Showing posts with label equality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label equality. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Discussion: Marx and Brecht

Our session this evening considered Marx's famous work The Communist Manifesto  along with a play by Bertold Brecht, situated during WWII but based on the ancient Greek play Antigone.  

We began with Marx.  Chris led the discussion with contributions from Stephen.  One aspect that was mentioned was that Marx based his analysis of the dialectical issue of human history on Hegel's work (which we haven't read); and that communism and a revolution by the proletariat will eliminate this constant conflict between something and its antithesis because the proletariat includes everyone and will not have an antithetical entity.  Marx would go on to define a dialectic that was different from Hegel's, Marx even referred to his dialectic as the opposite of Hegel's.  This dialectic became defined as 'dialectical materialism' or the primacy of the material way of life over all forms of social consciousness.

Marx felt that all inequality was due to property ownership, which was also the control of the means of production.  At the time that he was envisioning a workers' revolution, his worker's paradise, Marx did not contemplate power issues occurring in a communist system, issues such as we have seen in countries such as China and Russia and to some lesser degree Cuba, in the century following the publication of the Manifesto.

Marx and Engels went back to try and look into the origins of class structure and see whether in other societies such as aboriginal societies, tribal societies etc they functioned differently from 'civilized' societies.  They concluded that the problems stemmed from ownership of property (which became ownership of the means of production especially during the industrial revolution).

Chris showed us a brief video of an early Soviet 'cartoon' which would have been shown in various villages after the revolution, to try and convince the peasants of the value of collectivization.  In jerky animation it showed the evils of capitalism and the benefits of working together for the good of all.  It reminded me of the old posters we would still see which had been popular in the 1920s - 1940s.

These posters would show strong austere workers working hard or with fists upraised in support of the revolution.  

I remember seeing idealistic students, decorating their university dorm rooms with these old posters from Russia.

I don't remember seeing many from China but they have the same flavour:


Even western posters had the same look at the time. 
When I see images from North Korea today I see the exact same style and imagery: urban scenes in the background (man's achievements) and in the foreground men and women lined up at attention in 'heroic' poses.

ANTIGONE
Bertold Brecht 10 February 1898 – 14 August 1956
Brecht wrote this play just after the end of the second World War, in 1947/1948.  Brecht had spent the war outside of Germany, moving around the Scandinavian countries and then to the USA until he was blacklisted and called to appear before the HUAC (House Un-American Activities Committee).  He then returned to Europe, to Switzerland where he lived until moving to East Germany after the war.

The discussion of Brecht's play Antigone was interesting.  Jonas led the discussion which I always find interesting since when he is not leading the discussion he tends to be very quiet in class.  He had sent us out a list of questions, I've attached a few of them and our discussion here:



1. Who is the real hero of the play, Kreon or Antigone?
Kreon was a dynamic character, & Antigone was more static. Antigone is more heroic here. I felt Kreon was more static in this version than in Sophocles whereas Antigone seemed more heroic here compared to Sophocles' version where she just seems to have a martyr-complex and to value her dead, flawed brother above her live, vulnerable sister. Creon in the Sophocles version was more appealing to me - when he was at his most rigid I could still understand why he was the way he was.

2. Given that the play opens in post-war Germany, are we to view Kreon as Hitler? Was Argos the Soviet Union that bounced back from a Nazi invasion to utterly shatter Germany?
We didn't discuss this much but I saw a lot of WWII symbolism in the play.

3. After reading the Communist Manifesto, do you see Kreon as a Bourgeois imperialist and autocrat? Do you see Antigone and Hamon as rebellious Proletarians?
There is a hint of this when Kreon refers to Hamon as being Antigone's "comrade" (p 43). Hamon retorts, "Not only hers, but of all that's just, wherever I see it." It was very interesting to read this at the same time as Marx. There is so much from the manifesto that even if not directly referenced, obviously influenced the thinking of the following century.

4. Brecht changes the Ode from Love to a Bacchanalian orgy. As Antigone was preparing for her death, the city was literally in the throes of a drunken hedonistic orgy. Why did Brecht do this?
We discussed how this is likely to show that people continue on with their lives despite horrors. We have an enormous capacity to "move on" from things, to tolerate, adjust, forget, forgive.

Again, we could have taken up the entire time available just to discuss any one of these.  The influence of Marx and the rejection of prussianism and naziism were very apparent in this play, though unlike Anouillh, Brecht did not spend the war in either Germany or an occupied country.  I find it somehow reassuring that artists return to old stories to try and say something about the world they live in.  I don't know why this seems different than the endless plundering of previous movies that Hollywood does - maybe because when Hollywood remakes a movie they don't seem to bring anything new to the works, nor to have anything much to say.




Saturday, January 26, 2013

Discussion: Jane Eyre

We had a guest professor for this session, Jane Sturrock from the English department - her specialty is 19th century literature.  It was a good session with lots of discussion.

She spoke about various elements in the novel:

  • English chauvinism
  • Racism
  • Treatment of aristocracy (Blanche Ingram) is flawed, shallow
  • Coincidences (wanders moor and meets cousins)
  • England's imperial role

She mentioned the Wide Sargasso Sea by Jean Rhys - which highlighted the sexual woman -
The Mad Woman in the Attic - suppressed anger, suppressed sexuality - women's writing.
I read this years ago and don't remember being impressed by it but I'll put it on my ever-expanding list of books to read "when I have time."

