Antes: Pedro de Córdoba OP (c.

1460–1525) was a Spanish missionary, author and inquisitor

on the island of Hispaniola. He was first to denounce the Spanish system known as the
Encomienda, which amounted to the practical enslavement of natives of the New World, for
the abuses that it engendered.

Em 21 de Dezembro de 1511, escutou o célebre Sermão do Advento1 por frei António de

Montesinos, no qual este defendia a dignidade dos indígenas. O profundo impacto daquela
pregação levou Bartolomeu de las Casas a uma nova atitude, e ele passou a pregar contra o
sistema de encomienda, denunciando-o como injusto. Considerava, então, que os únicos
donos do Novo Mundo eram os índios, e que os espanhóis só deviam lá ir para o trabalho de
conversão. Renunciou a todas as suas encomiendas e iniciou uma campanha de defesa dos
índios, mostrando tudo o que havia de injusto do sistema. A campanha foi dirigida ao próprio
rei de Aragão, Fernando II, e depois ao Cardeal Cisneros, que viria a nomeá-lo "protetor dos
índios", em 1516.

Atribui-se, a sua influência, o fato de que, em 20 de novembro de 1542, tenham sido

publicadas as "Leis Novas", em que se restringiam as encomendas e a escravidão dos índios,
embora não tenham sido do agrado pleno de Las Casas. Escreveu, então, sua obra mais
importante: Brevísima relación de la destrucción de las Indias. Como acusa os descobridores
da América de crimes, abusos e violências, a obra foi chamada de escandalosa e exagerada, e
não conseguiu evitar a continuação das conquistas, como desejava.

[Varios encomenderos y religiosos se quejaron al rey Fernando el Católico y le solicitaron la

expulsión de los dominicos. El provincial de los dominicos de Castilla, Alfonso de Loaysa,
llegó a pedir a fray Pedro de Córdoba que dejasen esa actitud, porque corrían el riesgo de que
la orden fuera expulsada del Nuevo Mundo. Desde La Española fue enviado a España un
representante de los encomenderos, el franciscano fray Alonso de Espinar, y los dominicos
mandaron a Antonio de Montesinos. El rey Fernando los escuchó a los dos y ordenó que se
1
Santo Domingo, 21 de dezembro de 1511.

Para que vocês conheçam estas verdades eu subi aqui, eu sou a voz de Cristo no deserto desta ilha. E,
portanto, convém que com atenção, e não com qualquer atenção, mas com todo o vosso coração e com todos
os vossos sentidos, deveis ouvir; a voz que que dirá algo que nunca ouvistes, a mais áspera e dura e
assustadora e perigosa do que nunca pensastes em ouvir.

Esta voz lhe diz que todos estão em pecado mortal e nele viveis e morrereis pela crueldade e tirania que vós
praticais contra essas pessoas inocentes.

Pergunto: Com que direito e com que justiça manténs em tão cruel e horrível servidão estes indígenas? Com
que autoridade vós tens travado guerras tão detestáveis contra estas pessoas, que estavam em suas terras
mansas e pacíficas, onde muitos deles, com a morte e destruição nunca tinham sofrido? Como vós os manteis
tão oprimidos e fatigados, sem dar-lhes de comer nem tratar de suas enfermidades causadas pelo excesso de
trabalho exigido por vós, adoecem e morrem, ou melhor, vós os matais para extrair e adquirir mais ouro a
cada os dia? Que cuidado téneis para os doutrinar e para que conheçam o seu Deus e criador, sejam batizados,
ouçam a missa, observem os feriados e domingos?

Estes não são homens? Eles não têm almas racionais? Você não é obrigado a amá-los como a vós mesmos?
Não entendeis isto? Não sentis isso? Como vós podeis estar em um sono tão profundo, tão letárgico? Tenhais
a certeza de que, no estado em estais não não podeis mais salvar os que carecem e mp querem a a fé de Jesus
Cristo[1].
hiciera una junta para estudiar la situación de los indios. De esta junta, reunida en Burgos en
1512, y de la posterior en 1513, surgieron las primeras normas para defender a los nativos,10
y con todas las normas posteriores pasaron a constituir las Leyes de Indias, la primera
legislación de derechos humanos de la historia. Aunque su aplicación en el Nuevo Mundo era
muchas veces pasada por alto.

