| Narrator |
Welcome to an Arizona State Museum podcast.
This podcast is one of five recordings from a symposium held in
conjunction with the display of the original pages of the Treaty of
Guadalupe Hidalgo at the Arizona State Museum during February 2011. The
treaty pages were on loan from the National Archives. Arizona State
Museum extends thanks to Amistades, Inc., the Vice President for
Research at the University of Arizona, and the University's American
Indian Studies department for support of the exhibition and the
symposium. For more Arizona State Museum podcasts, go to
www.statemuseum.arizona.edu/podcasts, or go to iTunes, keyword: Arizona
State Museum.
|
| Tupac Enrique Acosta |
I'm going to try to speak as clearly and as loudly as I
can. I do have some speech impediment, so please bear with me. I'd like
to introduce Cindy Mercurio Sandoval. By coincidence, the name
Sandoval, is tied to that U.S. Sandoval (from what I understand) court
case. Cindy, in her time in New Mexico, also worked on some of the
community interventions that were done by the land grant movement at
that time, related to similar issues that we're speaking of here. And
she's going to help us with the slide presentation. So Cindy, could you
go on to the next slide? [crowd noise]
Can anybody identify this location? The situation? Can
anybody conceptualize it in reference to our symposium today? Whose
army uniform? That's an army uniform, right? Is that Egypt? Oh, let's
take applause. Egypt, the people of the Nile.
[man applauds]
[crowd applause]
What's in process in Egypt is the same discussion we're
having today. What is that? The relationship of humanity to government
states of the world. And the borders that they have imposed and
incarcerated are conceptions of allegiance and citizenship, in contrast
and in conflict to our relationship and our kinship as human beings of
Mother Earth. So we're talking about putting threads of context in
place, and leaving those threads of context in place to the purpose of
what? To perpetuate our incarceration, or to achieve our liberation, as
a realization of our humanity. Wherever you go in this Mother Earth,
and I'll take a pause there. Last month, you can't go any further. It
took me 30 hours to get there, and 36 hours to get back. I was in
India, the original. I'm looking for India, well, I got there.
Christopher Columbus, you know what I'm talking about.
We're talking about the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, but the
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo cannot be conceptualized without its
context, which is the framework of the international law of the
governments. States. In particular, of the government entities, of the
states that have survived the independence movements in this continent,
of Abya Yala. That came to be known as America as a result of, the guy
who was trying to get to India, right?
So, it was always the same plan all along. How are we going
to establish a continental network and the trade, the commerce, for the
purposes of exploiting and expropriation, the natural resources and
labor of humanity to the benefit of the corporate elites? Now they call
that econogenics. In another era, during World War II, it was called
eugenics. But that eugenics was birthed and born here. It was exported
to Germany, no? I'm just giving you threads of the larger story, the
longer story that is to be told, that is still to be told. Why?
Because India, last month, we recalled together, the
indigenous peoples of this continent, of Abya Yala. The indigenous
peoples of Australia, of Aotearoa. Of the Pacific Basin, what is that
called? Oceana. Not just the rim, the whole Oceana. Africa. Indigenous
peoples of Europe, the Sami were there, the Laplanders. We were called
to India last month to put together the first round table towards the
formation of a world assembly of indigenous peoples. And this is
distinction, and in contrast to what is called a General Assembly of the
United Nations. OK. So this is what's in question, the process of
defining what is a nation, what is it to be international, and what is
it to be a humanity. What is it to be a humanity. And wherever we look,
wherever we saw, wherever we listened, wherever we heard, we heard the
same story that the Yoeme said. That we have a core of, a kernel of
our humanity is embedded in our original histories, that are not
filtered through the lenses of the so-called western civilization, or
the civilization concept itself. To the core of our humanity as homo sapiens.
In all of the continents of the world, and wherever we are.
Whether we're the Sami of northern Europe, whether we're the indigenous
of Africa, the Zulu. Whether we're the Aotearoa of New Zealand, or the
aboriginals of Australia, or the Adivasi of India. We found that we
have an integrity, and we have a reality. We have the original same
reality of the continuity of our human identity, that isn't defined,
like the Yaqui said, depending on our citizenship or status in one or
another of the conceptions of the so-called civilized world.
And that's the story that we bring to tell you today, as it
relates to our discussion on the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. This
isn't U.S.‑Mexico; this is Mexico‑Mexico. This is the Mexican federal
troops, and this is one of the ladies of the Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Naciónal in Mexico. She's Maya, no?
This is what we were referring to, no? We're talking about
being deported. We're talking about being deported physically. We're
talking about being deported in terms of religion, no? Extracted and
pulled into Genízaro nationalities. Not just communities but Genízaro nationalities. Start from the border and start going down. You see a bunch of Genízaro communities, but Genízaro nationalities that have been put in place in this continent.
Why? Because to get to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and
this border here, you don't see it, but it's there conceptually, we're
discussing it here intellectually. But to get to that one, there was
other previous doctrines that were put in place that set about, set in
place the legitimization of those so-called systems of jurisprudence
that we call law and international law and treaties. Right? And what is
a treaty, by the way? And who has a right to make it, what is that?