Jane Eyre was published in 1847, near the end of the "Hungry 40s" - famines of 1840s
Written in the 1st person, by a woman - adventurous - a woman who insists on her own voice; also childhood was important in this novel which was different for the times.
Liberating and threatening for the period when 1st published
2 years later Dickens started to publish novel in form of autobiography, child (David Copperfield)
Jane Eyre contained a character whose adult role was built on childhood experiences, the suffering child - this device was also seen later in Great Expectations.

We also spoke a bit about the themes of power (adult figures, Mrs Reed, Brocklehurst, Rochester, monied classes), love, money, voice (female, child, poor etc), biblical references.

The Discourse of the novel - we spent a few minutes on Sturrock's opinion on how she reads a novel.  I've never taken any english courses beyond 1st year english so I have no experience of how to "read" a novel.

Martha Nussbaum's name was brought up [again] - and her writings on philosophy, law, literature
"novels direct us to pay attention to the concrete ... moral choice"
Ethical decisions made from actual human situations, relationships

Robert Moyes (UVIC) - novel imagines social realities, Kant's ethical suppositions, Jane Eyre
Doesn't imagine more hypothetical situations than Kant but difference is in quality of imagining

The dreamwork that a novel does: something you recognize from your own hidden life "forlorn child, homeless wanderer on moors, impossible love, later fulfilled"

Some background on the Brontes:
6 children, mother has died then 2 eldest die so Charlotte left as eldest - didn't want that position - they are poor for their middle class
Live in isolation, brilliant children
Reading and writing passionately - reading romantic writers: Scott, Coleridge, Byron, Wordsworth (the child is the father of the man)
Use non-realist, non-rational (dreams, hallucinations, altered states) human experiences
2 imaginary kingdoms (Angria (Charlotte and Branwell), Gondole (Emily & Anne)
Byronic hero - NB for Charlotte
Gothic elements -
2 modes of narrative (realism - burnt porridge, servants) and (gothic - moors, halls, Bertha, Rochester's secrets)
Gothic novels written in 1790s and later - trope: young pure virginal heroine goes to huge dark mansion and threatened by older powerful male (how often has this been repeated ??!?)
Much of power of Jane Eyre comes from combination of realistic elements and gothic
Importance of dreams - sometimes wakes from dream to find an even more dream-like reality.
She dreams of children and trouble.

Fairy Tales - Cinderella?  Bluebeard?
Supernatural world  - 1st meeting - on the road, Rochester riding, Eyre on stile - she hears approach of horse, man and dog and thinks of a supernatural dog
"Mustard seed" Midsummer Nights dream and also parable in bible (mustard seed grows to large plant = kingdom of heaven) - this isn't familiar to me.  Something I'll have to check into.
Also mystical aspect of Eyre and Rochester hearing each other voices when they were far apart.

Many elements of the natural world - speaks to action and character as well - twilight, the moon at various key times (Moon mother figure) - She goddess figure

These worlds intensify the sense that Jane's inner world is NB
Power imbalance - Jane says no to Rochester initially as not the relationship she wants and somewhat going against mores of the time

Sadomasochistic relationships - Rochester and his stunt as the gypsy, how he leads Blanche Ingram along.

Power and gender roles - confrontations Jane has with aggressively male characters
Masculine power, even St John has role of absolute power (or assumption of absolute power)
Charlotte had a relationship and correspondence with a man she called "My Master" - at boarding school
Also Branwell suffered from an adulterous affair with wife of his employer and was tossed out

Love in Jane's life - unloved child, drives her out to seek another life - love of Helen and Miss Temple at school - then Rochester

Power/Priviledge
Jane sees herself as revolting slave when living with Reids but also uses same language later with Rochester.  Rochester wants relationship of equals but as soon as he is sure of her and engaged he starts to treat her as an inferior - starts to direct her and ignore her wishes - put "diamond chain around your neck myself" - shopping trip.
Also image of the harem, seraglio (Chap 24)
Use of language of fetters, charters, harems, depots, colonial language

Rochester is manipulative and playing games (gypsy, pretending to woo Blanche Ingram) - thinks of jealousy as a tool to get what he wants
In Chap 24 Rochester analyzes the power equations of their relationship

Women in 1840s - no rights, little education, little means of earning money
Married Woman's Property Act didn't come into force until 1872

Chap 27 - power imbalance - Rochester furious at being defied by Jane
Women as "frail and indomitable" - striking especially at the time (1840s)

Adrienne Rich wrote on Jane Eyre.

When they finally marry they are more equal - physically Rochester reduced (loss of sight and hand - biblical punishment for adultery) and Jane also now is financially independent and has family (Diana & Mary, St John)

R: Who will care for you?
J: I will, I will care for myself.

