Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bartolomé de las Casas has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 18, 2018, and July 18, 2019. |
This level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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 ?????) no, the humanity of indians was discussed before the controverse of Valladolid in the times of Isabelle the Catholic. From that point on, the official stand of the Catholic Church was that the indians were human beings. I think you saw the film, but this does not respect history, I fear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.16.199.194 (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
Anybody know more about "De thesauris in Peru"?--Dynamax 19:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
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)
[[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
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)
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.
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).
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
A number of non-English words, such as "agricultor" and "posteriority", appear in this article. A fluent English speaker, preferably someone who knows about de Las Casas, needs to go through this and correct/improve the writing, while maintaining the meaning. MayerG (talk) 06:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
This article looks really good. I'll review the various reference and other sources I know of to see if there is any question of too much or too little weight anywhere, not that I anticipate those problems arising, or perhaps more highly regarded sources not used. That should probably be before the formal reviewer comes in. But I honestly don't see any of those problems being likely. John Carter (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
OK, this is a peer review of the article being submitted before the GA reviewer arrives. I hope it, and any subsequent discussion, prove to be useful.
Anyway, I consulted the readily available print reference books and their articles on the subject first.
The first reference source I consulted is the Encyclopedia of Religion edited by Lindsay Jones on pages 5322-5323. It is rather short, unfortunately, but there is nothing of real substance included in that article which is not also discussed in this one. They still got his birth date wrong, which is strange. The only things I see it mentioning that are not specifically mentioned here are his famous sermon in the Church of the Holy Spirit four months after reading Ecclesiasticus. It also mentions that his book Advice and Regulations for Confessors (1545), quoting, "advocated denial of the sacraments of the church to all who had Indians and did not 'pay a just wage'" on page 5322. That might be worth mentioning. The bibliography speaks very highly of Manual Giménez Fernández's unfinished biography Bartolomé de las Casas, 2 volumes (Seville, 1953-1960). I'm guessing it's in Italian, but it might be worth including in the bibliography.
The next one consulted is the New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd edition, volume 8, pp. 340-341. This is another very short article. The only substantial variation I see is about the Short Account, which it says "was in large part responsible for the development of the 'Black Legend'". So it gives the book a bit more "credit" for that than this article does, which probably doesn't matter much. It's bibliography includes L. Hanke's The Spanish Struggle for Justice in the Conquest of America (Philadelphia 1949) and G. Gutiérez's Las Casas: In Search of the Poor of Poor of Jesus Christ (Maryknoll, 1993).
Somewhat surprisingly, Encyclopedia Britannica has a rather lengthy article on the subject, on pages 168-169 of the 7th volume. It gives the date of his "famous sermon" as August 15, 1514, and says that he announced that he was returning his Indian servants to the Governor in that sermon. It states briefly that he requested that the Apostolic History of the Indies not be published until after his death, and says later rather more clearly that he had in 1559 requested that it should be published only (in quotations, presumably from something by las Casas) "after forty years have passed, so that, if God determines to destroy Spain, it may be seen that it is because of the destruction that we have wrought in the Indies and His just reason for it may be clearly evident". It includes this direct quote from the Short Account (p. 36 of some unnamed edition): "The reason why the Christians have killed and destroyed such an infinite number of souls is that they have been moved by their wish for gold and their desire to enrich themselves in a very short time." It also talks about his Confesionario, "in which he forbade absolution to be given to those who held Indians in encomienda. The rigorous enforcement of his regulations led to vehement opposition on the part of the Spanish faithful during Lent of 1545 and forced Las Casas to establish a council of bishops to assist him in his task. But soon his uncompromising pro-Indian position alienated his colleagues, and in 1547 he returned to Spain." It refers to Sepulveda's book as Democrates II as opposed to Democrates Alter, and the subtitle as "Concerning the Just Cause of the War Against the Indians". Insignificant, just noting it. It for whatever reason gives rather passing attention to the debates, less than a paragraph total for the subject, as the others do. They aren't mentioned at length by either of the earlier two here either, but that may reflect some form of pro-English language bias, I'm thinking. It discusses how "At the suggestion of Francisco de Toledo, the viceroy of Peru, the king ordered all the works, both published and unpublished, to be collected." Presumably published, as well, although that isn't specifically indicated. Regarding his lasting influence, it was Bolivar himself was inspired by some of the letters of Las Casas, as were some of the heroes of Mexican independence. That might be worth noting. It also indicates that Las Casas became prominent again in the 20th century in connection with the Indigenista movements of Peru and Mexico. Finally, "The modern significance of Las Casas lies in the fact that he was the first European to perceive the economic, political, and cultural injustice of the conolonial or neocolonial system maintained by the North Atlantic powers since the 16th century for the control of Latin America, Africa, and Asia." The bibliography includes a few other works, including Hanke's books Bartolome de Las Casas: Historian (1952), and Aristotle and the Indians (1959), which together with Hanke's other works probide a comprehehsive survey of his life and work. It also mentions Arthur Helps' The Life of Las Casas: The Apostle of the Indies (1868, reissued 1980).