Tras aquel discurso, a Las Casas se le negó la absolución debido a que en esa época aún
mantenía su repartimiento indígena.11

Las Casas permaneció sin meterse en este duelo entre frailes y encomenderos, atendiendo a
su labor de doctrinero y a la gestión de sus encomiendas en La Concepción.10]

Otro viaje transatlántico volvió a fray Bartolomé de las Casas de nuevo a España en 1540. En
Valladolid, visitó al rey Carlos I de España y V del Sacro Imperio Romano Germánico. El
emperador Carlos quien, entre sus numerosos títulos era "Rey Católico" desde 1517,
preocupado por la situación de los indios en América y prestando oídos a las demandas de De
las Casas y a las nuevas ideas del derecho de gentes difundidas por Francisco de Vitoria,
convocó al Consejo de Indias a través de Comisión de Valladolid o Junta de Valladolid. Entre
los comisionados se encontraban los más importantes teólogos y juristas europeos de su
época.

Las Casas returned to Spain, leaving behind many conflicts and unresolved issues. Arriving
in Spain he was met by a barrage of accusations, many of them based on his Confesionario
and its 12 rules, which many of his opponents found to be in essence a denial of the
legitimacy of Spanish rule of its colonies, and hence a form of treason. The Crown had for
example received a fifth of the large number of slaves taken in the recent Mixtón War, and so
could not be held clean of guilt under Las Casas's strict rules. In 1548 the Crown decreed that
all copies of Las Casas's Confesionario be burnt, and his Franciscan adversary, Motolinia
obliged and sent back a report to Spain. Las Casas defended himself by writing two treatises
on the "Just Title" – arguing that the only legality with which the Spaniards could claim titles
over realms in the New World was through peaceful proselytizing. All warfare was illegal
and unjust and only through the papal mandate of peacefully bringing Christianity to heathen
peoples could "Just Titles" be acquired.[65]

Black Legend
#

As a result of the points we have proved and made clear, the distinction the Philosopher
[Aristotle] makes between the two above-mentioned kinds of barbarian is evident. For those he
deals with in the first book of the Politics, and whom we have just discussed, are barbarians without
qualification, in the proper and strict sense of the word, that is, dull witted and lacking in the
reasoning powers necessary for self-government. They are without laws, without king, etc. For this
reason they are by nature unfitted for rule.

However, he admits, and proves, that the barbarians he deals with in the third book of the
same work have a lawful, just, and natural government. Even though they lack the art and use of
writing, they are not wanting in the capacity and skill to rule and govern themselves, both publicly
and privately. Thus they have kingdoms, communities, and cities that they govern wisely according
to their laws and customs. Thus their government is legitimate and natural, even though it has some
resemblance to tyranny. From these statements we have no choice but to conclude that the rulers of
such nations enjoy the use of reason and that their people and the inhabitants of their provinces do
not lack peace and justice. Otherwise they could not be established or preserved as political entities
for long. This is made clear by the Philosopher and Augustine. Therefore not all barbarians are
irrational or natural slaves or unfit for government. Some barbarians, then, in accord with justice and
nature, have kingdoms, royal dignities, jurisdiction, and good laws, and there is among them lawful
government.

