Huehuecoyotl: Wakeup Call from the Nightmare of Manifest Destiny

www.nahuacalli.org/Abya_Yala.html

www.nahuacalli.org

www.nahuacalli.org/Dec.html

www.nahuacalli.org/News.html

www.nahuacalli.org/MIN_Mexico.html

www.tonatierra.org

National Human Rights Commission of the United States
Arizona Working Group

ORDER to APPEAR

The Spirit of Justice, the True Light of Law

COMMUNITY INDICTMENT

AGAINST MARICOPA COUNTY SHERIFF JOE ARPAIO (Et Al)
FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS OF CITIZENS AND NON-CITIZENS PROTECTED BY THE US CONSTITUTION, THE UNITED NATIONS
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
AND THE
UN DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
****

PROSECUTION
Opening Argument

The acceptance of the Doctrine of Discovery into United States law held profound implications for future relations between the federal government and the Indians. The Doctrine of Discovery’s discourse of conquest was now available to legitimate, energize, and constrain as needed white society’s will to empire over the North American continent. The doctrine confirmed the superior rights of a European-derived nation to the lands occupied by “infidels, heathens, and savages,” encouraged further efforts by white society to acquire the Indians’ “waste” lands, and vested authority in a centralized sovereign to regulate the Indian’ dispossession according to national interest, security, and sometimes even honor.

Perhaps most important, Johnson’s acceptance of the Doctrine of Discovery into United States law preserved the legacy of 1,000 years of European racism and colonialism directed against non-Western peoples. White society’s exercise of power over Indian tribes received the sanction of the Rule of Law in Johnson v. McIntosh. The Doctrine of Discovery’s underlying medievally derived ideology – that normatively divergent “savage” peoples could be denied rights and status equal to those accorded to the civilized nations of Europe – had become an integral part of the fabric of United States federal Indian law. The architects of an idealized European vision of life in the Indians’ New World had successfully transplanted an Old World form of legal discourse denying all respect to the Indians’ fundamental human rights. While the tasks of conquest and colonization had not yet been fully actualized on the entire American continent, the originary legal rules and principles of federal Indian law set down by Marshall in Johnson v. McIntosh and its discourse of conquest ensured that future acts of genocide would proceed on a rationalized, legal basis.

The American Indian in Western Legal Thought, Robert Williams (p. 316-317)

Wakeup Call from the Nightmare of Manifest Destiny
The Jurisprudence of the Cochabamba Protocols vs. SB 1070 in Arizona
www.nahuacalli.org/News.html