In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:
  • Another Face of Empire: Bartolomé de Las Casas, Indigenous Rights, and Ecclesiastical Imperialism
  • David T. Orique
Another Face of Empire: Bartolomé de Las Casas, Indigenous Rights, and Ecclesiastical Imperialism. By Daniel Castro. [Latin America Otherwise: Languages, Empires, Nations.] (Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press. 2007. Pp. xii, 233. $74.95 clothbound, $21.95 paperback.)

This revised 1994 dissertation offers a "nuanced" portrayal of Las Casas's role as an agent of ecclesiastical and royal imperialism in the Spanish conquest and colonization of Indoamerica. To debunk definitively the nigh-universal characterization of Las Casas as an emblematic advocate of human rights, Castro interprets Las Casas's labors as imperialistically in keeping with the alleged designs of church and crown to dominate and exploit the Indigenous. While Castro's approach generally employs perspectives from Paulo Freire, Karl Marx, and Michel Foucault, the work's theoretical framework is not systematically articulated. Rather, Castro nuances Freire's dialogical concept of "the Other" (and neglects to situate it in Gabriel Marcel's—or compare it with Jean-Paul Sartre's—existentialism). Castro's selective portrayal of the "Otherness" of the Indigenous also does not engage Gustavo Gutiérrez's discussion of "the Other" (whose book he cited) as well as this Peruvian scholar's relevant 1983 and 1990 publications. Similarly, Castro fails to articulate explicitly and engage analytically both the Marxist dialectic and the Foucaultian deconstructionism that underlie his "nuanced" portrayal. He identifies with Foucault's penchant for the marginalized.

Throughout my reading, "red flags" appeared with disconcerting frequency, which indicate problematic areas in Castro's alleged "true" account about Las Casas. For example, regarding the Indigenous as "the Other," Las Casas did study an Indigenous dialect when with Francisco Marroquín; he did insist on church functionaries learning Indigenous languages. While it is true, as Castro contends, that Las Casas did not, generally, dialogue with the Indigenous (except Juanico) as equals, he did give voice on their behalf—including with power of attorney from thirteen caciques. Other inaccuracies indicate incomplete knowledge and/or understanding of Las Casas, for example, about his intellectual formation and writings. Archival materials, publicized in 1954, document Las Casas's canon law Bachillerato and Licenciado. His subsequent philosophic-theological studies coupled with canonistic principles were the core of the alleged "long and rambling" 1531 Carta al Consejo, and of Del único modo—the latter, not the former (as Castro states), being seminal to the Brevísima (which, contrary to Castro, was written after the oral Larguísima and published with royal approval). Las Casas's unique epistemological contribution of grafting natural rights to natural law was expressed first in his 1516 Memorial de remedios that advocated the Indigenous people's rights to life and its necessities, to freedom and association. Castro fails to comprehend Las Casas's championing of a rational and peaceful method of evangelization as well as of the Indigenous people's right to religious freedom. He misinterprets [End Page 616] "Providence"—the epistemological Judeo-Christian belief system about the world as a divinely ordered whole. Regarding other ecclesial aspects, Las Casas did not take final vows in 1507 (he was ordained); he professed vows as a Dominican in 1523 (in a friary, not a monastery); papal donation bulls did not—and could not—give temporal jurisdiction. Castro also ignores the role of faith; he misunderstands pastoral "apostolate work"—and conscience. Concerning politics, he fails to address the posibilismo strategy of Las Casas regarding Tierra Firme, which Manuel Giménez Fernández elucidated (another scholar Castro cited).

While presenting much historical data, Castro simply does not argue his thesis cogently. Is this partially because he does what he charged Las Casas did? Does he "truly" understand Las Casas—including his limitations, Weltanschauung, and relationships—to "gain a true sense" thereby of what Las Casas did? Judging the past with contemporary categories of understanding, Castro makes himself the authority of truth (in an imperialistic, polemical, and even combative manner), instead of engaging Las Casas's truth in all of its available dimensions. However, that imperialist agency was an unintended consequence of Las Casas's labors is worthy of study—to produce, not "another face," but "an Other...

pdf

Share