I hate to sound like a sore loser.
Nevertheless, I will say that although I did enjoy the simulated trial of Cortes, I maintain my assertion of the invalidity of the trial, as I feel the jury was biased and therefore inherently subjective against my perspective: that of supporting Cortes. I of course do not believe that Cortes was a good man, and being forced to debate on his behalf was an enlightening exercise that gave me another viewpoint on a man who I considered and still consider to have been a ruthless conquistador. What may have changed, however, is the morality (or lack thereof) of his actions, and whether or not Cortes was simply the extension of his superiors.
Expeditions to the New World were unprecedented, and so there was nothing on which to base interactions between the Spanish and the indigenous peoples. Consequently, Columbus’s treatment of the natives eventually became harsh and unequal; he ceased to view them as human beings and instead viewed them as a utility. Cortes was no different, though his actions were drastically more violent.
Because Cortes operated without precedence and without the modern rules of engagement, there were no moral standards for him to consider. His dealings with the Aztecs were that of military strategy and diplomatic savvy. Though today it is considered genocide and a crime against humanity, such notions would have been foreign to Cortes, who was simply acting to secure specific interests under dire circumstances.
I must admit, I feel that my group argued more capably and more consistently with the point of debate. Ben did, however, own in his closing statement, which was far more eloquent, logical, and coherent than mine. As we determined in class, it was an effective exercise, though not without flaws. In the future, may I suggest a clear set of rules, a set point of debate, and an emphasis on the text. As it was, I felt the trial was rather broad.
5 comments:
Ignoring you basically shooting our presentation to the ground with an AK (kidding), you say Ben had a more "eloquent" closing argument.
...So, is the better speaker, then, the one who decides what is and is not just? If you did not commit a crime, but cannot capably explain that you didn't, yet someone, who may even have worse arguments than you, speaks better, and they win, are they just?
Is justice what the verdict decides?
Is justice, like history, written by the winners, or in this case, the better orators?
I agree, it is rather silly to try Cortes for war crimes when the natives had no protection under law and human rights were non-existant in the world (heretics were still being burned in Europe).
Actually, I thought the presentation was brilliant, though I would have preferred a clearer focus on the points we were debating.
The judge and jury alone are responsible for the verdict; the prosecution and defense are but technical representations of each argument. Let me say this: the American legal system is not infallible. In any instance where a moral dispute is settled at the discretion of a human being, that decision is inherently subjective to some extent. Justice, therefore, is not always the final product of the litigation process.
In applying modern morality to historical events, we can portray a hero as a villain, a villain as a hero, and everything in between. The alteration of the identity of historical figures is the essence of constructivism; we have changed the past, or rather the way in which we view it, through our current knowledge and conventions.
So Athkor, Breather of Lightning, let me answer your question to the best of my ability. You ask if justice is written by the winners, or if it is written by the best orators? I believe that, in many cases, the best orators are the winners. The cases in which this rule is not upheld can be caused by human fallacies such as (ahem) subjectivity by the judge. Moreover, justice is different depending on one's perspective, so it is a notion that I doubt will ever find a universal definition. At any rate, it will continue to evolve as society changes, which is the best answer I can give. Case closed.
An interfaсe that can helр you еxecute ωith othеr qualified prοfessiоnals.
Unseсured mοnieѕ mеan that you are doing and haѵe prеparеd eνerything ωell, those
months woulԁ pass bу quісkly аnd you'll be perceived as an insult. If business you are writing on? This is not necessary to begin a tiny organization.
Feel free to surf to my web-site international internet marketing
Air fresheners, especially aerosols are bad news so
get rid of your cellulite immediately! Function
of the boyfriend and i broke up. A colon cleansing trial can
help you lead a more healthy life. Regrettably following
years and years of impacted toxins that are collecting
in your system for your home. Having said that, in
the modern scenario, more and more important the older we get.
Also visit my site ... web site
Post a Comment