Lastly, consulting the second edition of Africana, volume 3, pp.516-517. Obviously, it also is rather short, and, rather clearly, has more than a bit of a content bias toward Africa and the African diaspora. It describes Las Casas as being "known as the most unrelenting advocate of Native American interests before the Spanish Crown" and says "he became the first colonist of the sixteenth century to denounce the injustice of African slavery." Regarding his History of the Indies, it says "during the process of rewriting his Historia de las Indias, he had access to previously uncirculated writings on the history of the Portuguese slave trade. Las Casas was shocked as he read and comprehended the parallels between Native American servitude and the commerce of African slaves."
Now, based on all this, I honestly cannot see any reason personally, as someone who isn't a GA reviewer, to believe the article as it stands does not meet GA criteria. None of the above comments, with the possible exception of the date of his "famous sermon", strike me as being necessarily so important that their comparative lack of coverage would disqualify it for GA class. Having said that, I would welcome any responses. The editor who nominated this article for GA has gone on break for a while, and I am more than willing to step in and do what I can to help ensure that his very good work on this article receives the respect it deserves, and I honestly think that includes the article being at at least GA status. Some of these other points might be relevant for FA, but even there I'm not sure how big a deal they might be. John Carter (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. Its quite a longish article and I've just done a couple of quick skim-reads of the article. It looks comprehensive, well reference and well referenced, so my initial impression is that its somewhere between GA and FA. Having said that, I'm now going to work my way through the article section by section, starting at Life and times, working my way to the end and then doing the WP:Lead. My intention is to have this section completed by or during the weekend. Its also worth noting that at this stage I mostly be looking to see if there are any "problems" (for minor ones its often quicker to fix them, rather than list them, wait, and then check them). So if I don't find very many "problems" I will not be writing very much here. Pyrotec (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 20:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Quite a good lead. Pyrotec (talk) 20:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
The claims of las Casas' being of converso heritage are unsubstantiated and in fact contradicted by himself during his life time as he claimed to be a descendent of one of the old christian families of Seville. None of his known family members or ancestors have been classified as conversos, nor have they been the subject of inquisitory processes of crypto-jewishness. There is no factual basis for the claims that he had a jewish heritage, and the sources given (jewish virtual library and a selfpublished book) are not reliable or notable.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Other sources besides the very-reliable and -notable Jewish Virtual Library discuss whether Las Casas was a converso or ben Anusim (See, e.g., Jose Rabasa's "Inventing America" and Dr. Dan Bursztyn's "The conquest's converted converter".). Know what you're discussing before you discuss it.
173.64.113.157 (talk) 03:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Sure, it's a pretty broad consensus that slavery and encomienda are all wrong, but I wonder if constructions like "he reformed his views" really fit in a work devoted to the unbiased and disinterested presentation of facts. Eh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.248.30 (talk) 03:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I changed the word "compelled" to "motivated" in the second paragraph, and was reverted by Maunus. I made the change because I believe that "compelled" carries strong connotations of coercion by an external force. Maunus pointed out that the word can also connote an internal compulsion based on morality, and I agree that the word is occasionally used in that fashion. However, I believe that the common reading of the word in this sentence creates a high risk of misinterpretation, and therefore conclude that another word choice would reduce misunderstanding or ambiguity. I would appreciate thoughts from other editors on this matter. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
As a Spanish native speaker, I find it very strange that the subject of this article is referred to as "Las Casas", which is an arbitrary subset of his surname. The usual convention with this kind of surnames is to use the full "De las Casas" or "de las Casas". See, for instance, Juan de la Cierva, Fernando de la Rúa or Juan de la Cosa. If no one objects, I will change it as soon as I have time for it. Asuranceturix 09:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Under occupation, it lists "Religious, bishop, writer, apologist"
"Religious" and "apologist" are not really occupations, correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.64.221.211 (talk) 16:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Bartolomé de las Casas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Bartolomé de las Casas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bartolomé de las Casas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Bartolomé's father was Pedro de Las Casas, and Francisco de las Casas was his uncle who was a captain of a ship on Columbus' second voyage. Antonio de Remesal is the only source that states that BVarotlomé's father was Francisco, but Remesal is mistaken as the best and most recent biographies show (based on the actual records of the de las Casas family, unavailable to Remesal).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
According to the introduction by Anthony Pagden in the Nigel Griffin translation of A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies (Penguin, 2004), Bartolomé de las Casas died in 1576, not 1566. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.49.82.65 (talk) 11:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Long ago, I happened across a work by Las Casas, which isn't included in the present article. I originally found it as Del único modo de atraer a todos los pueblos a la verdadera religión, which means "On the Only Way to Attract All Peoples to the True Religion." It's included in the corresponding article in the Spanish Wikipedia here, along with yet more works. So perhaps it would be good for the 2 Wikipedias (English and Spanish) to cross-check each other. Oaklandguy (talk) 04:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Do any page watchers know more about the Fountain to Bartolomé de las Casas? ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.