Talk:Valladolid debate

Prologue

A caricature of cultural history. Not worth working on. --Wetman 08:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

6 months later and it's not much better. I removed these substantial sections as unsourced speculation, but I hesitated to delete them entirely, so I moved them here. If someone could provide sources for any of this feel free to add it back in, but as is it reads like unbacked apologetics that has little to do with the actual debate. (I bolded the section headers, I didn't know what else to do.)--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Conquests As Crusade

It should be noticed that the debate was over two distinct notions - the legitimacy or lack thereof of the Conquests, and the other being the treatment of the natives of the New World.

While the Church's attitude is that Las Casas was right on the second question, there was strong support for the belief that, despite the unacceptable misbehaviour of the Conquistadores, the Conquests were theologically legitimate as part or extension of the Luso-Spanish Reconquistas, with the same basis as that of the Bull Inter Cunctas, etc.

It is to be noted that this theology has fallen into disuse in the last few centuries.

Protestantism

Calvinism and Jansenism were to revive the Sepulvadian opinion, rejecting the idea that black peoples possessed souls and could attain to salvation.

While in practice this was diluted, nevertheless, this was the basis of the Dutch South African Calvinists' Apartheid policy in South Africa.

It was also the cause for the Anglo-Saxon settlers in North America, Australia, etc. to follow the policy of land clearances forcing out the aborigines into reservations or Bantustans, and for the refusal of England to grant the same rights of true self-government to British India that it had extended to its white colonies of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.

Catholicism Largely as a result of the Valladolid Debate and its conclusions, which helped clarify Catholic thought on the controversy, colonists from Catholic countries in the New World tended to settle amongst and intermarry with the natives rather than expel or reduce them to ghettos.

The significant exceptions are Costa Rica and Argentina.

In the later case, European colonists and the newly independent Argentinians were more influenced by Evolutionary and Calvinist ideas imported via England, so that, rejecting the aborigines as subhuman species, they insisted on expelling and reducing the Amerindians, especially in Argentinian Patagonia, resorting to genocide.

These ideas also caused the Argentinians to harbor the conceit of being a White society surrounded by Creole or Aborigine-dominated states.

The removal has improved the article - better for it to stick to its immediate subject Provocateur 05:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

What about souls?

It is hard to believe the beginning of this article. I'm sorry to cite wikipedia in spanish, but we have put this:

• No discurría en torno a si los indígenas de América eran seres humanos con alma o salvajes susceptibles de ser domesticados como animales. Eso hubiera sido herético, y ya estaba resuelto por la bula papal Sublimis Deus (1537). Algunas veces se entiende esta bula como respuesta a opiniones que pusieran en entredicho la humanidad de los naturales; pero el papa (Paulo III, incitado por dos dominicos españoles) no pretendía definir la racionalidad del indígena, sino que suponiendo dicha racionalidad en cuanto que los indios son hombres, declaraba su derecho a la libertad y la propiedad, así como el derecho a abrazar el cristianismo, que debe serles predicado pacíficamente. El propósito declarado de la discusión era ofrecer una base teológica y jurídica segura para decidir cómo debía procederse en los descubrimientos, conquistas y población de las Indias.

In my bad english: not about indians was humang beings with soul... that should be heretic, and already resolved by papal bula Sublimus Deus 1537... The proposal of the discussion was offer a safer teological and juridic base for... conquer. Please, change.--Ángel Luis Alfaro 18:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

This guy seems to be right. First of all, different wiki pages say different things about who won the debate. This guy says there's no reliable record of a resolution. And Sublimis Deus did establish full humanity of the natives. See Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda for the perspective that it was about Aristotle's concept of "natural slaves," not an issue about souls. Jonathan Tweet 21:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Since the article cites no references, I added factual accuracy and unreferenced tags. Hopefully someone can sort this all out.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I found one reference that looks pretty good and modified the text to match. I wouldn't mind if someone triple-checked me. Jonathan Tweet 22:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I did some work on the article based on the source you provided. I also removed the tags. Thanks for finding that and amending the text, this was an embarassment before.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the changes, the article is well enough now. Perhaps you must add a link to Leyes de Burgos that talk about the Junta de Burgos, the precedent of the Junta de Valladolid in 1511. If you want improve more the article, I suggest add images (in spanish we have put three with comments very ilustratives, in my opinion). I dont dare doing myself.--Ángel Luis Alfaro 16:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is worth mentioning that this was not really a "debate" in the modern sense of the word. Sepulveda and Las Casas never met, and were never actively debating face to face, as we think of debates held today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.18.212.105 (talk) 22:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Jesuit

