mentions of two distinct persons, living far apart in time, with this same name. This article deals with the first and more famous man. But the references to Las Casas or to Bartholome de las Casas in many places, such as the Catholic Encyclopedia 1907-1913 is evidently to a later person. This later person wrote on Napoleon Bonaparte, for example, so it is physically impossible that he is the same person as the subject of this article. I want information on the later Bartholome de las Casas. Can anyone help? WikiSceptic 08:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Controversy over the Humanity of the Amerindians

Unexact, this article is biased by a modern point of view. The most important fact is that he defended the fact the that indians were humans having a soul when some catholic theoligist believed they were non-human, finally the pope agreed with. Of course he was also considering that the Spanish colons committed crimes against the indians... but this is not essential in reguard of the importance of the question of the human nature of the indians.

Well I didn't know his book so the article was not wrong but I'm sure of whatI write before too. I'm not how should I call the debate about human nature of the Indian : Contreverse de Valladolid in french (Valladolid controvesy ?????)

birthdate

There seems to be some controversy about the year of his birth (1474 or 1484). Here is the source for the 1484 date: Helen Brand Parish and Harold E Weidman, S.J., "The Correct Birthdate of Bartolomé de Las Casas," Hispanic American Historical Review 56, no. 3 (August 1976): 385-403. I include this since it's been reverted once. Antandrus 01:50, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Added as a footnote (after quite some delay!) grendel|khan 21:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

De thesauris in Peru

Anybody know more about "De thesauris in Peru"?--Dynamax 19:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Converso?

Could someone give a reference to the 'claim that Las Casas was descended from a converso family'? Many thanks. --House of Shin 08:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

There are some references about it in the The Spanish Empire of Hugh Thomas.--Menah the Great 19:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Marxist claim

His first hand interpretations of Taíno cultures as feudal have been criticized 500 years later by Marx-influenced historians since it does not fit into their theoretical vision of the progress of society.

This seriously needs to be sourced, particularly the rationale given. I quite doubt that a Marxist who believed this would consider a characterization of himself as having an artifically constricted worldview as neutral. --Saforrest 21:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

There was no theological debate over the humanity of the indigenous peoples of the Americas in Spain: it was never in question. what was debated at Valladolid and at all the disputations organized by the crown (1513, 1542, 1550-51) was the right to self-governance and the larger issue of whether or not the Amerindians had sound exercise of the faculty of reason. Ratiocination was the key to the debate, not humanity. There would be no point in the evangelical project that undergirded the justification for empire and the encomienda system if any actual theologians or officials of the Crown doubted the humanity of the natives.

This a random thought of some editor overly obsessed with a particular idealogy (and therofore against NPOV policy). It is completely irrelevant what Marxists think about Bartolome De Las Casas so I removed it. This is not an article about Marxist ideaology. If Bartolome De Las Casas had been a Marxist, then it might be worth mentioning, but obviously thats not the case (he wasn't even a proto-marxist. He has nothing to do with Marxism). I can't believe anyone saw this as worth discussion whether or not it actually he has been critisized--when something is so obviously out of place delete it! Fundamentalist evangelicals have critisized Mickey Mouse, should we include their criticisms in the Mickey Mouse article? --Brentt 04:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Bartolomeu Casaus was a Catalan

[[Image:As you can see in this picture, Bartolomeu do not sign as Bartolome de las Casas. He signed as "Bartomeu Casaus". It means that like Cristòfor Colom, he was from Barcelona, Mallorca or Valencia, in general from the catalan kingdom. I thing that this shoud be understanded in the context of the fight castillians-catalans for the control of new world wich hapened at the end of the sixteen century. This document is a part of a sentence he wrote when he was bishop of Chiapas (México).

You can see the image in:

http://www.histocat.com/htm/secc_inv_11_02.htm

The signature of Bartomeu Casaus.