Voice -
Truth NB to Jane and for Charlotte Bronte
To Mrs Reid "I dare because it is the truth" - also declares the need for love
To Rochester - similar claims - do you think I can stay to become nothing to you (when thinks will marry Blanche Ingram) etc etc

I'm poor, plain, a woman but I matter
Addresses reader in Chap 12 about women (can 1/2 of humanity survive without a role)

Bible - used throughout - used to give a personal depth to narrative - also refers to Paradise Lost and Pilgrim's Progress; scene in orchard is Adam & Eve; storm and lightening blast
Allusions deepen the text
When finds out about Rochester
Psalm 69 "the waters have closed over me"

By Grand Central Station also uses Psalms; Oscar Wilde's Dei Profundis "out of the depths I speak to you oh god" relationshp with Lord Alfred Douglas from Reading gaol

The ending - moves away from J & R and finishes with St John dying as missionary in India
Ends with words from end of bible
"Imperialist evangelism'

Novels often end by moving themselves out

BYRON's question - power relationships  - Jane only ended up marrying Rochester after she was in the ascendancy (and in sections regarding St. John she does speak about being in the ascendancy so this is a consideration for her).

Kirstin - hero's journey

Discussion about why Rochester had to suffer such deprivations before he and Jane could be happy together - was this symbolic (loss of eyes and hands as biblical punishment for his prior sins) - or was this what was necessary for Jane's equality to Rochester - he was brought down physically as well as through wealth

I felt that Rochester's misfortunes happened as a way to make them equal - Jane could never rise to Rochester's heights because of the class structure and his wealth so by bringing him down physically and through loss of his estate they can approach some equality.

Nature vs Nurture
Can Bertha help her madness?

Rochester at one point tells Jane if she doesn't listen to him he will use violence.
At one point Rochester tells Jane to put her hand in his because as long as he can touch and see her, he will be content - of course later he loses his sight and his right hand.

Both Jane and Rochester speak the language of reason - they connect through their language and thoughts.

Chris asked why Jane Eyre is considered a feminist novel and what does it say about the role of Women in Victorian society?

Abilio asked about the main elements that determined Jane's final independence: Family and Money.

Jane being locked up in red room as child and Bertha being locked up by Rochester in attic rooms - which she later sets fire to. Parallels.

Jane is a very passionate person and at school she learns to temper this with reason, education.

1st person format was very important as this is a journey of growth and self-discovery.  Makes us empathize with Jane who could be a very drab, minor secondary character (poor dependent, student at foundling school, governess, plain person, poor).

Laura asked about whether Jane's education and learnedness gave her any advantages?


Thursday, January 24, 2013

Discussion: Anatole France "The Gods Will Have Blood"

Stephen started the discussion off by mentioning his experience during the 60s at SFU where the revolutionary/Berkeley spirit was strong and students believed they would overthrow the old guard and change the world.  A friend of his told him that come the revolution they would have to shoot Stephen because he wouldn't be able to go as far as the extremists.  Anatole France's book "The Gods Will Have Blood" and especially the character Brotteaux spoke to Stephen and this very thrilling time in his life.

Bruce led the discussion and disagreed with Davies' suggestion that Gamelin was a modern-day terrorist.  He felt that Gamelin was an idealist, a fanatic and extremist but not someone who just wants to destroy, rather someone who believes in a new order to the exclusion of any other considerations.

Anatole France was known as a left-wing writer and he was unusual in attacking the French Revolution from the left.  Bruce spoke a little about the Dreyfus affair and France's support of Dreyfus.  He circulated the famous 'J'accuse' article by Emile Zola - an article in L'Aurore newspaper.
The Zionist movement arose from Jewish feelings about the Dreyfus affair.

Gamelin's unfinished painting of Orestes and his sister Electra was an important theme in the book and this led to a discussion about the myth, about Orestes as a symbol of a person forced to commit a sin in order to obey another duty.

Brotteaux and Longuemare, as well as Athenais, were like a Greek chorus - the voice of consience.  They don't fit in with the world of the revolution and so they are all doomed. They had a love for humanity whereas Gamelin loved France and the ideal of the Revolution but he didn't have  a love for humanity.

The rational abstracted from the real world can be dangerous - if a person (especially one with power) focuses in on theory and a structure, on laws and regulations and ignores the humanity, real evil can result.

Anatole France referred often to Rousseau in the novel - Rousseau probably represented the brutal, raw nature.  We discussed the country interlude - which was an odd break in the novel.  This was likely a bit of  critique of Rousseau who wrote about the healing effects of Nature.  France felt that you can't just go into Nature and have it change anything.  The odd character of Tronche could represent the peasantry of France and how it is used and abused by the aristocrats/intellectuals etc.

I would like to read a bit more about this time period and try to get a better understanding of the various people and the events.  It was such a dramatic upheaval in centuries of class structure and led to important changes that we are still dealing with today.



Bronte's Jane Eyre

Bronte, Charlotte: Jane Eyre; Broadview Editions, Peterborough, 2004



I enjoyed re-reading this book.  I had read it a few times as a child/teenager and I mainly remembered the scenes in the orphanage and the mad wife in the attic.  I also have very vivid memories of the 1st scene when she is hiding in the library in the window, reading, and her unjust treatment at the hands of her relatives.  Reading it from a perspective decades later and with much experience under my belt, in my profession as well as the culture around me, it was amazing how much commentary on society was packed into this book.  I still very much liked the character of Jane Eyre.  Bronte had a knack of describing Jane such that we could see why those around her were bothered by her but we were totally on her side.  Her integrity was what sold it for me, her strength of character especially when so very young and disadvantaged.

