PanamaChibchan / Chocoan / Cueva
*Incas governed 12 million people who were situated along the
Pacific coast from modern day northern Ecuador to central
Chile.
Peruvian historyAndinian Autonomy (20,000 BC - 1532 AD)Primitive
era (20,000 BC to 1500 BC)Slavery era (1500 BC - 1532 AD)Foreign
domination (1532-1995)Neo-Feudal era (1532-1870) Capitalist era
(Industrial 1870-1924) Imperialist (1921-1995)Autonomy (1995
on)
The word Aztec is a generic term referring to several
Nahuatl-speaking groups that inhabited the Valley of Mexico from
1250-1519.[2] The people we think of as Aztecs referred to
themselves as the Mexica and were fierce warriors, cunning
diplomats, skilled builders and shrewd merchants.[3] The Mexica
forged an empire of 15 million people that spanned two oceans and
extended from the northern deserts of Mexico to Oaxaca in the south
but for all the might, they eventually attained, the Mexica were a
people of humble origin. The Mexica began their journey to
greatness in a semi-mythical land they called Aztlan (Place of
Herons).[4] Aztlans exact location is unknown, but could have been
as near as 60 miles to the Mexico Valley or as distant as the
American Southwest.[5] It took nearly 200 years for the Mexica to
migrate from Aztlan to the Valley of Mexico, a journey that began
around A.D. 1111 and ended around 1325.[6] During this journey, the
Mexica developed the reputation as fierce warriors with bizarre
customs and were considered barbarians by all they encountered.
*America was Las Leyes de Indias. Roman legal system allowed the
conquered country to live according to their own laws, but Romans
also let these countries to have their own gods, even Romans most
of the times adopted foreign gods. Also allowed foreign people to
continue having their sacra privata. This changed after the
conversion of Rome to the Christianity with Constantino around 333
AD. after the ferocious persecutions of Dioclesiano. After the
implantation of Christianity only one religion was allowed, and
private religions were prohibited and persecuted.
***Typically punishments for crimes committed in the Aztec
Empire were extremely harsh. Death by strangulation, stoning, and
beating were the usual methods for capital punishment. Exile,
confiscation of property, destruction of one's home, public
humiliation, or stern lectures represented the punishments for
lesser offenses. Nobles or priests were held to a higher standard
and were generally subjected to harsher penalties.Theft was one of
the worst crimes a person could commit. If the stolen item was of
great value or was taken from a marketplace or in the countryside,
the common punishment was death by strangulation. Thieves of lesser
valued items were often punished by performing restitution as
slaves to the property owners. Since punishment for theft was
severe, burglary incidents were rare even though the majority of
Aztec homes did not possess doors. Men and women were treated
different in the case of adultery. Men were not typically punished
for having an affair with a single woman, but a wife was absolutely
expected to stay faithful to her husband. Although a man who kills
his adulterous wife does not escape criminal liability. He may not
take the law into his own hands. Adultery was customarily
punishable by stoning the person to death.Those who were drunk were
also punished severely. The Aztecs believed that drunkenness was
the source of crime and other social evils. If a person was caught
being drunk the penalty for the first offense was public
humiliation by shaving their head. Subsequent incidents of
drunkenness were punishable by death. Often priests and nobles were
sentenced to death upon the first offense.External Sources
http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/rare/aztec/Home.htmhttp://library.thinkquest.org/27981/law.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec*The
Aztecs codified areas of law that were of great importance to them,
notably military, tribute, and commerce. Aside from these areas,
the Aztecs allowed local laws to dictate behavior, in much the same
way the Romans and Spanish did. To enforce these laws, the Aztecs
had various types of courts. Limited jurisdiction courts staffed by
elected judges hear small matters while more important matters were
heard by a three-judge general jurisdiction court staffed by
appointees of the chief legal officer. Additionally, there were
special commercial courts to hear cases from designated markets.
These merchant courts dealt with theft more harshly than regular
courts because of the importance of trade to Aztec society.