De Sepulveda was not a Jesuit. He may have been a Dominican. The Spanish side about him says that. My professor told me that he was a normal diocesan priest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.78.136.132 (talk) 08:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

He was neither, he was a jurist and theologian, but not a member of any religious order.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The debate led to a new issue of the New Laws in 1552

I believe it is very important to point out that the debate led to the passing of new laws that put an end to the legal slavery of the Indians, Even if it didn't end poor treatment of the natives in all cases, it wasn't officially sanctioned any longer and made it illegal to mistreat them. So yes, it did have a very important effect on the local population from then onwards and as such it should be reflected in the article. --RafaelMinuesa (talk) 09:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

That's going to need a source, as your material directly contradicts the source we do have. This specifically says that the debate itself did not substantially alter the treatment of the Indians. However, Sepulveda didn't see the New Laws overturned, which is what he wanted.--Cúchullain ^t/c 11:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

"My" material are the New Laws in 1552, which made it illegal to mistreat the natives and are a direct consequence of the Valladolid debate. There's no better source than that, wouldn't you agree?

--RafaelMinuesa (talk) 12:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

No... Wikipedia relies on secondary sources, written by experts interpreting the documents themselves. And they must be included in inline citations. The New Laws had already been passed in 1542; the Vallodolid debate, if anything, only resulted in existing laws being reissued. That is not what las Casas wanted, but at the same time it wasn't what Sepulveda wanted.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there was a mistake in the edit I made, but not exactly what you pointed out. The Valladolid debate resulted in new laws issued in 1573 by the Ordinances Concerning Discoveries, which forbade any unauthorized operations against independent Native Americans. I have to do some more research before implementing the edit completely, but no one can argue that they had a direct positive effect on the native population.

Please do not remove the Codex drawing as it was used as evidence during the Debate. Thanks.

--RafaelMinuesa (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You're going to need a citation for the claim that the Ordinances Concerning Discoveries were directly a result of this debate. The claim is in contrast to what appears in the other sources used so far. These say that the debate had some slight effect, but was really just one of several events that slowed down and somewhat weakened the encomienda system. The debate itself didn't really have much effect, and it especially didn't have the effect that either debater wanted.

I'm okay with the image, if you can show that it was actually used during this debate.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

POV in last paragraph

Fixed some "White Legend" POV in the last paragraph to something closer approaching neutrality. Would appreciate modification to make it even more NPOV, but a revert would be terrible idea.69.114.170.9 (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Today I've reverted some edits by User:Rafael Minuesa which also slanted the article towards the white legend side. For example he removed the note that Sublimus Dei only officially but not practically abolished slavery - Sublimus Dei was rescinded a year after its promulgation by the same pope who issued it and who later made statements in favor of slavery. Almost all accounts state that Sublimus Dei had no practical effects on the treatment of Indians. It is also quite commonly stated in the sources that an important part of the reason that Las Casas position found favor with the king was the growing need to control the encomenderos. Apart from that Las Casas did not have great favor with the catholic church, after the death of Cardinal Xisneros he had almost no friends in the Church. Similarly the edits exaggerrated the importance of the New Laws, which were in fact never implemented in most of the Spanish colonies.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Good start, but I'm afraid it's still not far enough. The article formerly made it clear that nothing that came out of this had any substantial effect on the treatment of the Indians, and that the real reason las Casas found favor in the power structure was that his position would challenge the encomenderos. This has been consistently eroded over the last year or so with little discussion. I'll see what I can do.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that is true, I am going to have to find some sources, and give a better description of the debate and of its consequences.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The last three paragraphs are all troubling. The first two have the same problem I brought up over a year ago: they're using a primary source to advance an interpretation. And the material on the Black Legend and its use by Spain's enemies does not appear in the source it's attributed to.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I just went ahead and removed them. A year is more than enough time to correct the issues in the first two paragraphs, and the last paragraph isn't supported in the citation. It's also irrelevant to this article, as there's no indication this debate in particular influenced British, French, etc. interpretations of the Black Legend.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to misrepresent Keen, attributing him the opposite view of the one he espoused.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi ·ʍaunus, Regarding your statements:

1- "Sublimus Dei was rescinded a year after its promulgation by the same pope who issued it and who later made statements in favor of slavery"

2- "the New Laws, which were in fact never implemented in most of the Spanish colonies"

Could you please provide some sources that back up those statements? Thank you— Preceding unsigned comment added by RafaelMinuesa (talk • contribs)

It would be more to the point for you to demonstrate why your material is relevant, than for us to demonstrate why it's not.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

If you write that the Pope "made statements in favor of slavery", you have to prove it, specially when you use it as part of your argument for deleting material

Same applies to the following statement "the New Laws, which were in fact never implemented in most of the Spanish colonies", when in fact they were implemented in all Spanish colonies. Perhaps you meant to write that they were at times overlooked?

--RafaelMinuesa (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

And of course I will provide those references, but they are not necessary to remove the material. Since the material is not supported by sources it can be removed at any time and in order to reinclude it it would be necessary for you to provide valid reliable sources. We have discusssed the implemenation of the new laws before - and no they were never implemented in Peru where the encomendero's revolted when the viceroy attemted to do so, nor in New Spain where the viceroy simply chose not to implement them since he was himself an encomendero and feared the reaction of the other encomenderos.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• Paul III withdrew both Sublimis Deus and its companion Pastorale Officium on june 19th 1538 due to pressure from slaveowners (Armando Lampe, 2001, Christianity in the Caribbean: essays on church history p. 17). He repealed an ancient law giving freedom to slaves that touched the emperor's statue on the capitoleum, he affirmed the right of Roman citizens to buy and sell slaves and authorized the possession and trade of Muslim slaves in Rome in 1548. (That the world may believe: the development of Papal social thought on aboriginal rights", Michael Stogre S.J, Médiaspaul, 1992).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking right now at the source you provided and I fail to see anything of the kind.

Would you be so kind as to provide the page number? Thanks --RafaelMinuesa (talk) 00:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

You mean Stogre, p. 116? And when will you provide your first source?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I still fail to see anything of the kind in the source you provided? --RafaelMinuesa (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Then one of us is mistaken. Perhaps we need a third set of eyes to determine who. And when will you provide a source for some of your claims?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, Rafael, the burden of evidence is on you to defend your challenged material, not for Maunus to track down citations explaining the challenge to you. That's putting the cart before the horse.Cúchullain ^t/c 01:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, Cuchullain, all I'm asking is the sources for the following claims, upon which part of the material was deleted.

1- "Sublimus Dei was rescinded a year after its promulgation by the same pope who issued it and who later made statements in favor of slavery"

2- "the New Laws, which were in fact never implemented in most of the Spanish colonies"

Thank you. --RafaelMinuesa (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Which I have done. Now provide a source saying that the New Laws (of 1542) or the Ordinances (of 1573) were a result of the valladolid debate (of 1550).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 10:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Maunus is not obligated to introduce sources, he's not trying to add anything. YOU are obligated to provide reliable, secondary sources that back up your material directly, and you still have not.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Protector of the Indians

Hi Cúchullain, Regarding your statement:

"nothing that came out of this had any substantial effect on the treatment of the Indians"

How could that be? A set of Laws enacted by the highest authority at the time, specifically addressing the treatment of Native Indians surely must have a deep effect.

I also see that large portions of the article, specifically the part that explained the implementation in all colonized settlements of a crown-appointed official known as the "Protector de Indios" (Protector of the Indians), that was perfectly referenced, has been removed without explanation. I believe it must have been a mistake in your part and I'm therefore restoring it. Please, next time you feel like mass deleting large parts of the article give some valid reasons for doing it, and cite some references which in your opinion would nullify those that are already there.