According to Catalan chauvinism, all people involved in American discovery (except bloody conquistadors like Cortés and Pizarro, of course) were Catalans. They name Collumbus as "Colom", Vespuccio as "Despuig"... and now Las Casas is "Casaus"? LOL! The reality is that he was born in Seville in 1484, son of Pedro de las Casas, a possible converso merchant from Tarifa, and his wife Isabel de Sosa. Other well-known relative of Las Casas is his uncle Francisco de Peñalosa (they had different surnames because in 15th Century, Spaniards used to choose one of the four of their grandparents), that also travelled to Hispaniola in Ovando's journey. If that signature is authentic, the word "Casaus" may be just a poor latinization, like the signature "Siliceus" of Toledo's Bishop Guijarro. I don't see any "Bartolomeu" in the image.

By the way, there was never a "Catalan kingdom" (at the time, modern day Catalonia was only the County of Barcelona, the only one of the four parts of Crown of Aragon that was not a kingdom) and there was not any "fight" between Castilians and Catalans in the New World. Ferdinand II decided that Italy was part of Aragon and the West Indies part of Castile, but both Castilian and Aragonese people were able to emigrate or fight in both territories. Well known Catalans in the New World include the friars Bernal Buyl and Pere Margarit, strong enemies of Collumbus in Hispaniola; Joan Orpí, 17th Century founder of Barcelona, Venezuela; and Gaspar de Portolà, 18th Century conquistador of California. None of these few examples had to hide his origins.--Menah the Great 20:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

There is obviously a "barth" with superscript "meg" in the image, short for the full name, much as Wm is short for William or Chas for Charles. shannon grubb —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.61.143.87 (talk) 16:50, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Casaus, Colom, and also Pinçon or Cortès are more than ever nationally disputed since there has been tremendous proof contradicting castillan naissance. Actually proof points towards catalan procedence. Fact is that an Empire had born (Spain), and America -the continent- was too much a cake to be eaten. The Empire didn't want to deliver it to a catalan as well as any other person of different nation because of property rights. That's why the Empire of the Inquisition had this censorship so strong as to hide the nationality of the first discoverers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.184.25.167 (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Journal of Christopher Columbus

Editor of the Journal of Christopher Columbus? According to King's College London, the personal Journal has disappeared along with the only know copy. Bartolome de Las Casas at some point DID have access to a copy of the work, which he quotes in many places in the Historia. But I don't think that this should be grounds for calling him an "editor", especially of an as-of-yet published (much less, recovered) Journal.

Influence on Montaigne

Could the author please document the evidence of Las Casas' direct influence on Montaigne? Various scholars (Marcel Bataillon, William Hamlin, Tom Conley) have said there is no evidence that Montaigne ever read Las Casas, although it is not impossible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.245.142.137 (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Slavery Issue

This statement seems like it was put in as a form of damage control. It has no citaiton, and is not articulated with the same level of quality as the rest of the paragraph. Most importantly, it is not backed up with evidence.

To avoid the burden of slavery on them, Las Casas proposed that Africans be brought to America instead, though he later changed his mind about this when he saw the effects of slavery on Africans.

--Whenhumor (talk) 01:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

---

I read that BDLC did recant on this matter, "I soon repented and judged myself guilty of ignorance. I came to realize that black slavery was as unjust as Indian slavery . . . and I was not sure that my ignorance and good faith would secure me in the eyes of God. (II, 257)" PLease see source below, extracted on 8-9-09.

Bartolomé de las Casas and Truth: Toward a Spirituality of Solidarity, by Brian Pierce "Spirituality Today" Spring 1992, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 4-19 http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:tw8fLUoMKksJ:www.spiritualitytoday.org/spir2day/92441pierce.html+black+slavery+bartolome+de+las+casas&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

David Walker

I have added a note in the legacy section about the criticism of Las Casas by 19thC abolitionist David Walker. I am not trying to warp the article "against" the subject, and obviously the language should be cleaned up if people feel it is not a fair representation. Hljómalind (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Consecration as bishop

The summary paragraph makes reference to his being the 'first resident bishop of the Chiapas' but there is no reference to when and how this came about. Not a very important point, but one that should be present in the article, as it reflects the willingness of the church hierarchy to get involved in the issues he is raising. In an ideal world there would be an article on the diocese of the Chiapas, with a full list of the bishops since the inauguration of the see, with a link here... Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 09:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

There is such an article, rudimentary though and bearing the current name of the diocese: Roman Catholic Diocese of San Cristóbal de Las Casas.