Judicial procedure was primarily oral and major decisions were
recorded. *qualification of the Indians. early Rome - qualification
of slaves, if they where man or no. any body could be slave, if you
commited a crime, if you did not paid your debts, etc. but the alia
divisio in the Digesto says:
Are human beings: free and slaves man. So this discussion was
held over centuries and was accentuated with the discovery of
America. Was important because due to this consideration, the
colonist could kill the Indians. Both thanks to the Queen Isabella
that was catholic and the influence of the church that Indians were
not exterminated in Latin America. There was a second reason why
there was not an extermination policy in Latin America, and was
based on Public International Law. Was the right of every conqueror
who won a battle to kill the defeated. Isabella once again said
that it was not a war. Was a church mission to indoctrinate de
indios in to the catholic religion.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.antorcha.net/biblioteca_virtual/historia/hernan/caratula.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.antorcha.net/biblioteca_virtual/historia/hernan/hernan.html&h=450&w=387&sz=145&hl=en&start=1&tbnid=0IYfICgHiClsiM:&tbnh=127&tbnw=109&prev=/images%3Fq%3DJuan%2BLopez%2Bde%2BPalacios%2BRubios%2B%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG
Palacios Rubios works, including the Requerimiento, were written
under the umbrella of Pope Alexander VIs grant to Ferdinand and
Isabella the sole right to rule and evangelize the New World in
1493. Izbicki, Thomas M., An Argument from Authority in the Indies
Debate, by, The Americas, Vol. 34, No. 3. (Jan., 1978), p. 400. The
legitimacy of this grant was upheld by the Junta of Burgos in 1512
as well as other decrees. Id. The Junta was presided over by Spains
first minister of colonial affairs, Bishop Juan Rodriguez de
Fonseca. Nowell, Charles, Book Reviews, The Hispanic American
Historical Review, Vol. 34, No. 4. (Nov., 1954), p. 549. During
this time the doctor of law, a title Palacios Rubios was also known
by, wrote De las Islas del Mar Oceano, a work that centers chiefly
on the matter of religion and of the part religion should play in
determining relations between Castilians and Indians. Id. at
549-50. The decree, known as the inter caetera, was a papa bull, or
a special kind of patent or charter issued by a pope issued only
for the most formal or solemn of occasions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_bull. The inter caetera was
issued largely as a political response by the Spanish monarchy to
the Portuguese claim that the newly found land was rightfully
theirs because of previously released papal bulls.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter_Caetera. While the papal bull
stated that Spain could instruct the inhabitants and residents and
dwellers therein in the Catholic faith, and train them in good
morals, Spain, with the help of men like Palacios Rubios, utilized
this decree as a free ticket to wage war on non-convert natives.
Id. Juan Lopez de Palacios Rubios was born in 1450 and died in
1524, 11 to 12 years after he wrote the Requerimiento. See
http://libro.uca.edu/lawsuits/law4.htm#N_46_. Palcios Rubios was a
glossator, having glossed the Leyes de Toro. Id. Palacios Rubios,
in addition to writing a treatise on Indian Law, wrote a treatise
on family law and was a member of the Royal Council. Id. Palacios
Rubios based his holdings that non-Christian governments could be
subdued on the Hostiensis, a 13th Century canon lawyer who held
that infidels did not possess dominium. Izbicki at 401; Muldoon,
James, John Wyclif and the Rights of the Infidels: The
Requerimiento Re-Examined, The Americas, Vol. 36, No. 3. (Jan.,
1980), pp. 301. Additionally, Palacios Rubios called the natives
free, however he held that they should hearken to the teachings of
Christian priests.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/De_Indis_De_Jure_Belli/Introduction.
