Case Study Las Casas
Q2: 2A. Las Casas was located in the New World, more specifically, on an island where natives were enslaved by the Spaniards. He was right in the midst of encountering Indian treatment at its cruelest. It would be hard not to form a bias when Indians who seem to do no wrong are being tortured for what appears to be for the sake of the invader’s enjoyment.
2B. Because Las Casas was a priest, he becomes a much more reliable source than the average person because of religious reputation. Priests should be exemplifying Catholicism with their conduct. Within their religion, lying is not condoned. Therefore, people would more likely believe single eye-witness accounts made by a priest or religious leader rather than someone who’s religion and standards are unknown. Las Casas can also be considered an unreliable source because his accounts do not have other …show more content…
Information in Las Casas’ accounts that may be misleading or exaggerated are his reports of the cruelty inflicted on the Indians by the Spaniards. From the way the priest wrote his account, it gives the appearance that in his eyes, the Indians could do no wrong and the Spaniards were only capable of wrong. Because of this bias, events might have seemed more severe or extreme than they actually were. The accounts he gives contain both facts and opinions. Because opinions were included, it’s possible that they could muddy the facts. The account could also sound more extreme than the actual events if the priest was trying to get the attention he believe the situation needed in order for anything to be done.
2D. Another view Las Casas may have expressed that contained bias and made it unreliable was his description of the natives. He didn’t express a single characteristic of the Indian population that was negative. Each and every human possesses negative attributes. Claiming the Indians were perfect simply isn’t accurate. Especially coming from a priest who believes that only Jesus was a perfect, sinless
2B. Because Las Casas was a priest, he becomes a much more reliable source than the average person because of religious reputation. Priests should be exemplifying Catholicism with their conduct. Within their religion, lying is not condoned. Therefore, people would more likely believe single eye-witness accounts made by a priest or religious leader rather than someone who’s religion and standards are unknown. Las Casas can also be considered an unreliable source because his accounts do not have other …show more content…
Information in Las Casas’ accounts that may be misleading or exaggerated are his reports of the cruelty inflicted on the Indians by the Spaniards. From the way the priest wrote his account, it gives the appearance that in his eyes, the Indians could do no wrong and the Spaniards were only capable of wrong. Because of this bias, events might have seemed more severe or extreme than they actually were. The accounts he gives contain both facts and opinions. Because opinions were included, it’s possible that they could muddy the facts. The account could also sound more extreme than the actual events if the priest was trying to get the attention he believe the situation needed in order for anything to be done.
2D. Another view Las Casas may have expressed that contained bias and made it unreliable was his description of the natives. He didn’t express a single characteristic of the Indian population that was negative. Each and every human possesses negative attributes. Claiming the Indians were perfect simply isn’t accurate. Especially coming from a priest who believes that only Jesus was a perfect, sinless