There were some great lines again that I want to remember:
pg 82 "I was not heroic enough to purchase liberty at the price of caste."

"If you are a Christian, you ought not consider poverty a crime." (to Hannah)

"Laws and principles are not for times when there is no temptation: they are for such moments as this.” - when rejecting running away to France

There was so much social commentary in this novel:
pg 178
"Nobody knows how many rebellions besides political rebellions ferment in the masses of life which people earth.  Women are supposed to be very calm generally: but women feel just as men feel; they need exercise for their faculties, and a field for their efforts just as their brothers do; they suffer from too rigid a restraint, too absolute a stagnation, precisely as men would suffer; and it is narrow-minded in their more privileged fellow-creatures to say they ought to confine themselves to making puddings and knitting stockings, to playing on the piano and embroidering bags.  It is thoughtless to condemn them, or laugh at them, if they seek to do more or learn more than custom has pronounced necessary for their sex."

pg 207; Chap XIV
The Nurture vs Nature Debate:
During one of their 1st conversations, Rochester admires Jane Eyre's frank manner, freedom from affectation and her strong statement on the rights of the free-born individual.  He tells her: 
"Not three in three thousand raw school-girl-governesses would have answered me as you have just done.  But I don't mean to flatter you: if you are cast in a different mould to the majority, it is no merit of yours: Nature did it."
Jane Eyre contains characters that range from very bad (John Reed, Mrs. Reed, Mr. Brocklehurst) to the very good (Helen, Mrs. Temple, Diana and Mary Rivers), with many characters of mixed qualities in between.  If human nature is in fact Nature (meaning what we are born with), then how much blame or admiration should we give to people for qualities innate to them whether this be musical ability, athletic ability, intelligence?  Qualities such as compassion, honesty, industriousness, integrity are often considered to be much affected by the 3 Es: environment, education and experience but how much of these are innate? Jane Eyre was raised under very adverse conditions and grew up to be a woman with many admirable qualities.  Is she to be praised for this or is this just the nature she was born with?  Rochester considers that he is basically a good man, and he blamed the sinful life he had led on adverse events that happened to him.  Are we justified in condemning John Reed, Mr. Brocklehurst or Blanche Ingram for their faults or were they constrained by their natures?

pg 236
It is interesting to read how much Bronte inserts about reason in her story.
"Arraigned at my own bar, Memory having given her evidence of the hopes, wishes, sentiments I had been cherishing since last night - of the general state of mind in which I had indulged for nearly a fortnight past; Reason having come forward and told in her own quiet way, a plain, unvarnished tale, showing how I had rejected the real and rabidly devoured the ideal; "

pg 282
Jane Eyre seems to sit firmly on the reason over passion debate.  Passion isn't bad but if it's a battle between reason and passion then reason should be the decider.
"Reason sits firm and holds the reins, and she will not let the feelings burst away and hurry her [Jane Eyre] to wild chasms.  The passions may rage furiously, like true heathens, as they are ; and the desires may imagine all sorts of vain things: but judgment shall still have the last word in every argument, and the casting vote in every decision.  Strong wind, earthquake-shock, and fire may pass by: but I [Jane Eyre] shall follow the guiding of that still small voice which interprets the dictates of conscience."

St John is a very rigid, self-righteous character.  He seems the epitome of what you do not want in a missionary.
"Reason, and not feeling is my guide: my ambition is unlimited; my desire to rise higher, to do more than others, insatiable.  I honour endurance, perseverance, industry, talent; because these are the means by which men achieve great ends, and mount to lofty eminence."

When he describes himself to Jane, he has many conflicting statements.  He says he is a follower of Jesus and has adopted his "pure, his merciful, his benignant doctrines." Yet he goes on to describe his "due sense of Divine justice" and he is nothing if not ambitious.  He was an interesting character for Bronte to insert into her novel and he made me wonder who might have been in Bronte's life that influenced this character.

I thought the characters were interesting, they were not necessarily realistic but they all contained components of interest, qualities or failings that we see in the people around us but sometimes magnified to great effect.

Friday, January 11, 2013

Anouilh: ANTIGONE

Anouilh, Jean: Antigone; tr. Barbara Bray, Methuen, London,  1987



Jean Anouilh 1910-1987
Born in Bordeaux. His father was a tailor and his mother a violinist (at a nearby resort). The family moves to Paris when he is 8. Begins Law at the Sorbonne but quits to become a dramatist. He was quite influenced by the work of Pirandello, which surfaced in Paris in the 1920s.  Marries the actress Monelle Valentin when he is 22. Prisoner of war (briefly) in 1940. Antigone begins her 1st run (500 performances) in 1944, with Monelle Valentin in the lead role.  Laurence Olivier and Vivien Leigh perform in  Antigone at the London Old Vic in 1949. Lives near Lausanne for the last 30 years of his life. Anouilh increasingly disillusioned by French society, and has a particular antipathy to De Gaulle but also the far left militants.