History has shown that Palacios Rubios will not be remembered for
his treatises, but instead for the effect his work had on Latin
America as it justified the actions of men like Hernan Cortes and
Francisco Pizarro and their defeat of the Aztec and Incan nations,
thus leading to todays readings. See,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquistador.*The essential difference
was in the influence of religion (which is logical I think, as the
founders did not base the presidents authority on God, stressing
separation of church and state, etc.). Instead, the early settlers
attempted to more generally civilize the Native American
population. There was a sense or attitude that Native Americans
should assimilate and be more like the early colonials, in all
aspects of life. The United States government even appointed
agents, to live among the Native Americans and to teach them how to
live like whites! For example Benjamin Hawkins: He was adopted by
the Creeks, and took one of their women as his common-law wife. He
began to teach agricultural practices to the tribe, starting a farm
at his home on the Flint River. In time, he brought in slaves and
workers, cleared several hundred acres and established mills and a
trading post as well as his farm. His operation expanded until he
had over 1,000 cattle and a large number of hogs. For years, he
would meet with chiefs on his porch and discuss matters while
churning butter. His personal hard work and open-handed generosity
won him such respect that reports say that he never lost an animal
to Indian raiders. He was responsible for the longest period of
peace between the settlers and the tribe, overseeing 19 years of
peace. (wikipedia). Considering the good relations that seemed to
result, maybe it wasnt such a bad idea in some respects!Also of
interest George Washington had a six-point plan for civilization of
the Native Americans, which included: 1. impartial justice toward
Native Americans, 2. regulated buying of Native American lands 3.
promotion of commerce 4. promotion of experiments to civilize or
improve Native American society 5. presidential authority to give
presents 6. punishment of those who violated Native American
rights*The Zapatistas accused the Mexican government of keeping the
Zapatistas in poverty. Despite, Chiapas providing Mexico with
coffee, cattle, corn, 54% of its electricity, 13% of its corn, 5%
of timber, 4% of bean, 13% of gas and 4% of oil, many indigenous
people in Chiapas are literate and only about half of the men and a
tiny percentage of the women speak Spanish. Census figures show
that only 11% of adults earn the governments assessment of a
moderate income of at least $3, 450 compared to a national average
of 24%. Less than 50% of households have running water compared to
a national average of 67%. Only 14% have televisions compared to 45
percent nationally. Furthermore, half of Chiapass 3.7 million
people suffered from malnourishment in 1994. Most of the wealth is
concentrated in a few non-indigenous ladino landowners who control
Chiapan politics and continue to build their fortune on the work of
the indigenous population. The Zapatistas also accused the
government of a tradition of violence and brutality towards the
Indigenous population. There were many instances of violence and
brutality against the Indians of Chiapas who rebelled against the
ladions is the 1700s. However, in more recent years, the violence
and brutality has not subsided. In the early 1980s, a former
agriculture teacher and two friends who were education and training
leaders of indigenous organizations in Chiapas were arrested and
tortured. In 1998, Patrocino Gonzalez became governor of the
Chiapas and the violence against the Chiapas Indians increased. The
governor expanded the Chiapas penal code to provide for punishment
of public protests and other forms of political dissents. As a
result many political prisoners populated the Chiapas prisons. In
1989, ladinos and policemen destroyed an indigenous settlement in
Chiapas de Corzo and someone opened fire on a peace march lead by
members of the Emiliano Zapata Peasant Organization. Over the next
few years the police would again break up a peace mark by the
Chiapas indigenous Indians with clubs and tear gas and arrest a
number indigenous Indians for political reasons. The Zapatistas
also accused the Mexican government of stealing their rights to
acquire their land by amending the Mexican Constitution. The
Zapatistas also declared that the Mexican government had taken away
any autonomy that they would have had by fraudulently preventing
the election of their desired leaders and preventing them from
using customary laws and traditions to settle disputes.Within a few
days of the Zapatistas offensive, which included the attacking of
military prison and freeing of almost 180 prisoners, the kidnapping
and threat to execute a former Chiapas governor, the Mexican army
sent bomber planes, helicopters, tanks, armored personnel carriers
and roughly 12,000 troops to quell the uprising. Knowing that they
were outnumbered and they lacked adequate firepower to fight the
army, the Zapatistas retreated to the jungle before the Mexican
Army arrived. However, the leader of the EZLN, Subcomandante
Marcos, began a national public relations campaign to gain support
for the Zapatistas because he feared military reprisal. Marcos sent
Mexican newspapers a series of communiqus detailing the
discrimination that Indians faced and calling for a revolution of
Mexican politics. Marcos managed to capture the hearts of many
Mexicans and popular opinion began to turn against the Mexican Army
and government. Thousand of students joined non-Indigenous Mexicans
in protest of the Mexican government's policies in the Chiapas.
