cortez on trial

This week it was my group’s turn to teach the class, and I think it went fairly well. People were frustrated because they weren’t sure whether they should use present day laws or the laws of the time to argue their cases. Even though it was frustrating, I think it was a good representation of justice on the world stage. Sometimes in less clear-cut cases it is not clear to anyone whose laws will be followed and which party is in the wrong. The theme of justice coupled with our visit to the American Indian Museum made me think about the how American Indians could have been given justice and the constraints that culture barriers generate. I think that a lot of times, ‘justice’ isn’t really justice. It is the best we can do under the circumstances, but in the end one or more of the groups involved gets the raw end of the deal. It seems like there must be some way to make things fair, but even if there was, fairness is not always justice.

I surprised myself when I began to think that Cortez was not at fault during the trial. The defense made some good points that I had not thought of before, and if I had been the jury I might have acquitted him. But the problem is, whether or not Cortez could justify what he did or blame it on someone else, thousands of American Indians were slaughtered as a result of his actions. Is justice an eye for an eye, the attempt to make things as right as possible after the fact, holding someone responsible for something that they were not at fault for or something else? After the Europeans had already conquered the Americas, there wasn’t much that one could do to fix things. It wasn’t fair that any land was taken from its rightful owners, but it wouldn’t be fair to take the land away from people who had started a new life there and had no part in the killing either.