For much of his life in the sixteenth century Dominican friar Bartolomé de Las Casas dedicated himself to denouncing the actions of Spanish conquistadores in the Americas. His concerns were over the upwardly mobile class of Spanish adventurers and their actions against the native population, which he viewed as destructive of the Eden that America was perceived to be. In his A Short Account of the a Destruction of the Indies, Las Casas showed great concern over the extermination of what he perceived as innocent Amerindian populations well suited to receive Christian truth. However, his horror was intensified by the fact that it was lower class fortune-seeking Spaniards who were responsible for this destruction at the expense of the Church and the Crown.

Although most historians have emphasized his terror at the destruction of native populations, Las Casas's primary concern is difficult to pinpoint. The Short Account is filled mostly with accounts of gruesome Spanish slaughters of indigenous Americans. However, it is Las Casas's selectivity in which massacres he chose to elaborate on that perhaps is most revealing about his motives. Although meant to reach a wider audience, the Short Account was intended primarily as a plea to the king of Spain (Charles V) and his heir (Philip II) to issue decrees limiting the severity with which Spanish conquistadores could deal with Amerindian populations. Las Casas and others were concerned simultaneously with establishing a place for the "other" (in this case Amerindians) in European world view and society while also trying to frame the context within which Spanish society would incorporate this "other" and the newfound territory and resources they provided. As Stern has argued concerning early European involvement with America, "the object of discovery was both the self and the other." (Stern 25) In this respect, it is clear that Las Casas was concerned both with European treatment of natives, and with the disruption of the Spanish social order caused by expansion in the New World.

Las Casas was the son of a merchant, and like many other Spaniards looking to improve themselves materially, he went to the Americas in 1502, and quickly came to profit from the encomienda system. However, after entering the priesthood and being greatly affected by Antonio Montesinos's 1511 Christmas sermon on Hispaniola questioning the morality of Spanish actions in the New World, Las Casas abandoned his encomienda holding and joined the Dominican Order. Over time, he dedicated himself to chastising Spanish atrocities against certain native groups in the New World. However, as a Dominican friar, he had substantially separated himself from the lower class Spanish conquistadores who sought to move into the nobility through wealth from the Americas. Although these conquistadores had been needed during the reconquest of Muslim Spain, the circumstances of that conquest and that of the Americas were quite different.

Whereas the reconquest of the Iberian Peninsula was in the best interests of Iberian Christian monarchies for the purpose of stability, the conquest of America was primarily a money-making and proselytizing venture. As a result, the activities of the conquistadores that brought them personal wealth took directly away from the revenue of the Crown. Also, those who sought fortunes in the Americas posed a threat to members of the conservative elite. As a member of the clergy and with ties to the Spanish monarchy, Las Casas's choices of who he decided to criticize reflected his social values. Las Casas's criticism of Spaniards was restricted to "wicked men, almost all of them pig-ignorant" who were "out to line their own pockets with gold and to amass private fortunes as quickly as possible so that they can then assume a status quite at odds with that into which they were born." His implied disapproval of "their insatiable greed and overweening ambition" showed Las Casas's harsh view of those Spaniards who sought to raise their social standing. (Las Casas 24 & 13) Although in the Short Account Las Casas carefully withheld individual names of Spanish perpetrators, his accusations were all against "adventurers… hell-bent on amassing private fortunes and becoming men of consequence." (Las Casas 105) Although they certainly were present in America and were among those responsible for the atrocities committed against the natives, Las Casas chose to give little mention to highborn Spaniards in the New World (other than missionaries whom he showed in a positive light). Indeed, Las Casas maintains that "everyone, young and old alike, who journeys to the New World" was an adventurer "either openly or in secret a fortune-hunter." (Las Casas 130) Las Casas's legitimacy as an informer to the king (in addition to his knowledge of the Scriptures and ancient texts) was that as a Dominican friar, he was one of the few uncorrupted Spaniards to have had first-hand experience in the New World.

