1. What type of attributes does de las Casas give to the Indians? Why were his ideas considered very risky to say?
He says that the Indians were humble, patient, peaceable, that they held no grudges, and that they were from embroilments, neither excitable nor quarrelsome. His ideas were considered very risky to say because the more weak and vulnerable the Indians were, the easier it was for the Europeans to control and conquer them and the harder it is to endure heavy labor.

2. How do his descriptions of the Natives contrast with his depictions of the Spainards? Describe some examples.
His descriptions of the Natives were much more honorable than his depictions of the Spaniards. He described the Native Americans as "the most guileless, the most devoid of wickedness and duplicity, the most obedient and faithful to their native masters and to the Spanish Christians whom they serve," whereas he depicted the Spaniards as those who "act like ravening beasts, killing, …show more content…
What were the attempts for retaliation fruitless in the end? According to de las Casas, how did they respond? Give specific examples.
The Indians' attempts for retaliation were fruitless in the end because "their weapons were very weak and of little service in offense and still less in defense." They attempted to prepare for war, but the weapons and equipment of the Europeans were much more advanced and effective in battle than theirs were, so the Indians had to accept their defeat. 5. How does de las Casas describe the remnant of Indian population and land?
He states that the remnant of the Indian population were distributed among the Christians to be slaves and that the remnant of Indian land was used by the slaves for work. The men were forced to mind for gold, and the women were forced to work in the fields and ranches. Due to being fed very small amounts of food and being separated from each other, which prevent men and women from producing offspring, the island basically became