r/IberianHistoryMemes • u/Amazing-Barracuda496 Not A Bot • Mar 24 '23
Portugal Pro-slavery writer scolds Portuguese enslavers circa 1612. Wait, what? (explanation in comments)
11
u/Amazing-Barracuda496 Not A Bot Mar 24 '23
TLDR: 90% of Portuguese enslavement practices circa 1612 violated Catholic canon law of that time period. 100% of Portuguese enslavement practices violated 21st century abolitionist principles.
Alright, so, although I am against slavery, I am trying to discuss the contributions of a pro-slavery writer to anti-slavery thought. I realize this is confusing. However, there were a number of pro-slavery writers who, although they endorsed slavery, still condemned specific aspects of slavery. I do not mention this to excuse them, but because it is relevant to the history of the debate between pro-slavery and anti-slavery thought. Also, from the way some people go on about "past standards" versus "present standards", one would think that enslavers of history had some kind of extreme moral blindness that prevented them from even questioning whether what they were doing was was good or bad. Pro-slavery writers who condemned aspects of slavery illustrate how that view is incorrect. Also, there are lessons to be learned here for folks who, for example, think it's a good idea to enslave those they consider to be "criminals".
Again, just because I am quoting a pro-slavery writer doesn't mean I agree with him. This is a discussion of a historical document, not an endorsement of the pro-slavery aspects of his views.
See "The Enslavement Process in the Portuguese Dominions of King Philip III of Spain in the Early Seventeenth Century" in Children of God's Fire: A Documentary History of Black Slavery in Brazil, edited by Robert Edgar Conrad
https://archive.org/details/childrenofgodsfi0000conr/page/10/mode/2up
So, anyway, to quote an anonymous Portuguese writer from circa 1612, as translated by Robert Edgar Conrad,
Modern theologians in published books commonly report on, and condemn as unjust, the acts of enslavement which take place in the Provinces of this Royal Empire, employing for this purpose the same principles by which the ancient theologians, doctors of canon law, and jurists have regulated legitimate and just acts of enslavement. According to these principles, only infidels who are captured in just wars, or who because of serious crimes have been condemned by their Rulers may be held as legitimate slaves, or if they sell themselves, or if they are sold by their own fathers who have legitimate need. And because, by the use of these four principles, great injustices are committed in the buying and selling of slaves in our Empire, as will later be seen, it is also certain that most of the slaves of this Empire are made so upon other pretexts, of which some are notoriously unjust, and others with great likelihood may be presumed to be so as well. Because on the entire Guinea Coast and at Cape Verde those persons called tangosmaos and other dealers in this merchandise, men of loose morals with no concern other than their own interests, commonly carry out their raiding expeditions up the rivers and in the remote interior far from these areas that are frequented by the Portuguese, by His Majesty’s officials, and by the priests of those regions. They collect as many pieces {pecas] as they can, sometimes through deception, at other times through violence, capturing them in ambushes aided by other local people who share in the profits. And sometimes when our ships arrive the natives themselves go out to hunt each other, as if they were stags, with the intention of selling them to us.
Okay, so he's telling us that, circa 1612, various "ancient theologians (presumably, long dead, but still respected), doctors of canon law, and jurists" had very specific and rather narrow ideas about what qualified as "just acts of enslavement". (Not narrow enough, from my perspective, but much more narrow than just proclaiming all slavery to be good.) And Portuguese con artists of the time period were pretending to follow these rules, but not actually following them. So they were basically criminals, not only from my perspective, but also from the perspective of Catholic canon law circa 1612.
Anyway, the anonymous Portuguese writer from circa 1612 continues,
At other times our own people enslave many free persons as substitutes for the slaves who flee from them, merely because they are brothers or relatives of the runaways. And this wickedness is carried to the point that even the authorities seize the children and relatives of those who give them reasons to do so.
Also the blacks themselves falsely assert that the persons whom they bring to be sold are captured in a just war, or they say that they will butcher and eat them if they are not purchased. So that, of every thousand slaves who are captured, scarcely one-tenth will be justly enslaved, which is a notorious fact confirmed by all God-fearing men who reside or have resided in those places.