In his criticism of the conquistadores' actions against the Amerindian population, Las Casas relied on an image of natives as "unassertive and submissive… faithful and obedient… innocent and pure in mind and hav(ing) a lively intelligence, all of which makes them particularly receptive to learning and understanding the truths of our Catholic faith." (Las Casas 9-10) As Reinhard has stated, Las Casas's "preconditions" for believing a group worthy of protection was "their equal suitability for conversion." (Reinhard 366) As a strong advocate of monogenesis, Las Casas painted the natives of the Americas as "people created in God's image", but also the "least robust of human beings… unable to withstand hard work or suffering." (Las Casas 74 & 10) Such a portrait showed an inferior type of human being who, although ignorant of Christianity, was well equipped to learn, and in his simplicity and meekness was unable to defend himself.

Such a characterization was inconsistent with Spanish views of peoples who did resist openly and effectively. These groups were collectively referred to as 'Caribs' (cannibals). From the very beginning, Europeans generally recognized two categories of natives: those of Las Casas's Short Account who were docile and submissive, and the hostile Caribs. Las Casas chose to ignore actions taken against Caribs (both the Kallinagos and others who fell in this Spanish category) because they presumably were seen as 'fair game' by most Spaniards, if not Las Casas himself, because they resisted European and Christian influence.

When Las Casas did mention instances in which the Spanish met resistance, he often compared the situation of the natives to that of Christian Spaniards in Iberia. When he said, the men decided that "they might as well die as men in defence of their homes," he showed a clear relation between the dignity of Spanish defence of their Iberian homeland and native defence of theirs. This clearly implies that Spanish aggression against natives was unjust. The following passage illustrates this view, and also brings up the harm that the conquistadors committed against the Crown.

The only rights these perfidious crusaders have earned which can be upheld in human, divine, or natural law are the right to eternal damnation and the right to answer for the offences and the harm they have done the Spanish Crown by utterly ruining every one of these kingdoms and (as far as it is within their power) invalidating all claims the Spanish Crown may have to the territories of the New World. (Las Casas 54)

In his effort to influence the Spanish monarchy, Las Casas's final point about the harm done by the conquistadors to the Crown was perhaps his most important. In this way, Las Casas directly challenged the Spanish monarchy by showing that the actions of the conquistadores were making Spanish claim to areas of the Americas invalid. Indeed, if Spanish atrocities continued, argued Las Casas in his Short Account, Spain might be "destroyed as a divine punishment for sins against the honour of God and the True Faith." (Las Casas 127)

Only by characterizing natives as innocent and weak, yet eager to learn and accept Christian truth, could Las Casas portray Spanish atrocities as truly evil. This was made even more horrific by his portrait of the perpetrators as lower class adventurers looking for personal profit in order to increase their social status and thus disrupt the social order in Spain. However, on several occasions Las Casas emphasized the ungodliness of lower class Spaniards enslaving members of the Amerindian nobility and ruling class. Although Las Casas did stress the "outrage (of) branding any number of free men as slaves," he expressed much more horror when the enslaved were nobles or high-born men. (Las Casas 65) In one revealing passage, he stated cynically that the Spanish murder of a Peruvian "great lord… reveals only too clearly the pretext upon which this 'just war' was conducted and the clear consciences with which these adventurers amassed huge personal fortunes in this part of the world by robbing him and sundry other lords and private individuals." He continued by stating that many other "wicked and barbarous atrocities committed by those calling themselves Christians" had been committed. (Las Casas 109-110) From this and from his views of socially mobile Spaniards, it is clear that disrespect for class and social order was a key motivator for Las Casas's outrage at events in America.

At face value, in his Short Account Bartolomé de Las Casas was concerned with the harm being done to Amerindian populations by Europeans. However, his true fears are hidden within the historical context of his time and his own position within his society. It is true that he showed great concern over the massacres of native populations. Yet, even in this respect his concern is that millions "perished without ever learning the truths of the Christian religion and without the benefit of the Sacraments." (Las Casas 26) It is also true that he was greatly troubled by the acts of the conquistadores. These included misrepresenting the Christian faith to natives (Las Casas 27-8), disregarding laws concerning the conversion of natives (Las Casas 32), hindering missionary activity (Las Casas 126), acting in the name of the Crown without royal authorization (Las Casas 52), and "losing all fear of God, all love of their sovereign, and all sense of self-respect." (Las Casas 42) However, the fact that these conquistadores were not noblemen, but ambitious adventurers looking to raise their monetary and social status, made their actions especially offensive to Las Casas.

1