Anthony Pagden, in his analysis, examines and compares de Las Casas' work with his other contemporary counterparts. As we see in his other article "Devastation of Indies", in contrast to what many other historians do, he tries to "prove" the exact situation of those "barbarian" people in his novel "The Natural Fall of Man" that we are actually all same in our roots, even if there are certain cultural and sociolagical differences. Pagden says that Las Casas is aware of the problem of classification, because people are categorized as "barbarians" according to whether they are Christians or not, or whether they have similar cultural features or not, or just because of the idea that if they possess the same thing which they held. He criticizes the way people are categorized as "barbarians" according to Americans because of such simple causes.
To speak of the connotations of the word "barbarian", Las Casas says that there are multiple references of this word which can be understood by different cultures in a very different manner. He makes a realistic comment in his sentence: " This sort of barbarians can be found even in finest polities." In addition, Pagden talks about the "language" issue because it has very important effects upon societies to be regarded as civilized and modern, according to the classification of Las Casas. We know that language is the unique medium through which people do understand and dominate over each other. In the text, along with Siculus, Vitruvius and Condillac, he gives a reference to Rousseau who gives a special importance to the role of language in the creation of a civilized society. Just as outside the society, there cannot be a system of language, without a language there cannot be thought of a modern society.
To continue with, Aquinas argues for another connotation of the word barbarian. He says that, it means foreigness or rather strangeness to a certain people. That is, there is the perception among people that if a person is stranger to another person, then he is possibly barbarian.
At another point, Las Casas puts himself in a paradoxical situation. At first, he is impressed by Homer and by his thoughts about those people, their inability to know friendship or to socialize. They neither live in communities and cities, nor they have "proper" marriage rites. Rather, those people live in woods alone as wild animals do. Here we may question their barbarism defined by those criterias as nobody has to live in cities and communities, to have the same rituals, traditions and cultural features and patterns. However, he also claims that those Indians are "legimate" because they rule each other according to custom and the law even before their conquest by Europeans.
Las Casas points out that "Such creatures exist, but their number must be very small just as heroes or demi-gods are rare." In this point, Las Casas, arguing for the scarcity of those "barbarians", approves of the assertion of the perfectibility of God's creation. I think that this may be interpreted as the acceptance of imperfections God has in itself when analyzed from a theologican point of view. And we know that it cannot be true.
Finally, Las Casas observes that, "Had the Indians not been fully rational beings, it is inconceivable that they would have been able to create such a polity." They may lack the ability to write or read, but this is not because of their being unskilled, They are skilled very much but they are not educated. As Democrates puts it out, "The Indians are not bears or monkeys, wholly lacking in reason."
All "that" thing we are talking and talking about originates from the injustice between people in several different aspects of educational and sociological devices through which "we" are regarded as civilized or not.