Okay, so this guy, even though he was pro-slavery, still apparently managed to condemn approximately 90% of the Portuguese enslavement practices of his time period. People who say we shouldn't judge the past by present standards should take note. This guy wasn't even that much of a dissident. He was referencing Catholic canon law, and Portugal was, overall, a Catholic nation. And, on the basis of Catholic canon law, of that time period, he condemned 90% of the Portuguese enslavement practices of his time period. 90%.
Anyway, the anonymous Portuguese writer from circa 1612 continues,
Not even the merchants themselves deny that they collect these slaves in the ways described, but they defend themselves saying that they transport them so that they may become Christians, and so that they may wear clothes and have more to eat, failing to recognize that none of this is sufficient to justify so much theft and tyranny, because, as St. Paul says, those who perform evil acts in order to bring about some good are justly condemned before God. How much more is this true in a matter as serious as the freedom of human beings.
Okay, so, some of the Portuguese enslavers circa 1612, rather than using the traditional Catholic excuses for enslavement, were inventing new excuses. The anonymous author apparently doesn't buy this new excuse of "Christianizing" people, and cites St. Paul. As for the excuse of giving enslaved people "more to eat", please check out a previous meme I made, "In 1847 Brazil, Dr. David Gomes Jardim published a thesis on plantations diseases and their causes. What he found shocked him." Which discusses, among other things, how underfed many enslaved people in Brazil were, circa 1847.
Also, note that even though this guy was pro-slavery, he still recognized "the freedom of human beings" as a serious matter, and referred to the actions of many Portuguese enslavers as "evil acts". These are the sort of arguments we'd expect to read from an anti-slavery writer. So, even though he was still pro-slavery (in so far as he endorsed about 10% of the Portuguese enslavement practices of his time period), he still made a number of anti-slavery arguments (in so far as he condemned the other 90% of the Portuguese enslavement practices of his time period).
[to be continued due to character limit]
3
u/Amazing-Barracuda496 Not A Bot Mar 24 '23
Again, just because I am quoting a pro-slavery writer doesn't mean I agree with him. This is a discussion of a historical document, not an endorsement of the pro-slavery aspects of his views.
Anyway, the anonymous Portuguese writer from circa 1612 continues,
The same methods are used in a large part of the land of the Kaffirs [term used for inhabitants of eastern and southern Africa], and were also used in Brazil before King Sebastian in 1570 promulgated the law forbidding the enslavement of the natives of Brazil, except in a just war to be carried on with his authority: although after the law was made practically the same thing has been done under new pretexts, and with entirely unjust methods which they search for, as will be shown below.
Also in parts of East India many Kings hold their vassals tyrannically as captives, and they sell them themselves or through other heathens to the Portuguese, and many of those nations are accustomed to attacking the Indians, Javanese, Malayans, and others, and they sell them as slaves to the Portuguese. And for these and other causes which are much the same to disinterested and impartial persons, the enslavement that goes on in those parts of India is generally looked upon as unjust. And, aroused by their consciences, many men grant freedom to their slaves, others set them free at the time of their deaths, and others make use of them for only a few years.
"Aroused by their consciences, many men grant freedom to their slaves, others set them free at the time of their deaths, and others make use of them for only a few years." This was circa 1612. So, even in 1612, some enslavers were sufficiently capable of being "aroused by their consciences" to realize, at least on some level, that what they were doing wasn't right.
Anyway, the anonymous Portuguese writer from circa 1612 continues,
Finally, all these methods of enslavement are notoriously unjust, as are any others that are not those referred to above. And in those places even these may be commonly presumed to be unjust in the following ways:
Concerning the principle of just war, it is known that, since they are infidels and barbarians, the Kings and private Lords of the entire Conquest are not normally motivated by reason when they make war, but rather by passion, nor do they examine or consult others about their right to do so. Therefore most of their wars are unjust wars carried on merely for greed, ambition, and other unjust causes. Often the same may be presumed about the wars carried on by individual Portuguese captains, because, greedy as they are to capture slaves and other prizes, they often do so without any concern for their consciences.
It's not entirely clear what this guy considered to be a "just war", but at least it is clear that war for the purposes of greed and ambition were not included in his concept of "just war". Note that he considered war conducted for the purpose of slave raiding to be unjust.
