Modern Slavery: Did Pope Nicholas V start it?

[sirach2v4]

I’m reading The Myths of Argentine History by Felipe Pigna, Norma,2005.

In it, he makes a lot of startling assertions about the history of Argentina, starting with the “discovery” of the Americas by Christopher Columbus. Of course, that’s one of the myths, because the Americas were well-populated by humans who had come by ice and land bridge and by ocean travel, some 20,000-30,000 years ago.

Really, I’m up just around page 60 in the book, but I’m jumping out for a comment on his assertion that Pope Nicholas V authorized the slave trade, that was eventually to lead to the enslavement of an estimated 30 million Africans, brought to the Americas and elsewhere as slaves.

The Wikipedia entry en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Nicholas_V on Nicholas V documents the basis for that claim. Nicholas gave some extremely vague and broad rights to the king of Portugal to conquer and enslave non-Christians in newly discovered lands. At the time (c. 1452), the newly discovered lands were in Africa, among other places. Nicholas’s agreement with the king of Portugal was decades before the discovery of the Americas by the Europeans.

On this CAF website, the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on slavery skates over that subject
and, instead, lists how the later Popes repeatedly condemned slavery going back nearly to the time of the colonization of the New World.

There is a thus considerable range of opinion about Pope Nicholas V and the involvement of later popes in the establishment of slavery.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

I would be extremely carefull in reading any history of a Latin American country by either a Spanish or Latin American author. It is well known in Academic circles that many Latino and Spanish scholars are not only anti-clerical but are anti-Catholic and skew their writing accordingly. In addition, many Latino historical writers are anti-European in their views of the history of South America. They have never forgiven the Conquistadors for their conquest and annihilation of the indiginous aborigines.
As for Pope Nicholas V, I would bet you that if you explored his reign as Pope, you would find that he condoned conquest of aboriginal people only if they were converted to Christianity, which, in his time, meant Catholicism.
If you want to read a good history of any Latin American country, I suggest you read one by an American or British scholar…someone who has no axe to grind in their writing; just as if you want to read about U.S. history, choose any European author except a British, French, or Italian writer…all of whom have cultural axes to grind with our country.

 

[Rex_Mundi]

At that time it was simply taken for granted that ‘Christian Privilege’ allowed one group to dominate, oppress, discriminate against, enslave, control and destroy other groups who were regarded as inferior…how little have Christians in 2014 changed…

 

[MarcoPolo]

The Church condemned slavery even before that:*We order and command all and each of the faithful of each sex, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their earlier liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of said Canary Islands, and made captives since the time of their capture, and who have been made subject to slavery. These people are to be totally and perpetually free, and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of money. If this is not done when the fifteen days have passed, they incur the sentence of excommunication by the act itself, from which they cannot be absolved, except at the point of death, even by the Holy See, or by any Spanish bishop, or by the aforementioned Ferdinand, unless they have first given freedom to these captive persons and restored their goods. We will that like sentence of excommunication be incurred by one and all who attempt to capture, sell, or subject to slavery, baptized residents of the Canary Islands, or those who are freely seeking Baptism, from which excommunication cannot be absolved except as was stated above.
(Sicut Dudum, Pope Eugene IV Against the Enslaving of Black Natives from the Canary Islands, January 13, 1435)*So obviously Nicholas couldn’t have “started” it when it was condemned even before him.

 

[Rex_Mundi]

Interestingly… it was only unlawful to keep Catholics as slaves…those who were not baptized or had no interest in becoming baptized Catholics were still fare game…Yet another despicable example of 'Christian privilege ’

 

[Robyn_p]

Interestingly… it was only unlawful to keep Catholics as slaves…those who were not baptized or had no interest in becoming baptized Catholics were still fare game…Yet another despicable example of 'Christian privilege ’

Did you read the quote?? Where are you getting that idea? It says each and all of the faithful must release each and all of the captive natives and restore them to their original liberty in fifteen days or they are excommunicated.

It then says the same penalty applies to those who captured and enslaved baptized natives. Nowhere does it say non-Christian natives are fair game.

 

[po18guy]

How on earth did you end up with this author? Even from the Wiki:

“Historians Tulio Halperín Dongui and Luis Alberto Romero made strong criticism of Pigna’s style, and refuse to consider his work as real history books even if Pigna is a professional historian.[5] They consider that his works do not show historiographical culture, general culture or literary talent,[6] and that the works cited in them are misquoted or taken out of context.[7] Pigna replied that foreign works accept and acknowledge subjective views, that his aim was to make the history of Argentina easy to understand by all people, and that an opposing approach to the topic was elitist.”

Test the spirits to see if they are from God. He appears to be a propagandist.

 

[sirach2v4]

Pigna reports other stories about the greedy and sadistic Columbus, who had the hands of natives chopped off, if they did not bring him gold.

He describes that the natives willingly complied, as gold had no value to them, as they had no system of money at all.

Only later did the natives desire European goods, which they had otherwise no access to.

He also explained the trade routes springing up for buying spices oddly seems so noteworthy in history. He attributes the interest in food spices to the boring lack of quality of European food.

 

[sirach2v4]

I would be extremely carefull in reading any history of a Latin American country by either a Spanish or Latin American author. It is well known in Academic circles that many Latino and Spanish scholars are not only anti-clerical but are anti-Catholic and skew their writing accordingly. In addition, many Latino historical writers are anti-European in their views of the history of South America. They have never forgiven the Conquistadors for their conquest and annihilation of the indiginous aborigines.
As for Pope Nicholas V, I would bet you that if you explored his reign as Pope, you would find that he condoned conquest of aboriginal people only if they were converted to Christianity, which, in his time, meant Catholicism.
If you want to read a good history of any Latin American country, I suggest you read one by an American or British scholar…someone who has no axe to grind in their writing; just as if you want to read about U.S. history, choose any European author except a British, French, or Italian writer…all of whom have cultural axes to grind with our country.

Be that as it may, why do you think Widipedia supports the idea that Nicholas V had a significant role in promoting the slave trade?

 

[George_Stegmeir]

Interestingly… it was only unlawful to keep Catholics as slaves…those who were not baptized or had no interest in becoming baptized Catholics were still fare game…Yet another despicable example of 'Christian privilege ’

Any scholar will tell you that it is improper and dangerous to judge people and deeds done in the past by contemporary standards. One must judge the morality of deeds by the standards of the times in which they were committed.
Anything less is biased opinion and is not legitimate.