Sepulveda emphasizes many differences between Europeans and Indians. He feels that Europeans have the right to rule the Indians because they are barbarians. He used savage to describe the Indians and moderate to describe Europeans. Sepulveda even went as far as comparing Indians as apes and Europeans as men. He considered the Europeans morals to be set higher than the Indian’s. To him he saw Indians as human flesh-eating, foolish, immoral people. Overall, he mainly emphasizes the fact that Indians are not as smart as Europeans, and Indians have made no human accomplishments worth flaunting. Sepulveda claims that there are advantages of European culture such as, their many talents. Europeans are nice to people even during times of war. For example, they put effort and care into saving large amounts of people who conquered and protected them. Their culture also allows them to follow what they consider to be true faith also known as, Christianity.
Bartolome de Las Casas’s view of the Indians was the total opposite of Sepulveda’s. Las Casas was given the nickname “Protector of the Indians” because he wanted to protect the rights of these people. He thought that Aristotle’s ideas were very wrong. The Indians were not ignorant, rude, or inhuman people they were the opposite. Before the Spanish even arrived there Indians had organized states, and ordered laws, religion, and customs. Indians were not at all stupid and definitely did not deserve the cruel punishment they were receiving.
The two debaters shared many ideas that supported both their reasonings. They both discussed ideas about the treatment of Indians, religion, and how the Indians acted. Basically, Las Casas defends the Indians. He said that they do not deserve this wrong treatment and deserve rights. Religion plays a big part too because Sepulveda believes that they are barbarians because they are not Christians. But Las Casas argued that God loves all people, and it does not matter what religion they worshiped. Sepulveda describes how the Indians behave in foolish, immoral, and ignorant ways, but Las Casas defends them by saying they are not like that they are very smart. These were just three of the many ideas they debated over.
127 our experts are availableright now
From my understanding of the passage, Richard Hakluyt’s arguments for settling north of Florida on the Atlantic coast were the location, religion, and patriotism. The location offered very fertile and good weather areas. This helped for them to grow crops. Hakluyt wanted to help spread Christianity throughout this area. He wanted lands of rights for the people living in it, and for everyone to receive the same equal treatment.
The arguments that mostly appealed to Sidney’s patriotism were the ones that had to do with having honor for our country and people getting equality and rights. Hakluyt’s argument about men having the respect to help proceed the honor of the country. He also mentions taking lands that have rights and equality. The arguments that mostly appealed to Sidney’s religious faith were when Richard mentioned spreading Christianity throughout lands where there was no Christianity. When Hakluyt talks about first finding the kingdom of God then the rest will fall into place. These arguments would probably stand out the Sidney.