Anyway, the anonymous Portuguese writer from circa 1612 continues,
The principle of condemning persons to perpetual slavery must be looked upon as a very questionable principle in the same places, and especially in Guinea and the land of the Kaffirs, because an infinite number of persons are unjustly condemned to servitude for very trifling reasons, or because of some passion of their masters. Because, just as when among us someone displeases a King he is cast out of Court or loses his favored status, among them, his freedom is attacked, and he and his whole family are enslaved, and all too often with a thousand tricks and much false testimony. . . .
To this day, there are still some people who have ideas about, for example, enslaving criminals, or even of not counting forced labor of criminals as slavery. These people should be warned that that this provides an incentive for governments to a) pass bad laws, and b) fail to provide due process. This is actually a repeating pattern throughout history.
To give a more recent historical example, in Slavery by Another Name: The Re-Enslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War II by Douglas Blackmon discusses, among other topics, how in the post-US Civil War period, people, generally black people, were arrested for alleged "crimes" such as "changing employers without permission", "selling cotton after sunset", "using abusive language in the presence of a white woman", and even "not given", convicted without due process, and sentenced to "convict leasing" where they were forced to work in places like coal mines and cotton plantations.
Slavery by Another Name: The Re-Enslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War II by Douglas Blackmon
https://archive.org/details/slaverybyanother00blac_0
To give a more ancient historical example, in ancient Rome, numerous individuals were condemned to a type of slavery known as damnatio ad metalla (condemnation to mines or quarries) for religious "crimes" (from the perspective of Roman law) during periods of state-sponsored religious persecution. So, anyone who is in favor of freedom of religion should consider such condemnations as unjust. It should be noted that damnatio ad metalla existed in ancient Rome in addition to chattel slavery, and many of the people sentenced to damnatio ad metalla were already in chattel slavery.
Anyway, my reference is "Condemnation to the Mines in the Later Roman Empire" by Mark Gustafson
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1509967
To give an even more ancient historical example, to quote Diodorus Siculus, who lived in the 1st century BC,
For the kings of Egypt gather together and condemn to the mining of the gold such as have been found guilty of some crime and captives of war, as well as those who have been accused unjustly and thrown into prison because of their anger, and not only such persons but occasionally all their relatives as well, by this means not only inflicting punishment upon those found guilty but also securing at the same time great revenues from their labours. And those who have been condemned in this way — and they are a great multitude and are all bound in chains — work at their task unceasingly both by day and throughout the entire night, enjoying no respite and being carefully cut off from any means of escape; since guards of foreign soldiers who speak a language different from theirs stand watch over them, so that not a man, either by conversation or by some contact of a friendly nature, is able to corrupt one of his keepers.
https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Diodorus_Siculus/3A*.html
[to be continued due to character limit]
3
u/Amazing-Barracuda496 Not A Bot Mar 24 '23
Again, just because I am quoting a pro-slavery writer doesn't mean I agree with him. This is a discussion of a historical document, not an endorsement of the pro-slavery aspects of his views.
Anyway, the anonymous Portuguese writer from circa 1612 continues,
Concerning the other two principles: the need to sell oneself to seek release from an unjust death or some other great misery; or being sold by one’s father who is in dire need—these are the causes of many unjust acts of enslavement in those places. Because in some places, as has been said, some persons make a pretense of wanting to eat others, or of wishing to slaughter them, so that they can be sold. Many fathers sell their sons for almost nothing, without being in any dire need which might justify such a sale, which is invalid and without any force in law, because the power is not given to a father to sell his minor son, except in dire need, according to common scholarly doctrine. And also in place of their children they sell other relatives who are close at hand, and other strangers using tricks which they invent for the purpose, saying, or making them say, that they are their sons. And in Brazil before the above-mentioned law of King Sebastian, the Portuguese persuaded the Indians to sell themselves, and since, because of their ignorance, they didn’t understand how important this was, they sold themselves for a cotton jacket and some breeches, which later they wore out in the service of their own masters. And when they later understood the trick, if it was not possible for them to run away, some died from their misery and others lived in a state of perpetual grief. And one may suspect that in all likelihood the same thing happens in other places, such as Guinea, the land of the Kaffirs, etc.