Agree the circumstances re Las Casas' appt should be fleshed out (appointed 1543 by Charles V, ordained 1544, consecrated by Jerónimo de Loayza (bishop of Lima), resigned c. 1550) in the article. Will look to updt next time I'm online. --cjllw ʘ TALK 15:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

ps. The 'first resident bishop of chiapas' part might literally be true (with emphasis on resident), but looks a bit misleading. Seems he did have a predecessor in Chiapas, Juan de Arteaga y Avendaño, appointed 1539 but not ordained to 1941, died a few months later in Mexico City without (I think) ever taking up actual residence there. --cjllw ʘ TALK 15:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Introduction/Bias/Black Legend

The beginning paragraph states "As a settler in the New World he witnessed, and was driven to oppose, the torture and genocide of the Native Americans by the Spanish colonists".

This is not only factually wrong, but also clearly biased.

1) The Spanish did not engage in "Genocide" this is a 20th century word with very clear connotations. At no time did the Spanish want to exterminate the Indians as a race. For one, they did not want to exterminate the Indians because they were interested in converting them. Secondly, they depended on them as labor force through systems such as the Mita and Encomienda, and later through debt peonage. The very fact that the King passed the New Laws, and that Queen Isabela of Castille proclaimed the Indians as her subjects and forbid their enslavement shows that Genocide was neither planned, nor carried out. Military conquest? Exploitation? Human Rights abuses? absolutely. This is not "Genocide" however, and mislabeling it as such only harms our understanding of events that were really acts Genocide, i.e, The Armenian Genocide, The Holocaust, Rwanda, etc.

Recent scholarship shows that the severe decrease in Native population was not due to the active, willful execution of a genocidal campaign, but caused by disease and epidemics.

2) If anyone has actually read Short Account of Destruction of the Indies,it is obvious that de Las Casas exaggerates many points. While it is necessary to condemn the brutality with which the Natives were treated and conquered, this work needs to be read in context and taken with a grain of salt - De Las Casas needed to convince the King of the need to pass laws legislating the treatment of the natives and the Encomienda System, and therefore he stretched the truth to make his argument more convincing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.240.206 (talk) 08:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The differences between the mortality rates of the natives of the Caribbean and of the natives of the continent, though, would demonstrate that forced labor and disregard for safety did play a huge role in the dying. Only when critics of the forms of colonization that were being undertaken were able to convince others of the need to not mistreat the natives horribly were the natives able to survive at all. Any power that today would move into another territory and work the population to death would be accused (rightly) of genocide. Yes, a lot died out from disease, but it's nowhere near as high as some scholars (not even most; you can't just cite the ones who put up the highest percentages) would argue. Las Casas and other contemporaries like Francisco de Vitoria would have seen the forced labor practices as genocidal acts just like we do, even if they didn't call them that. 163.1.121.105 (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Chronological inconsistency in "A dominican friar"

The text says Las Casas (LC) went to Mexico in 1538, debated there and then the bull "sublimus dei" was issued because of these discussions. The bull was issued in 1537, though, one year before.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Sublimus_Dei — Preceding unsigned comment added by Econautx (talk • contribs) 15:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll check with the source and see how that discrepancy is explained.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I had reversed the order of events making it look as if the meeting in Oaxaca took place while Las Casas was waiting to go to Spain in 1538, when in fact the meeting was in 1536 before Las Xasas entered Tuzulutlan. Thanks for noticing!·Maunus·ƛ· 17:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)