International Relations - Essay Example

6 June Question How does Las Casas make sense of (experience) Spain’s war against the Indians? What is the particular view of history at work in his account? How is he guilty of representing the Americas as a utopia? What are the problems that his account (description, history) of the Americas generates for his quest for justice and the writing of history? The European conquest of the Americas is not that accurately described in some reference books, where some even highlight the benefits of colonization to colonized territories. Several history books render the sickening extent and brutality of European colonization during Columbus’ times. One of these books is An Account, Much Abbreviated, of the Destruction of the Indies by Bartolome de las Casas (2003). In this text, he focuses on the genocide and greed of the Spaniards. He argues that Christians have killed so many native souls, because of their materialistic passion for gold and goal of making themselves rich in a very short time. de las Casas makes sense of the Spanish war in the Americas as a brutal strategy for pursuing purely materialistic purposes. The particular view of history he uses is that of a polemicist, where he criticizes the barbaric approach of the Spaniards against the Indians. Furthermore, he is guilty of representing the Americas as utopia, and his descriptions and history present problems of self-biases and inaccuracies, since he is also advancing his own interests of promoting colonization for evangelical purposes. de las Casas makes sense of the Spanish war in the Americas as an atrocious strategy for pursuing purely materialistic purposes. For many Spaniards, the new world promises wealth, fame, and distinction, even for priests, but upon arrival there, de las Casas realizes that the Spaniards are not after noble purposes. First, de las Casas takes account of the millions of natives killed, because Spaniards launched widespread genocide. de las Casas does not use the term genocide, but he describes islands with vanished populations, which remarks of the genocidal practices of the Spaniards. He says: “As to the firm land, we are certainly satisfied, and assur’d, that the Spaniards by their barbarous and execrable Actions have absolutely depopulated Ten Kingdoms, of greater extent than all Spain” and even “together with the Kingdoms of Arragon and Portugal, that is to say, about One Thousand Miles, which now lye wast [sic] and desolate…above Fifty Millions in all paid their debts” (7). The colonization originally aims to spread civilization, Christianity, and expand the Spanish Kingdom, but de las Casas witnesses something less purer. He stresses that Christian Spaniards are motivated to kill by the millions, with such viciousness, because of aspirations of wealth and power: “Now the ultimate end and scope that incited the Spaniards to endeavor the Extirptation [sic] and Desolation of this People, was Gold only; that thereby growing opulent in a short time” they could be attain “Degrees and Dignitaries” that were “no ways consistent with their Persons” (8). These accounts show that materialism had driven the motive for so many senseless deaths that de las Casas capitalized on. The particular view of history that de las Casas uses is that of a polemicist, where he disparages the barbaric approach of the Spaniards against the Indians (Boyer 365). Boyer says: “[An Account, Much Abbreviated, of the Destruction of the Indies]… represents Las Casas the polemicist and pamphleteer, belonging to that portion of his oeuvre that can be characterized as politicized and politicizing rhetoric, in contrast to the longer pieces like the Historia de las Indias” (365). This view demonstrates that de las Casas writes about the history of the Incas from the biased point of polemics, where he argues for better treatment of the natives, thereby acting as an intermediary between the Indians and the monarchy. He comes across to his audience by using more of pathos or emotions to depict the harshness of the treatment of the Spanish of their native subordinates. de las Casas aims to affect Spaniard leaders and citizens, so that they can stop these materialistic and brutal ventures and focus instead on the evangelical purposes of colonization. de las Casas is guilty of representing the Americas as utopia. He represents Americas and its people as a land of promise, and ignorant and gentle people, respectively. He illustrates Indians as “most tender and effeminate people, and so imbecile and unequal-balanced temper, that they are altogether incapable of hard labour…” while he describes Americas, such as a place called Magua, as possessing rivers that “are very rich in Mines of Gold; on which Mountain lies the Province of rich Mines, where the exquisite Gold of twenty Four Caracts [sic] weight…” (11). He also