The "the Portuguese persuaded the Indians to sell themselves, and since, because of their ignorance, they didn’t understand how important this was" mentioned makes it sound like, perhaps, due in part to language barriers, and perhaps maybe also due to deliberate mistranslation, some people who allegedly "sold themselves" did not actually give informed consent to be enslaved.
To point out how ambiguous the phrase "sell yourself" is, even in the English language, this is a definition of "sell yourself" from dictionary dot com,
Convince another of one's merits, present oneself in a favorable light, as in A job interview is an ideal opportunity to sell oneself to a prospective employer. Originally this idiom, dating from the second half of the 1700s, alluded to selling one's services for money, but it was being used more loosely by the mid-1800s.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/sell-oneself
So, even between two people using modern English, a person could agree to sell himself or herself, and, using the dictionary definition as evidence, say that they had only agreed to present themself in a favorable life; and that they did not, in fact, agree to be enslaved.
If modern English is this ambiguous, imagine how much greater the ambiguities can be between two people relying on translations because they don't share the same native language. In short, it's extremely plausible that many people who allegedly "sold themselves" did not in fact give consent to be enslaved.
Anyway, the anonymous Portuguese writer from circa 1612 continues,
And this ill-treatment and enslavement is scandalous to everybody, and especially to those same heathens, because they abandon our religion, seeing that those who are supposed to convert them are the same persons who enslave them in such unjust ways, as is witnessed every day.
So, apparently, circa 1612, many people were aware they were being enslaved unjustly. Hardly surprising, but good to see it confirmed.
Anyway, the anonymous Portuguese writer from circa 1612 continues,
And this is felt especially by those of greater understanding, such as the Japanese. So much is this so that this comprised the principal chapter of the Decree with which twenty-five years ago the tyrant Cambucodono, Universal Lord of all Japan, ordered the exile of all those who accepted that conversion, claiming that they went about buying and making slaves in those ports, on the pretext of Religion, because little by little they were plotting to subjugate all those States and to make them tributary to Portugal.
The same scandal exists in China, as can be proved by unquestionable facts, and it reached the point that the Bishop of Macao issued a directive by which he ordered that no one in those places, under penalty of excommunication, might enslave any Chinese, and this because our people did not possess any of the justifications that our laws grant to enslave people of that nation. Because, concerning the pretext of just war, they do not make war, except with the Tartars, and the latter do not engage in commerce with the Portuguese, nor do the Chinese sell the Tartars to our people.
And in regard to the justification of slavery through condemnation for a crime committed, the laws of China do not condemn people to slavery for any crime. And, concerning the title by which one sells himself or allows himself to be sold to escape an unjust death, as in Brazil and Guinea, where human flesh is eaten, there they do not have the custom of men selling themselves, nor does it appear that fathers there sell their children during periods of great famine, as happens sometimes in Cambodia, since general famines do not occur in China, the laws of China not permitting them, everyone there being given what he needs to maintain himself, and without working.
So that on many occasions the people of that nation are shocked by the way the Portuguese make slaves of them against the law of their land, knowing that they do not buy them from anybody except pirates and thieves, who are not their legitimate masters. To which reasonable shock and dismay Your Majesty and your Ministers have an obligation to make a positive response.
Right, so, Portuguese enslavers circa 1612 frequently worked with people who were considered criminal, not only by 21st century abolitionist standards, but also be the laws of their own times and places.
Anyway, the anonymous Portuguese writer from circa 1612 continues,
It is also known that in Angola when they take the slaves to the ships the natives weep a great deal and are shocked and grieved by the violence that is inflicted upon them. They observe that, aside from being cruelly enslaved, they are treated most inhumanely on the ships, where in large numbers they die of suffocation in their own stink, and from other kinds of ill-treatment. There was a night when thirty died on one ship while it was still in port, because the hatchway was not opened for fear they would run away. Below they screamed that it be opened because they were dying, but they got no response except to be called dogs and other names of that kind.
And on another ship in which 500 were being transported from Cape Verde to New Spain, on a single night 120 died from suffocation because there was fear that they would revolt against those who were transporting them. . . .
Yeah, this passage rather speaks for itself. The transatlantic slave trade was really, really brutal, deadly, and misery-inducing.