Anouilh describes to Paul Vandromme what the theatre meant to him "Thanks to those spring evenings [at the theatre] in 1928 I was able to escape a little from the long night of my existence."

The Methuen edition describes some differences between Anouilh's Antigone and Sophocles'. Anouilh omits Tiresias, the blind seer.  In Anouilh's version, Creon (Antigone's uncle and now King of Thebes due to the deaths of both her brothers, Oedipus' sons) does not experience the growth and change we saw in Sophocles' version.  In the original, Creon has a conversation with both Tiresias and with his own son Haemon and both these men urge him not to carry out the death penalty Antigone received when she disobeyed Creon's edict and buried her brother Polyneices.  Creon spurns their advice initially, determined to be a strong impartial ruler but he eventually repents and realizes that by holding to his decision, he is dishonouring the gods.  In Anouilh's version, Creon is a more sympathetic man who has given up the life he enjoyed in order to become King of Thebes when both of Oedipus' sons kill each other.  His growth seems to have taken place prior to the events of the play.  Anouilh also omits much of the power and reason of Haemon's speeches.

It's interesting reading this Antigone after having read Elizabeth Smart's "By Grand Central Station I Sat Down and Wept." (I've been reading a bit out of sync over the break). Both are young passionate women who are very judgmental and intolerant (as is Werther) of age and its apparent compromises. All three are very idealistic and uncompromising.

It's not an original observation that passion and youth go together but the 3 books I've just read in the last week have really pummelled me with this dogmatic pairing.  All 3 texts, 2 fictional, one poetically autobiographical, have main characters that are young, subsumed by passion and intolerant of age, reason, compromise, survival.  All 3 see age or even maturity as, literally, a fate worth than death.  I'm still coming to grips with this uncompromising view of passion and with the prospect that passion, real passion, is - possibly, likely, sadly - only attainable in the young.  I'm not quite ready to give up on the possibility of passion but I also don't see life in such uncompromising, black and white, all-or-nothing, terms.

Laura was speaking the other day about having watched Baz Luhrman's "Romeo & Juliet" in another class.  She'd 1st seen the film as a teen or young adult and had found it very moving and enthralling, very powerful.  She said watching it in class made her realize the generational difference between herself and some younger classmates - who found the film dated and laughable.  I saw the film as an adult, probably in my 30s and I wasn't emotionally affected by it but thought it was a worthy update of the famous play.  It's interesting how age so affects perception.  I'm finding that about books I'm re-reading that I read as a teen or young adult.  I may get more context, more perspective, more substance out of them now but I don't know if they will affect me emotionally or chromatically the same way certain books did when I was young.

I enjoyed reading a different version of Antigone - for the same reason I enjoy (usually) seeing repeated versions of various of Shakespeare's plays - you get something different out each time.  I did very firmly have in my head, the whole time I was reading it, the fact that it was written in Paris during the 2nd world war.  Images from Casablanca and other WWII films and books would flit around in my head as I read through the play.

Friday, October 26, 2012

Barolome de Las Casas's A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies

De Las Casas, Bartolome; A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies; Transl. Nigel Griffin; Penguin Classics, London, 2004

This is the text that I have to present to the class for discussion.  I was interested in this text partly because I'm very interested in Latin America and its history.  I also remember reading a biography of Mary I of England which also dealt with Prince Phillip (Felipe II) of Spain.  That period of time (in Spain and in England) has always stuck in my mind and De Las Casas' book was published, and the events he relates occurred, during that period.

Bartolome de las Casas was born in the late 15th c. and sailed as a young man in Columbus' 4th voyage to the Americas, to Hispaniola in 1502.  It was amazing to read a text written by someone who was present 10 years after Columbus first reached the Americas.  De Las Casas initially was there for commercial reasons, to make his fortune, accumulating land and slaves as a colonist.  In 1511 he heard a Dominican priest preach a sermon on the text "a voice crying in the wilderness", denouncing the Spanish treatment of the aboriginal peoples in the Americas.  De Las Casas was also present during Velasquez' brutal invasion of Cuba in 1513 - and he was horrified by what he saw.  His attitudes began to change and he started to protest the brutality used by the Spaniards as they invaded and took over the governance of the Americas, subjugating and tyrannizing the local inhabitants.  Initially De Las Casas objected to the brutality, greed and dishonesty but still thought that governing the local peoples was just if it were done more cooperatively and less brutally.  De Las Casas became ordained and travelled back and forth from Spain to the Americas speaking about what was going on in the Americas and preaching reform.  He received approval from Charles V (Holy Roman Emperor) to set up farming communities in what is now Venezuela where Spanish settlers would try to live in peace with the local people.  His vision was betrayed by the greed and non-cooperation of the settlers.  Their continued slave trade angered the indigenous peoples leading to violence and counter-violence and De Las Casas' project failed.



He was devastated by this failure and retreated to a Dominican monastery for many years.  He began to write and to read many philosophers.  It was this time period that led him to change his thinking about the rights of the indigenous peoples.  When he left the monastery in 1530, he became a very outspoken and dedicated proponent, not only of an end to the brutality and venality practiced by the Spaniards but of the rights of the indigenous people to their land and property.  He did not go so far as to think that Spain had no right to be there (Pope Constantine had granted sovereignty to Spain over all the "newly discovered" lands across the Atlantic Ocean, via the 'Donation of Constantine') but De Las Casas did feel that Spanish sovereignty provided citizenship rights to the indigenous people as well as their pre-existing rights to their property.  He also felt that natural laws, laws of humanity, required just treatment of the native people.