Thank you --RafaelMinuesa (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Neither New Laws nor the later ordinances were not a result of the debate, and you have not presented any source to suggest that it was. Neither was the implementation of the office Protector of Indians a result of the debate. Reasons for the deletions are given above. I will revert your inclusions again pending further discussion.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, after over a year, we have no source saying that this debate led to new laws protecting the Indians, and in fact have sources that say it had no such effect. Your Britannica source doesn't mention this debate; the other source is a primary source and can't be used here. I'll have to check on the "Protector de Indios" source; if I removed it unduly I apologize. But this challenged material had better stay out pending discussion.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

You must have misread the paragraph you keep deleting for no valid reason. It says "the new statutes within the Ordinances Concerning Discoveries", not the "Ordinances" themselves.

That the implementation of the office Protector of Indians was a result of the debate is just common sense derived from the fact that Bartolomé de Las Casas himself was the first person to be named Protector of the Indians. But I will provide references for your benefit since you seem to doubt such an obvious fact.

In the meantime, please stop deleting this paragraph unless you can provide a source suggesting the opposite.

And please, refrain from mass deleting large parts of the article that are perfectly referenced without trying at least to discuss it with other editors. If you are challenging that material as you say, the proper way to proceed is through discussion

Thank you --RafaelMinuesa (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Las Casas was named Protector of the Indians in 1517 - 33 years before the Valladolid debates. So much for "obvious facts". The material stays out of the article untill reliable sources are provided and consensus to include is established. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We discussed this over a year ago, and the material has sat without proper references ever since. That's plenty of time to fix it. You need to provide a reliable, secondary source that includes this material directly. As I said the primary source is inadequate, and the Britannica article doesn't mention this debate. A cursory look at the Protector de Indios book makes it appear that source doesn't mention the debate either. Without that, the material should not be in Wikipedia, especially as it contradicts another published source that specifically says the debate didn't have any real effect on the treatment of the Indians.Cúchullain ^t/c 23:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, you must have misread the paragraph. It read "the implementation in all colonized settlements of a crown-appointed official known as the "Protector de Indios". The implementation did take place after the Valladolid debate and Bartolomé de Las Casas himself was the first person to be appointed officially as "Protector of the Indians" by the government.

I have restored the perfectly referenced deleted part and changed "named" for "officially appointed", so it is even clearer now.

Please stop deleting this paragraph unless you can provide a source suggesting the opposite. What you are doing goes against the basic principles of Wikipedia.

Thank you --RafaelMinuesa (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a basic principle of wikipedia: WP:EDITWAR and WP:CONSENSUS. Failure to follow those can result in being blocked. Las Casas was officially appointed Protector in 1517, Juan de Zumarraga in 1537 - how could this be a result of a debate taking place in 1550? ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Then why do you keep deleting that material without previous consensus?

Again, Bartolomé de Las Casas was named "Protector de Indios" in 1517, but he wasn't officially officially appointed by the Spanish Government as "Protector de Indios" until the Valladolid Debate was over.

What's the part you don't understand? You keep deleting perfectly sourced material without prior discussion just because you don't understand, and when proven wrong you keep deleting it and resort to threats? Unbelievable.

--RafaelMinuesa (talk) 00:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Another basic policy is WP:V - material that is challenged can be removed at any time. We are challenging this material and you have not provided a shred of evidence to support your claims. You claim about Las Casas not being officlally protector untill after 1550 is simply ridiculous and you need to provide a source for that since all his biographies say that he was appointed officially in 1517 after his audiences with Emperor Charles, if he was not appointed untill after the debate then he wouldn't be the first since Zummarraga was officially appointed in 1537. You are not making any sense, and obviously do not command the historical literature very well.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

He was named "Protector de Indios" in 1517 by Cardinal Cisneros, NOT by the Spanish Government, that didn't officially appointed him as "Protector de Indios" until the Valladolid Debate was over. This is useless, you obviously know by now what the facts are, and nonetheless keep deletinang perfectly sourced material without discussion. And then talk about "slant".