Now if we shall have shown that among our Indians of the western and southern shores
(granting that we call them barbarians and that they are barbarians) there are important kingdoms,
large numbers of people who live settled lives in a society, great cities, kings, judges and laws,
persons who engage in commerce, buying, selling, lending, and the other contracts of the law of
nations, will it not stand proved that the Reverend Doctor Sepúlveda has spoken wrongly and
viciously against peoples like these, either out of malice or ignorance of Aristotle's teaching, and,
therefore, has falsely and perhaps irreparably slandered them before the entire world? From the
fact that the Indians are barbarians it does not necessarily follow that they are incapable of
government and have to be ruled by others, except to be taught about the Catholic faith and to be
admitted to the holy sacraments. They are not ignorant, inhuman, or bestial. Rather, long before
they had heard the word Spaniard they had properly or ga nized states, wisely ordered by excellent
laws, religion, and custom. They cultivated friendship and, bound together in common fellowship,
lived in populous cities in which they wisely administered the affairs of both peace and war justly
and equitably, truly governed by laws that at very many points surpass ours, and could have won the
admiration of the sages of Athens. . . .
 Now if they are to be subjugated by war because they are ignorant of polished literature, let
Sepúlveda hear Trogus Pompey:

Nor could the Spaniards submit to the yoke of a conquered province until Caesar Augustus, after he
had conquered the world, turned his victorious armies against them and organized that barbaric and
wild people as a province, once he had led them by law to a more civilized way of life.

Now see how he called the Spanish people barbaric and wild. I would like to hear Sepúlveda,
in his cleverness, answer this question: Does he think that the war of the Romans against the
Spanish was justified in order to free them from barbarism? And this question also: Did the Spanish
wage an unjust war when they vigorously defended themselves against them?

Next, I call the Spaniards who plunder that unhappy people torturers. Do you think that the
Romans, once they had subjugated the wild and barbaric peoples of Spain, could with secure right
divide all of you among themselves, handing over so many head of both males and females as
allotments to individuals? And do you then conclude that the Romans could have stripped your
rulers of their authority and consigned all of you, after you had been deprived of your liberty, to
wretched labors, especially in searching for gold and silver lodes and mining and refining the metals?
And if the Romans finally did that, . . . [would you not judge] that you also have the right to defend
your freedom, indeed your very life, by war? Sepúlveda, would you have permitted Saint James to
evangelize your own people of Córdoba in that way? For God's sake and man's faith in him, is this
the way to impose the yoke of Christ on Christian men? Is this the way to remove wild barbarism
from the minds of barbarians? Is it not, rather, to act like thieves, cut-throats, and cruel plunderers
and to drive the gentlest of people headlong into despair? The Indian race is not that barbaric, nor
are they dull witted or stupid, but they are easy to teach and very talented in learning all the liberal
arts, and very ready to accept, honor, and observe the Christian religion and correct their sins (as
experience has taught) once priests have introduced them to the sacred mysteries and taught them
the word of God. They have been endowed with excellent conduct, and before the coming of the
Spaniards, as we have said, they had political states that were well founded on beneficial laws.

Now if Sepúlveda had wanted, as a serious man should, to know the full truth before he sat
down to write with his mind corrupted by the lies of tyrants, he should have consulted the honest
religious who have lived among those peoples for many years and know their endowments of
character and industry, as well as the progress they have made in religion and morality. . . .

From this it is clear that the basis for Sepúlveda's teaching that these people are uncivilized
and ignorant is worse than false. Yet even if we were to grant that this race has no keenness of mind
or artistic ability, certainly they are not, in consequence, obliged to submit themselves to those who
are more intelligent and to adopt their ways, so that, if they refuse, they may be subdued by having
war waged against them and be enslaved, as happens today. For men are obliged by the natural law
to do many things they cannot be forced to do against their will. We are bound by the natural law to
embrace virtue and imitate the uprightness of good men. No one, however, is punished for being
bad unless he is guilty of rebellion. Where the Catholic faith has been preached in a Christian
manner and as it ought to be, all men are bound by the natural law to accept it, yet no one is forced
to accept the faith of Christ. No one is punished because he is sunk in vice, unless he is rebellious or
harms the property and persons of others. No one is forced to embrace virtue and show himself as a
good man. . . .
 . . . Therefore, not even a truly wise man may force an ignorant barbarian to submit to him,
especially by yielding his liberty, without doing him an injustice. This the poor Indians suffer, with
extreme injustice, against all the laws of God and of men and against the law of nature itself.

+ in vitória and afterwards

+ spitzer on las casas

+hank