President Salinas eventually fired Interior Minister Patrocino
Gonzalez, a former Chiapas governor accused by the Zapatistas of
violating human rights during his tenure. On January 12, Salinas
announced a unilateral cease fire and offered to negotiate with the
Zapatistas about their concerns.Since the cease-fire, talks between
the Zapatistas and the Mexican government started and stopped
several times. However, on February 16, 1996, the Zapatistas and
the Mexican government signed the San Andres Accords. However, the
Zedillo administration balked at enacting the compact and
implementing changes in the constitution and laws to fulfill the
compacts promises. The Zedillo administration was over in 2000 and
Vincente Fox became president. IN December of 2000, Fox took
ordered military roadblocks in Chiapas to be removed and Mexican
troops stationed near indigenous camps pulled back. Fox also urged
Congress to adopt the Indian rights bill Zedillo had rejected and
in 2001, the Mexican Senate unanimously passed the bill. However,
many Zapatistas argue that the bill is a watered down version of
the Sand Andreas accords, which the Mexican government has not yet
ratified. REGJIL 47, Regent Journal of International Law, "TODAY WE
SAY, ENOUGH!" THE ZAPATISTA REBELLION, AUTONOMY, AND THE SAN
ANDREAS ACCORD, Spring
2003.http://www.global-economy.info/PDF/Zapatista_Struggle_against_NAFTA.pdfhttp://www.mexconnect.com/mex_/zapat1.html*Since
this article is mainly about indigenous people, I figured it would
be interesting to compare the history of indigenous people in the
Americas to the history or my countrys indigenous people the Sami
(Smi, Saami, Lapps and Laplanders) Sami is the indigenous people of
my country. You also find Samis in Sweden, Finland and the Kola
Peninsula of Russia. They are one of the biggest indigenous groups
Europe, and they speak different Sami languages, which is nothing
like Norwegian. Norway has about 50,000 Samis. Sami means people
and is the official name. As the Indians, the Sami have lived in
the region since prehistoric times, and have been traced back to as
far as 8100 BC. They were originally hunters and fishers, but they,
as their American counterparts, began pretty early to domesticate
animals the reindeer in particular. In Norway today Samis are well
known for their reindeers, although only 10% actually live as
reindeer nomads. The Sami, as most Indians, lived in harmony with
nature, and believed that the land was holy with sacred places. The
Sami lived in this harmony until the 9th century when people
started immigrating north into Sami territory. From the 17th to
19th centuries, the government offered incentives to colonize Sami
territory. Much like the Indians in the Americas during the
colonial era, the Sami were pushed off their lands and forced to
assimilate into the dominant culture and convert to Christianity.
Laws were created to force the Sami to speak Norwegian and to deny
them their rights to the land. The strongest pressure took place
from around 1900 to 1940, when Norway invested considerable money
and effort to wipe out Sami culture. The oppression, though
comparable to the Americas, did for the most part not include
violence, torture, hunting, killings or enslavement. It was more of
a tough assimilation process, much like the second conquest in 19th
century America with egalitarianism. As in the Americas, there has
recently been a strong force to end the oppression of Samis in
Norway. The past 40 years the Samis have reclaimed their culture
and language, they have gotten their own Sami Parliament, laws to
protect their culture, the right to use their language in
government, their territory belongs to them and not the state and
an official apology from the Norwegian government. As a result,
about 50% of all Samis in Norway engage in traditional Sami
activity such as sustainable use of their territory fishing,
hunting, producing crafts and herding reindeer. It seems from our
reading that this is not yet true for the indigenous people of
Latin America. The gap between law and practice seems to be bigger
in Latin America and the quest for a human rights revolution is
still going on, while our quest for equal rights has been in
process for a while.