--RafaelMinuesa (talk) 00:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

He may have been named by Cisneros but it was an official appointment supported by the Emperor who in the same moment sent the Hieronymite friars to be the new governors of Hispaniola. He did not to my knowledge receive a second appointment after the debates, which would have been futile since he did not return to the Americas after the debates but stayed in Spain acting as an informal counselor to the King in matters related to the Indies. This is all in the biographies of Las Casas such as Raup-Wagner, Lewis Hanke and Gimenez Fernandez.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The implementation of the official Protector of Indians office didn't take place until the debate was over. That's what you deleted.--RafaelMinuesa (talk) 00:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes because it is contradicted by reliable sources. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

If a debate sponsored by the King (head of the government), in which Bartolomé de Las Casas defends the need for Laws protecting the natives, is followed by new Laws protecting the natives, is just common sense to say that the debate led to new Laws protecting the natives. Wouldn't you agree on that? This doesn't contradict any reliable source. If it does, please let us know, that's all I'm asking since the beginning of this discussion. --RafaelMinuesa (talk) 02:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes it does sinceaccording to reliable sources there were officially appointed Protectors of the Indians 30 years before the debate. Also we do not deal in common sense here but in sourced information. To argue that the the implementation of the office of protector of indians was a result of the debate that occured thirty years later, first you will need a source supporting that claim.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 10:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Once again, your material is not backed up directly in the sources, and the problem hasn't been addressed in over a year. On top of that your insufficiently cited material directly contradicts material in another cited source. There's really not anything more to discuss here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, the implementation of the Protector of Indians office didn't take place until the debate was over as new statutes within the Ordinances Concerning Discoveries. This doesn't contradict any reliable source. If it does, please let us know, that's all I'm asking since the beginning of this discussion. Again, where is your reliable source that says the Office of the Protector of Indians office was in place before the debate? You haven't provided any. You just have deleted perfectly valid material for no reason and now you refuse to give an explanation. --RafaelMinuesa (talk) 01:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I have mentioned several biographies of Las Casas that all state this. Where is your source suggesting that it was instated after the debate?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

No you haven't provided one single source that disputes that the implementation of the Protector of Indians office didn't take place until the debate was over as new statutes within the Ordinances Concerning Discoveries. This doesn't contradict any reliable source. If it does, please let us know, that's all I'm asking since the beginning of this discussion. Again, where is your reliable source that says the Office of the Protector of Indians office was in place before the debate? You haven't provided any. --RafaelMinuesa (talk) 01:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Fray Juan de Zumárraga, Protector of the Indians. Fidel de J. Chauvet. The Americas, Vol. 5, No. 3, Special Issue Dedicated to the Memory of Don Fray Juan de Zumárraga, First Bishop and Archbishop of Mexico#. (Jan., 1949), pp. 283-295. Now quit wasting my time with your misrepresentations and filibustering. Start reading some sources and bring them here. I am not answering any of your posts here before you start providing sources in support of your claims.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The wording in your request at WP:3O is not at all a neutral description of what this dispute is over. We are trying to work with you but it is becoming increasingly difficult. Perhaps it's time to disengage for a while.Cúchullain ^t/c 01:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Look, Rafael. To include your material, you need to provide sources that say DIRECTLY that (1) the Valladolid debate led to new statutes in the Ordinances Concerning Discoveries in 1573 and that (2) the debate led to the creation of the office of Protector de Indios. Until you have done that, there is nothing more to talk about.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion

This is a straightforward issue (without comment on the validity of the opposing viewpoints). WP:BURDEN, an en-wikipedia policy, states: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it. Therefore it is up to RafaelMinuesa to defend his/her edits by providing direct sources before they can be reinserted into the article. For example, a reliable source that clearly states that the 'protector of the Indians' office was a direct result of the debate and not an existing office prior to it, and explains the contradiction (that the office existed before as well) is necessary before that can be included in the article. --rgpk (comment) 19:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, RegentsPark. That is most helpful.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Concluding paragraph

I've marked the following passage as promoting a non-neutral viewpoint:

"The arguments presented by Las Casas and Sepúlveda to the junta of Valladolid remained too abstract, with both sides stubbornly clinging to their opposite theories that ironically relied on similar, if not the same, theoretical authorities, which were interpreted to suit their respective arguments"

The loaded language, I hope, speaks for itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.22.238.84 (talk) 02:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Sublimis Deus

"Sublimus Dei" is a gross misspelling of "Sublimis Deus", the name of the papal bull.