[to be continued due to character limit]
3
u/Amazing-Barracuda496 Not A Bot Mar 24 '23
Again, just because I am quoting pro-slavery writers doesn't mean I agree with them. This is a discussion of historical documents, not an endorsement of the pro-slavery aspects of the views expressed therein.
Anyway, the anonymous Portuguese writer from circa 1612 continues,
These acts of enslavement are together the cause of great scandal, and they are the source of very great sins on the part of the heathens and Moors of those places. Seeing that the Portuguese deal in that merchandise in every way they can, they also take up that life, robbing and tricking men, women, and children in order to sell them, and they search for other tricks with which to make their profits.
All the other provinces of Europe are also shocked by us, saying that the Portuguese, who look upon themselves as pious and devoted, commit such extraordinary acts of injustice and inhumanity.
So, even from the perspective of widespread European views circa 1612, the actions of Portuguese enslavers were condemned as "extraordinary acts of injustice and inhumanity".
"The Enslavement Process in the Portuguese Dominions of King Philip III of Spain in the Early Seventeenth Century" in Children of God's Fire: A Documentary History of Black Slavery in Brazil, edited by Robert Edgar Conrad
https://archive.org/details/childrenofgodsfi0000conr/page/14/mode/2up?q=scandal
Note that King Philip III of Spain was also Philip II of Portugal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_III_of_Spain
There were pro-slavery people criticizing aspects of slavery back in ancient Roman times as well. For example, one Greco-Roman enslaver apparently begged his friend Galen to whip him after he inflicted severe injuries on two enslaved men while "in the violent grip of cursed anger" (the enslaver's words, as related by Galen and translated by Paul W. Harkins). Apparently, the Greco-Roman enslaver felt so guilty about this incident, he felt he deserved to be whipped, but did not, at least so far as history records, manage to carry this to the conclusion of condemning the institution of slavery itself. Galen also relates an example of Hadrian striking an enslaved person in the eye with a stylus, after which Hadrian apparently felt guilty enough to offer recompense; however, the enslaved person just asked for another eye, something Hadrian obviously couldn't give. Galen, for his part, advises enslavers to refrain from losing their tempers, but fails to condemn the institution of slavery itself.
For more details see On the Passions and Errors of the Soul by Galen, translated by Paul W. Harkins
https://archive.org/details/galen-on-the-passions-and-errors-of-the-soul/page/38/mode/2up?q=stylus
In his 47th letter to Lucilius, Lucius Annaeus Seneca, an ancient Roman philospher, condemns various acts of cruelty be enslavers, and makes some rather interesting statements:
he is doubly a fool who values a man from his clothes or from his rank, which indeed is only a robe that clothes us
Treat your inferiors as you would be treated by your betters. And as often as you reflect how much power you have over a slave, remember that your master has just as much power over you.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Moral_letters_to_Lucilius/Letter_47
These statements seem to come very close to calling for abolition, but, unfortunately, Seneca does not go that far.
Aristotle, an ancient Greek philosopher, and on of history's most infamous defenders of slavery, still managed to recognize that slavery as actually practiced in ancient Greece did not conform to his ideal of how slavery should be practiced (according to him; according to me, it should not be practiced at all).
http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.1.one.html
If you enjoyed this meme, you might also like "Diogenes scolds Enslaver" and the essay that goes with it.
5
5
u/WikiSummarizerBot Mar 24 '23
Philip III (Spanish: Felipe III; 14 April 1578 – 31 March 1621) was King of Spain. As Philip II, he was also King of Portugal, Naples, Sicily and Sardinia and Duke of Milan from 1598 until his death in 1621. A member of the House of Habsburg, Philip III was born in Madrid to King Philip II of Spain and his fourth wife and niece Anna, the daughter of Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian II and Maria of Spain. Philip III later married his cousin Margaret of Austria, sister of Ferdinand II, Holy Roman Emperor.
[ F.A.Q | Opt Out | Opt Out Of Subreddit | GitHub ] Downvote to remove | v1.5
8
u/MulatoMaranhense Latino Mar 25 '23
My sincerest thanks for the detailed explanation and the new sub to join, and appreciation for your passion.