De Las Casas - important dates:


1484
Born in Seville to Pedro de Las Casas, a merchant who travelled to the Indies with Columbus
1502
Leaves Spain for Hispaniola
1511
Listens to a sermon by Dominican priest, Father Antonio de Montesinos, denouncing Spain's treatment of the AmerIndians.
1513
Present during the violent, bloody conquest of Cuba led by Diego Velazquez.
1515
Returns to Spain to plead the AmerIndian cause before King Ferdinand.
1516
Returns to America as a member of a commission sent to investigate the treatment of the Indians.
1519
Returns to Spain once more.
1520
Presents a defense of the AmerIndian to King Charles I (Emperor Charles V) The king supports his plan to build a colony in present-day Venezuela inhabited by both Spanish and free Indians.
1522
In January, after more than a year of continuous opposition of local encomenderos who incite AmerIndian attacks on the farmers, the experiment fails.
1523
Disappointed, Las Casas joins the Dominicans in Santo Domingo and focuses his energy on writing, begins both Apologetica historia de las Indias and Historia de Las Indies.
1530
Returned to Spain and obtained a royal decree prohibiting the enforcement of slavery in Peru which he delivered personally.
1537
Receives some support from the Pope in the form of Paul III's bull Sublimis Deus which declared the American AmerIndians as rational beings with souls and that their lives and property should be protected.
1542
Returns to Spain where he convinced Charles I to signs the "New Laws" which prohibited AmerIndian slavery and attempted to put an end to the encomienda system by limiting ownership of serfs to a single generation. Writes "A brief report on the Destruction of the Indians," which horrifies the court.
1544
To ensure enforcement of the laws he is named bishop of Chiapas in Guatemala - meets immediate opposition. He declares that any Spaniard who refuse to release his AmerIndians is to be denied absolution. A year later the inheritance limitation is rescinded by Charles V.
1547
Returns to Spain and gives up his episcopal dignity. Becomes an influential figure at court and at the Council of the Indies.
1550
Meets Sepulveda in the famous debate at the Council of Valladolid.
1552
Publishes The Destruction of the Indies. Spends the next fourteen years writing and appearing at court and councils in defense of the Indians.
1566
Dies in Madrid and buried in the convent chapel of Our Lady of Atocha.
1875
Historia de las Indias first published.

De Las Casas spent most of his adult life travelling through the Americas and back and forth to Spain, arguing for, preaching and educating about reform of Spanish rule in the Americas.  He initially advocated only for gentler treatment (the doctrine of peaceful conversion), he then progressed to supporting the legal rights of the indigenous peoples and was instrumental in several laws being passed by the Spanish monarchy to protect the indigenous people though these rights were not upheld by the Spanish conquistadors, settlers and some greedy clergy in the Americas.  Eventually De Las Casas became more radicalized and began to use his clerical office to try and compel change, by threatening excommunication or withholding absolution to those not adhering to the revised laws.

By the end of his lifetime he had seen 3 monarchies govern over the Americas (Ferdinand & Isabella, Charles I/V and Felipe II) with little improvement in the conditions for the local people.  He had argued his cause in many forums, had circulated his writings which not only shocked those in Spain but reached a wider audience in Europe.  Though he didn't see much improvement in his lifetime, conditions slowly began to change as the power of the initial conquistadors was curtailed and the encomiendero system was abolished.  

De Las Casas' text is difficult to read only because of its subject matter.  He goes through each country, roughly in the order in which they were "conquered" and the littany of brutal oppression, treachery, greed is very hard to read about.  He reports about one native leader who was about to be executed.  Asked to convert to Christianity/Catholicism so that he would have a chance at Heaven after he died, the local leader asked if the Spaniards around him were examples of Christians and would they be going to Heaven.  When he was told 'yes' he said that in this case he did not wish any chance of going to Heaven.
It's difficult to consider that human beings can do this to any living creature much less to other human beings.  I can't help but think of what it would have been like for the local people to have the Spaniards arrive and to then suffer such change, brutality and oppression.
When you try to explain it by saying those were brutal times you then run up against De Las Casas and the other clerics who spoke out against the brutality and were able to see and recognize the injustice.  Was it a matter of education?  Was it a matter of the type of person who would have been on those voyages of exploration (education, class, situation, greed, fitness for society?).

