In Argumentum apologiae Las Casas tries to prove why the Amerindians are not barbarians, but before that we have to understand what Aristotle means by “barbarian” when he used that word. In the first book of Politics he defines barbarian as natural slaves.

However, in the third book he says that barbarians are those, who are not greek.

       Las Casas makes his argument by saying that the term barbarian can be examined in four types. The first one applies to individualism. The second type is about language because according to Las Casas, those who can communicate cannot be classified as barbarians and when you have a language you are social, but also written word is important because it makes you progress and this shows your acess to knowledge. As the Amerindians had no written texts, they were regarded as barbarians, but the chieftains did not need any written law in order to rule because they guided them “like elder relatives and the fathers of families”. Thirdly, Las Casas ays that if someone is impious, perverse, savage, ferocious, slow witted and alien to all reason than this person is barbarious because they cannot live in a society and if they do, they will be a hazard to their enviroment. The final category of barbarian is described as to non-Chriatians. Again the Amerindians cannot be described as barbarians because to be a Christian does not mean that you are civil as in the example of  “The Devastation of the Indies: A Brief Account”. There the Chriatian amde a massacre.

     In my opinion these four categories are true because if even one of these criterias do not suit you, you cannot be labbeld as a barbarian and the Amerindians had their own life style, cities, rules laws etc. when we think back, we will realize that the Europeans used to be like the Amerindians because they ,too, sacrified humans even though they call it barbarism, but when they slaughter people that is normal. Also they did not have any written texts or any monotheist religion.