Debat Valladolid: Perbedaan antara revisi

Though Las Casas tried to bolster his position by recounting his experiences with the encomienda system's mistreatment of the Indians, the debate remained on largely theoretical grounds. Sepúlveda took a more secular approach, basing his arguments largely on [[Aristotle]] and the [[humanism|humanist]] tradition to say the Indians were naturally predisposed to slavery, and could be subjected to bondage or war if necessary.<ref>Crow, John A. ''The Epic of Latin America'', 4th ed. University of California Press, Berkeley: 1992.</ref>. Las Casas objected, arguing that Aristotle's definition of the "barbarian" and the natural slave did not apply to the Indians, who were fully capable of reason and should be brought to Christianity without force or coersion.{{Fact|date=April 2008}} In the end, both parties declared they had won the debate, but neither received the outcome they desired. Las Casas did not see an end to Spanish wars of conquest in the New World, nor did Sepúlveda see the New Laws restricting the power of the encomienda system overturned.{{Fact|date=April 2008}} The debate did result in the weakening of the encomienda system, but did not substantially alter the treatment of the Indians.

-->

{{reflist}}

 

*Crow, John A. ''The Epic of Latin America'', 4th ed. University of California Press, Berkeley: 1992.

*Hernandez, Bonar Ludwig. [http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~epf/2001/hernandez.html "The Las Casas-Sepúlveda Controversy: 1550-1551"]. Retrieved [[January 23]], [[2007]].