I find that there is not much difference between the first half and the second part of the book. Las Casas continues to describe the violence and injustice towards the Indigenous people. However, there are a few structural differences that can be noted in the second half. More specifically towards the end, Las Casas tends to use more descriptions and more detail to depict the cruelty of the spanish conquest. The last chapter seemed to be the longest, which could perhaps be his way of simply emphasizing his ideas and his arguments at the very last moment. It is interesting for the reader, because I think it leaves us with many questions and critical thoughts. "Del Nuevo Reino de Granada" is very powerful to me. In the beginning, there is alot of focus on the idea of finding and getting gold. The repition of this idea in the first couple of pages in this chapter portray the obsession of the Spanish with the rich resources of this new land. Therefore, further implying their lack of interest in the people and the culture. Las Casas uses this to depict that the "Indians" are stripped from their human rights and their individuality (the argument of the book).
Later on in the chapter, I found that there is alot of references to religion (alot more than before). Now, it seems that Las Casas sees the violence and harm towards the people as more of a sin towards God. He repeats the phrase "contra del Dios" perhaps, as a way to get through to the Spanish king, his peers, and fellow citizens. It also makes the text more personal, because he is a religious patron. Also the prayer at the end, creates a more personal tone and thus creates a powerful ending for the reader.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Estoy de acuerdo con tu argumento que la segunda parte del libro de Las Casas es exactamente igual a la segunda parte. Creo que es el primer libro que lei en el cual la historia no preogresa. El relato de Las Casas parece ser un circulo sin final.
Zaira.
Debes pensar en el poder del religion en el siglo 16, porque en ese dia era el poder absoluto. creo que Las Casas lo usa el religion para dar mas fuerza a su argumento. Cuando describa que las acciones hechos por los espanoles eran contra dios (pecados), se hace que las violaciones seran mas graves. Asi que la gente que leia su testimonio, lo miraba bajo un ojo mas critical. Poreso creo que Las Casas relata las violaciones con el religion mas en la segunda parte del libro.
Buenos puntos. Vi los más referencias de la religión cerca del fin también. El uso de la frase “contra del Dios” es prominente en los finales capítulos. También, es muy fascinante que el ultimo capítulo tiene más descripciones gráficos. Me gusta tu idea que los repeticiones son por énfasis. :)
That's a really good point you made about the shift in argumentation that De Las Casas uses against the killings of the indigenous people. At first he focuses more on the senseless cruelty of it, but towards the end the idea that the killings are an offense against God comes in much more strongly. I guess he is just trying to appeal to his reader in different ways, emotional and religious.
I didn't notice the shift of narration until you mentioned it. However, I don't think the difference is that clear because he also describes many cases of inhuman tortures in the first part of the book.
About his religious appeal, I also agree with what others have pointed out previously. There is only one thing that I would like to add. Besides the possibility that he might want to use religion to make a strong appeal, he could have also strongly believed in it. In another word, he did not use religion as a strategy to win the mercy of other; he really did believe in the point he raised (after all, he was a bishop.)
Michelle Cheng
Me parece interecante lo que dices sobre la individualidad de los indigenas del punto de visto de los europeos. Las Casas escribe de una manera que nos hace pensar que los europeos son los que quitaron su individualidad a los indigenas pero creo que los europeos tampoco no tenien identidad desde el punto de vista de los indigenas: eran todos conquistadores, querian la misma cosa y no creo que realmente habia una gran diferencia entre conquistadores y hombres religiosos.
Post a Comment