says that the Indians are: “…most Obedient and Loyal Subjects to their Native Sovereigns; and behave themselves very patiently, submissively and quietly towards the Spaniards, to whom they are subservient and subject” (5). These descriptions emphasize Americas as the land of economic opportunities, both as a source of labor and gold. de las Casas focuses on these Utopian qualities of Americas and the Indians, which further stress the vulnerability of the Indians against Spanish forces. The descriptions and history of de las Casas present problems of self-biases and inaccuracies, since he is also advancing his own interests of promoting colonization for greater evangelical purposes. First, his bias taints the accuracy and completeness of his descriptions. When he says: “above Fifty Millions in all paid their debts” (7), he does not explain how he has estimated these numbers. He does not make specific computations for each parcel of land or community and it seems that he has made grand calculations. Second, de las Casas is advancing the polemics of religion. He wants to change the focus of the Spaniards from mining gold toward the more singular venture of the Christianization of the world. As a result, de las Casas is presenting descriptions to magnify the demonization of the original purposes of the conquest. He writes history to potentially sensationalize and persuade the Spaniards of the inhumanity of the conquest, because of the inhumanity of the sole purpose of it- materialistic greed. de las Casas makes sense of the Spanish war in the Americas as a brutal strategy for pursuing purely materialistic purposes. The particular view of history he uses is that of a polemicist, where he attacks the barbaric approach of the Spaniards against the Indians. In addition, he is guilty of representing the Americas as utopia, and his descriptions and history signify problems of self-biases and inaccuracies, since he is also promoting his own interests for the greater evangelical drive of colonization. Question 2: What are the elements that make Machiavelli’s thought a philosophy of power? How does his analysis of political practice contribute to a “modern” turn in Western political? Does traditional International Relation Realism (e.g; human nature as selfish, power as a zero-sum game) misunderstand Machiavelli? How does the legacy of The Prince differ from that of The Discourses? Niccolo Machiavelli wrote the “The Prince” during his exile in Percussina. His audience is the Medici, the ruling family in Italy. Machiavelli was a statesman and by 1502 he was a celebrated assistant to the head of state, Piero Soderini. In 1512, Spanish forces attacked Italy and this ousted Soderini. In “The Prince,” Machiavelli discusses how principalities should be ruled and maintained. Machiavelli’s thought is considered a philosophy of power, because he provides practical guidelines on rising to and preserving power and asserts the power of reason over emotions in maintaining power. His ideas constitute a “modern” turn in Western political, because of his argumentations that affirm the basic principles of International Relation Realism. International Relation Realism misunderstands Machiavelli, because it uses ideology to drive foreign policies, and not the practical conditions of the state and the nature of leadership. Finally, the legacy of The Prince differs from that of The Discourses, because the former is a practical guide to the exercise of political power over principalities, with a touch of ethical discussions, while the latter deals with the ethics of a good life only. Machiavelli’s thought is considered a philosophy of power, because he provides practical guidelines on rising to and preserving power. Machiavelli argues that a prince can rise to power by acting like a fox and a lion. Machiavelli highlights that there are two basic elements for effective political leadership: virtu and fortuna. Virtu refers to the prince's own abilities of being both a lion and a fox; fortuna pertains to the unpredictable fortunes. Machiavelli states that a prince: “ought to choose the fox and the lion; because the lion cannot defend himself against snares and the fox cannot defend himself against wolves” (96). Machiavelli underscores that a prince should be cunning and ruthless, and he should also be skilled in trickery, when the circumstances demand it. Fortuna means that anything can happen and a wise prince knows how to employ fox and lion skills to respond to changes in fortunes. Furthermore, Machiavelli asserts the power of reason or rationality over emotions (10). A prince knows how to apply reason as the driving force of his systematic leadership over his principalities. Machiavelli then proposes a power structure, where an individual rises to power and maintains it through several attitudes and practices. Machiavelli’s ideas