What was happening in Europe at the time?
15th century Spain:
  • Uniting of five kingdoms in the Iberian Peninsula: Castile, Aragón (which included Catalonia, Valencia, the kingdom of Naples, Sardinia and Sicily), Granada, Navarre and Portugal. By early in the 16th century they had been reduced to two: Castile/Aragón and Portugal.
  • Castile and Aragón were united in the late 15th century through the marriage of Isabella of Castile and Ferdinand of Aragón (tiny Navarre was swallowed by Aragón in 1513). 
  •  The marriage between Isabel and Ferdinand in 1469  (she was 18 and he was 17) 
  •  By January 1492, Granada was in Spanish hands.  Granada was the last Muslim kingdom of the once powerful al-Andalus and Isabella and Ferdinand saw its conquest as a necessary step for consolidating their political power and for religious uniformity in the peninsula. 
  • The terms of surrender were generous and included freedom of religion. Religious conformity, however, was still the overall objective of the Christians. Already on March 31, 1492, Ferdinand and Isabel signed an edict giving Jews four months to accept baptism or go into exile; by 1501 the Muslims faced the same choice.
  •  Christianity was now the common bond that held Spaniards together.  There was widespread suspicion that their conversion was not genuine.  This was not a new phenomenon; the 15th century had seen an explosion of Jews accepting baptism.  Many were sincere in their new faith, many others continued to practice their Judaic faith in secret. It was to investigate the suspicion of heresy amongst Conversos that the infamous Inquisition was introduced into Castile in 1478.
  • Under the Mongol Empire's hegemony over Asia, Europeans had long enjoyed a safe land passage, the 'Silk Road', to China and India. After the Fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Empire (Turks) in 1453, the land route to Asia difficult and dangerous. A sea route to the Indies was needed.
  • Portugal had made advances in navigation, allowing for more ambitious voyages & explorations.
  •  Late 15th c., the Catholic monarchs had just completed an expensive campaign in the Iberian Peninsula (la Reconquista), reconquering Granada, and were desperate for money. Columbus’ proposed search for a new route to the Indies promised access to these riches.  He 1st sailed to Americas in August 1492
16th Century  -  Golden Age for Spain
At the beginning of the 16th century, there was a general feeling of pride and self confidence in Spain. 
Further impetus to the general air of confidence was given by two far-reaching events:
  • the “discovery” of America (Las Indias) by Christopher Columbus in 1492
  • the accession in 1516 to the Spanish throne of the powerful Hapsburg family of central Europe.
With the discovery of Las Indias and the acquisition of vast new lands, Spain embarked on transatlantic imperial conquests.  With the accession of the Hapsburg Carlos I to the Spanish throne, Spain suddenly acquired large areas of central and northern Europe.

From the marriage of Isabella and Ferdinand in 1469 there grew within about 55 years an imperial power whose possessions included large areas in Europe and America, and whose reach even stretched across the Pacific (the first voyage around the world was completed in 1522, led by the Portuguese explorer Magellan but under Spanish auspices).

The arranged marriage of Ferdinand and Isabel`s youngest daughter, Juana, to the son of the Hapsburg emperor, Maximilian I lead to the establishment of the Hapsburg dynasty in Spain by their son, Charles.
Charles I/V (1500-1558; ruled Spain 1516-56, Holy Roman Emperor 1519-58)

Charles I/V had large imperial ambitions, costly ambitions.  He requested money in pursuit of the office of Holy Roman Emperor (HRE) and did become HRE (as Charles V) in 1519.  His priorities extended beyond Spain, with high costs to the Spanish treasury. Of the 40 years that Charles ruled, he spent only 16 in Spain; in the last 13 years of his reign he didn’t set foot in Spain. His son, and successor, Felipe II, in contrast, was devoted to and spent most of his time in Spain.



Charles won Spaniards over by identifying them increasingly with the mission of defending Catholicism. His struggle with the threat of heretical Protestants in Northern Europe and with Ottoman (Turkish) activities in the Mediterranean recalled the crusading spirit of the Reconquista, which was still relatively fresh in the collective Spanish memory. 

The costs of defending imperial (HRE) and Catholic interests were enormous. The only recourse was to borrow money against the future gold and silver coming from the Americas. However, Spain had lost a large part of its own banking resources with the expulsion of the Jews in 1492, so the borrowed money came mainly from established bankers in Germany (Fuggers) and Genoa (Italy).  At one point parts of South America were granted by Spain to German banking interests.  I’ve always wondered a bit at the amount of German interests in South America as I didn’t think of Germany as having colonizing interests so far away.  It makes sense now.

SPAIN in the AMERICAS
Two rationalizations put forth for the Spanish Invasion of the Americas and their actions towards the indigenous peoples:
  • 1.     There was the moral framework of the ‘just war’.
  • 2.     Justification under Aristotelian concept of “natural slaves”

Thomas Aquinas had asked whether war was "always" sinful.  There was a general presumption against the shedding of blood.  The pacifists understood this prohibition to be absolute, while the ‘just war’ theorists maintained the prohibition could be overridden provided certain conditions were fulfilled.

The Thomistic tradition of just war identified three conditions for a war to be just:
  1. ·      that it be commanded by a sovereign authority,
  2. ·       that a just cause be present owing to some "fault" in the enemy, and
  3. ·       that there exist a right intention to advance good or avoid evil.

  • The supporters of Spanish conquest believed that rightful authority resided in the papal pronouncement of Alexander VI in 1493 that Spain had just title to the Indies for the purposes of conversion to Christianity. 
  • The "fault" of the AmerIndians was usually noted to be refusal to accept the Christian faith.
  • I haven’t seen as much discussion about the 'right intention' but it likely went along the lines of bringing Spanish knowledge, religion, advances (iron) to the AmerIndians.

