Replies

When you read the Treaty of Tordesillas get back to me. Somehow I don’t think you’ll actually bother to read it.

How utterly rude...in the same breath as continuing to attempt to substitute that treaty, under which explicit mention of slavery is not seen, to equal the extension of the practice in the New World, wasn't in understanding and implimentation ratified by that same treaty.

Go ahead, (somebody, anybody) go for a "it's not a pope's fault how his words are misused" defense, but I'll have to warn that doesn't fly, in regards to this treaty and the setting under which it arose, except for among the most ignorant of RC pom-pom waivers.

I haven't read the one treaty...?

Slavery had been previously approved by two consecutive popes Face it. Admit to it. But that might be painful, for it will lead to having to admit to yourself that I've been right in much, while you, not so much. Not near AS much. Or else you knew of and understood the interplay between the associated texts, but pretended to not know in order to deliberately throw others off the scent which has been left along the trail, in the historical record which you otherwise claim to know such much about.

I've been right in the context that slavery had been an intrical part of the build up of wealth seen still today as portion of the treasures in Vatican City, among the architechture & buildings, in the gold plated items...for if monies that payed for much of the various finery came by "donation" the wealth those donations was coming from, was the accumulation of wealth of kings, nobles and Empire which much utilized along the way subjugation, even total slavery of certain humans over other humans...in the interests of making a profit. By which we see the RC church in the past much wedded to the interests of kings and empire. Which is what I pretty much said in the first place, but you seemed to prefer the sidetrack distraction concerning one particular treaty (since I alluded to it) but even though alledgedly an expert yourself and should know better, you presented that treaty like it existed in a vacuum, then added insult at the same time.

That's a bit much.

Explicitly, then implicitly, the taking of slaves had been approved by Latin pontiffs. Why quibble over lesser details, but as an effort to distract others?

Do you deny that an RCC pope gave the explicit approval as I have just previously posted to you? Perhaps you might try denying it based on the fact I failed to capitalize the word "pope"??? That's about what you've got as counter-argument.

If you can't deny that slavery was approved (previous to the treaty you seem to want everyone to look at to the exclusion of other documents and history)...then my earlier point which you attempted to refute by way of saying as much as "I don't see slavery in this treaty" WHILE INSULTING ME AT THE SAME TIME still stands, and anyone stumbling along that cares to read can follow the conversation, do a little digging themselves perhaps, and see just how how wrong you are in overall context. That may be painful, but history is what it is. Not what we want it to be, or want others to not look at.

The dividing line in effect gave the Spanish permission to take slaves in the Americas not explicitly, but by implication. <> Is that too complcated to understand?

The Spanish did later take slaves of Caribbean and S. American natives, as the Portugese did in Brazil following the same model of charter originally granted to Henrique. There is linkage, found even in the name of the one work I previously cited. The charter, the ideas expressed, the rules as it were regarding slavery were carried forward, right into the one treaty your focus has remained upon.

The story as by-product and result as it unfolded in the New World towards native peoples there is heart wrenchingly sad. Even worse than for the African slaves whom stayed slaves in Africa, perhaps. It was so bad a RC bishop (Bishop Bartolomé de las Casas of Chiapas) was greatly moved by it. As consequence he recommended the Spanish take slaves from Africa instead, in hopes of relieving some of the agony the New World natives were subjected to, for they were suffering horribly, dying off as laborers (and hurting business when they did so, too). De la Casas eventually became an early opponent of slavery in most any form, but that's another story, one with a happier ending, but with the wider history of slavery carrying some mixed effects to this day.

Slaves introduced from Africa provided a labor source for the explotation of the New World, including providing miners. That much is elementary. Those monies realized from this explotative system went chiefly to kings and nobles and their appointees...with some of it ending up at the headquarters in Rome no doubt, helping to pay for some of the building, the stone cutting, the carvings, the variety of finery, even directly in the form of precisely some of the gold itself, it can scarcely be avoided being as gold is (still) among the most potent fungible commodities of them all.

How much of the gold circulating in Europe at the time various statues and buildings, carvings, gold encrusted thrones and the like came from Europe itself in comparison? How much came from African mines or from profits on the trans-Atlantic slave trade itself? How much from S. American mines? That sort of thing can be difficult to establish, yet significant increase of wealth among an assortment of Europeans, not limited to Spanish nobles and Portugese slavers (with some Venoese middlemen traders getting in on the action, along with a few Dutch gaining charter) due to their own involvement to greater and lesser degree with slavery as it was expanded, is not impossible to see.

The profits made from marketing of slaves in the New World was a source of wealth itself. The explotation of slaves in mines first in Africa, then later in the New World, along with sugar plantations and the like, were much a source of the increased wealth which could be included with monies from other sources all which you point to, it must be remembered (as you said) "donated".

What I'm getting at, is where the money that these kings and others gave to the church came from. Once again, it can be seen that church (in the guise of the RCC) and state (in the instance of kings and lesser nobles) had interelated overlapping interests. Giving to the church generously helped those otherwise in power, stay in power. Staying in power meant having powers over others.

Popes had signed off/awarded to others, lands (and peoples?) they did not themselves possess. The kings and nobles thanked the church for making them in some instances, extremely rich.

For others not so well studied in history as yourself; this link encapsultes some various information which taken all together can help lead to some broader outline or sketch over a longer time period.