constitute a “modern” turn in Western political, because of his argumentations that affirm the basic principles of International Relation Realism. One of these tenets is the selfish nature of man. Machiavelli is also a realist who believes that human nature is fickle and selfish and he says: “Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely...” but when the prince needs them “they turn against [him]” (94). Machiavelli further asserts the zero-sum definition of power, the second principle of realism, wherein if the prince wants loyal subjects who would support his power, he should lead by fear, because “soft” leaders will easily be toppled by uprisings: “[A prince] ought not to mind the reproach of cruelty; because with a few examples he will be more merciful than those who, through too much mercy, allow disorders to arise, from which follow murders or robberies” (68). Machiavelli then also believes that wars are then essential to assert power and dispel disorders. Hence, Machiavelli is also in line with the concepts of power and war that realism espouses. International Relation Realism misunderstands Machiavelli, however, because the former uses ideology to drive foreign policies, and does not base policies on the practical conditions of the state and the nature of leadership. Realism has been ideologically-driven, with raw and violent concepts of war. Machiavelli, on the contrary, understands that leading is not about violence per se. Leaders should focus on realistic responses to real-life needs and demands of the people. Machiavelli argues that a prince should avoid being hated; to be feared is not the same as being hated. This magnifies the nature of leadership versus realism’s ideology of leadership. Ideology is not central or permanent, because power resides in controlling people too, without being hated. Machiavelli says: “...I consider that a prince ought to reckon conspiracies of little account when his people hold him in esteem; but when it is hostile to him, and bears hatred towards him, he ought to fear everything and everybody” (112). Machiavelli provides the example of Pertinax, who made his people hate him, and so he was removed from office. Machiavelli also talks about Antoninus. Machiavelli notes that Antoninus’ atrocities and murders made his people to hate him: “He became hated by the whole world, and also feared by those he had around him, to such an extent that he was murdered in the midst of his army by a centurion” (104). Machiavelli believes that fear is not the sole means of preserving power. An effective leader, for Machiavelli, knows when to apply control of violence actions and when to incite fear. Realists are not always aware of this balance, which makes them more Machiavellian (or ends-centered) actually, than Machiavelli actually is. The legacy of The Prince differs from that of The Discourses, because the former is a practical guide to the exercise of political power over principalities, with a touch of ethical discussions, while the latter deals with the ethics of a good life only. The Prince is a handbook of leadership for princes in Renaissance times. The Discourses focuses on the good life. Stoicism teaches about eudaimonia (‘happiness’ or ‘flourishing’), which means living according to “nature” (Seddon). The eudaimonia is made of ataraxia (imperturbability), apatheia (freedom from passion), eupatheiai (‘good feelings’), and awareness that can be achieved through rationality (Seddon). The Prince touches on the ethics of not being hated as a leader, but does not focus on the individual happiness of citizens. Machiavelli provides a blueprint of power, by giving practical guidelines on rising to and preserving power and the rationality of power and its means. His ideas compose a “modern” turn in Western political, because he affirms the basic principles of International Relation Realism. International Relation Realism misreads Machiavelli, nevertheless, because it uses ideology to drive foreign policies, and does not consider the sensible conditions of the state and the nature of leadership. Lastly, the legacy of The Prince differs from that of The Discourses, because the former focuses on reaching and maintaining power, while the latter focuses on the ethics of a good and happy life. Works Cited Boyer, Patricio. “Framing the Visual Tableaux in the Brevisima relacion de la destruicion de las Indias.” Colonial Latin American Review 18.3 (2009): 365-382. Print. de las Casas, Bartolome. An Account, Much Abbreviated, of the Destruction of the Indies. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 2003. Print. Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. New York: Bantam Classics, 1984. Print. Seddon, Keith H. Epictetus (55–135 CE). Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2003. Web. 5 June 2011 < http://www.iep.utm.edu/epictetu/>. Read More