The 2nd rationalization for the Spanish invasion of the Americas derived from classical philosophy rather than religious tradition: the Aristotelian notion that some persons are slaves by nature, born to serve masters. This was the argument used by de Sepulveda in 1550 at Valladolid. Fourteen distinguished judges were summoned by the emperor to assess whether war could be justly waged against the AmerIndians.  De Sepulveda cited the natural slavery argument and De Las Casas made the arguments contained in this text (A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies) and in his massive “History of the Indies” and “Apologetic History of the Indies”.
Part of the just war rationalization relied on the dehumanization of the indigenous peoples and biblical arguments based on Battle of Jericho (Encisco in 1513).
In 1513, Martin Fernandez de Encisco argued before the crown's counselors that "the king might very justly send men to require these idolatrous AmerIndians to hand over their land to him, for it was given him by the pope. If the AmerIndians would not do this, he might justly wage war against them, kill them and enslave those captured in war, precisely as Joshua treated the inhabitants of Jericho."  The biblical record of the legendary battle of Jericho observes that the Israelites "utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass with the edge of the sword." (Joshua 6; 1 Sam. 15).

Encisco's biblical paradigm of conquest provided the theological grounds for the infamous Requirement (Requerimiento), issued under the authorization of King Ferdinand, in 1514.  This was a text carried by all conquistadors, to be read out to the indigenous people, warning them that if they did not convert and did not submit to Spain, they would be [rightfully] slaughtered.
De Las Casas discussed this requirement in this text, reporting that the Conquistador’s would obey the letter rather than the spirit of the law, reading the proclamation out loud, at night and at a distance from the sleeping villages where no one could hear the words (not that they would have understood them given that they were read out in Spanish and the meaning would not be obvious without extensive explanation and education).

De Las Casas' ideologies evolved to center on the right of the AmerIndians to their land, on the principle of self-determination, on the subordination of all Spanish interests, including those of the Crown, to AmerIndian interests, material and spiritual. Towards the end of his life, Las Casas ultimately advanced a program calling for
  •  the suppression of the encomienda,
  • liberation of the AmerIndians from all forms of servitude except a small voluntary tribute to the Crown, and
  • the restoration of the ancient AmerIndian states and rulers, the rightful owners of those lands. Over these states the Spanish monarch would preside as "Emperor over many Kings" in order to fulfill his sacred mission of bringing the AmerIndians to the Catholic Faith and the Christian way of life. This was the only Spanish title to the Indies that Las Casas regarded as legitimate. The King's agents in the performance of this mission would be a small number of model religious who would cooperate with the native rulers, with the AmerIndians separated from the corrupting and oppressive presence of lay Spaniards.

He promoted practical political measures like the New Laws of 1542, and began to systematically use the powers of the Church: excommunication, interdict, and denial of absolution to secure compliance with these protective legislations.  Though he was successful in seeing several laws either revised or brought into being that were intended to offer some protection or justice to the inhabitants of the Americas, in practice De Las Casas' efforts were usually subverted by local Spanish resistance or by later being rescinded or weakened by the monarchs.

His writings in other texts show how his views and thinking were drastically advanced from the self-interest at play in Spain's "conquered lands" as well as the greed and appetite for power and for catholic dominance at play back in Spain.  As early as 1519, in a rebuttal to Juan de Quevedo, Bishop of Tierra Firme, who questioned the morals and capacities of the indigenous peoples, De Las Casas stated:
Our Christian religion adapts equally to all the nations of the world and receives all nations, and strips none of its liberty or dominion, nor does it reduce any people to servitude on the pretext that they are slaves "by nature."
For all the peoples of the world are men, and the definition of all men, collectively and severally, is one: that they are rational beings. All possess understanding and volition, being formed in the image and likeness of God; all have the five exterior senses and the four interior senses, and are moved by the objects of these; all have natural capacity or faculties to understand and master the knowledge that they do not have; and this is true not only of those that are inclined toward good but those that by reason of their depraved customs are bad; all take pleasure in goodness and in happy and pleasant things and all abhor evil and reject what offends or grieves them.... 

Thus all mankind is one, and all men are alike in what concerns their creation and all natural things, and no one is born enlightened. From this it follows that all of us must be guided and aided at first by those who were born before us.


In his last will and testament Las Casas wrote:
To act here at home on behalf of all those people 
out in what we call the Indies, 
the true possessors of those kingdoms, those territories.
  To act against the unimaginable, unspeakable violence
 and evil and harm they have suffered from our people,
 contrary to all reason, all justice,
so as to restore them to the original liberty
 they were lawlessly deprived of,
 and get them free of death by violence, death they still suffer.
He also commented on the probability of divine retribution, a factor that had always been uppermost in his mind throughout his time in the Americas:
I think that God shall have to pour out his fury and anger
 on Spain for these damnable, rotten, infamous deeds 
done so unjustly, so tyrannically, so barbarously 
to those people, against those people.
  For the whole of Spain has shared in the blood-soaked riches,
 some a little, some a lot, but all shared in goods 
that were ill-gotten, wickedly taken with violence and genocide-
and all must pay unless Spain does a mighty penance.
I'm looking forward to the discussion.