And so in this context, we see what we see. We see what is there. But
what we are also seeing is how we ourselves have been deported into the
project of America, no?
During the last era, in the fight against neo-liberalism, it
was one of the phases coming out of the massive movements in the
south. Otra Americas Possible, Another
America's Possible. They were bringing that phrase out as a challenge
to the neo-liberalization and the invasions of the corporate elites
partnering up with all the government states.
To bring in what was the same process of the extraction of
the railroads across the West, right? What made this treaty necessary. I
wouldn't say the transnational corporations. I call them
supranational. They don't have any tie to any nationality of any
constituency in any place in the world. They're coming in from China.
They're coming in from Japan. They're coming in from... and itt doesn't
really matter anymore where they're coming in because they have the
same corporate interests globally. But the point I'm making here is
that that's the NAFTA frame, that is another thread in putting together
the context.
There's another frame that wasn't mentioned today here as of
yet. That was the Doctrine of Monroe, 1823.You're not going to get to
1848 until you touch 1823. What was the Doctrine of Monroe? What did he
say? |
| Woman |
America follows Americana? |
| Mr. Acosta |
But who was he talking about? Was he talking about the
original Americana, the original indigenous? Who was he talking about?
He was talking about the same attitude that created a flex. Whenever
U.S. intervention, this idea came up. Because supposedly the North
American U.S. government says, "We're going to say who's going to say
who's going to come in here. And by the way we're saying nobody else is
coming in here. It's going to be our plantation now, the whole
continent." Without having to put a physical border, they put a
doctrinal border on the whole continent. To say that Asia discovery and
exploration by the European interests, the gate's shut. Without the
Monroe Doctrine you don't have that context of what's going to happen
now, what is happening now up to this point.
Before, what did we have? The government of the Republic of
Mexico, 1848, Santa Anna. The government of Washington, the government
of Polk, their justification for territorial jurisdiction in this
continent is based on what? Talking about doctrines. Based on what? The
doctrine of... discovery, no? And the psychological, political, legal,
cultural and intellectual frames that that set in place and then
legitimizes... Added to that the traction of the economic might and the
military forces that are tied to that, which we are still seeing every
day here in Arizona and throughout the continent. But the original
doctrine behind that was called the Divine Right of Kings. The Divine
Right of Kings, and there was a King of Kings, The Vatican.
Under the Divine Right of Kings, when that concept arrived
over here that was the original concept. That's how they got to claim
discovery in the first place. But in the process of the Enlightenment,
the exposure to the concepts of self-government, autonomy... Where
there isn't a hierarchy of self-governance outside the humanity, the
indigenous frameworks of confederacy where it isn’t necessarily a
hierarchy imposed from a monopoly or a monotheistic or even a
grammatical or legal singularity? We're talking about the plurality
that is the ecology of nature and our part, as human beings, as part of
the family of nature.
That exposure sparked different things: the French
Revolution, the Enlightenment. And in the bounce back, when it came
back this way, the Independence movement that happened with the U.S., I
mean with the English, with the French. That's something we have, the
independence movements that was mentioned to you in 1821. But then none
of those independence movements, 1821, none of them, not Mexico, none
of those were the indigenous nations. They never got their status as
republics.
Although even in Guatemala, when Guatemala was pushing out a separation from Mexico, there's 48 cantones mayas
at that time. The same like with the Yaquis. They almost literally
stepped onto the world stage as Maya Republic, at that time. And they
still are in place today, but they don't have international
recognition.
The point is that nobody legitimately will argue anymore for
this concept of the Divine Right of Kings. I don't believe that's so.
I'm not going to hear that here, I don't think. Yet we see it still
here, the argument. Or we hear the absence of the contradiction of the
argument of the Divine Right of States. Supported every time we make a
statement in justification of the international borders that have been
established by the republics, that derive their jurisdiction and
justification in this hemisphere based on the Divine Right of Kings.
Now we have the Divine Right of States. Example, Correa and
Ecuador, last year. The petroleum companies that have... Really,
Canadian petroleum companies, Canadian mining companies, they've been
franchising with the Ecuadorian government. They say, "We're coming
into the Amazon." The indigenous people, they say, "No, you're not
coming into our territory."
And there's pictures of bows and arrows against
armies, like the Ecuadorian army. Correa, a president who came in from
the left says, "That resource belongs to the state. The indigenous have
only occupancy on the territory." It's ancestrally theirs, no? A
Divine Right of State. Here in this area, we just heard this argument
last week in the state capitol.
When Mr. Eastman was arguing in favor of the modifications
to the 14th Amendment, to Arizona's citizenship in conflict with the
14th Amendment. He was talking about the rights of expatriation. He was
talking about the rights of the states to determine their own status
of membership and citizenship, in relationship to the other states. The
other states, which ones? The other 50 states, of the United States of
North America.
So here we are in 2011 but 20 years ago we were called to
the first continental encounter, that took place in Quito, Ecuador, in
1990. In 1990, we were there. At the whole level of the whole
hemisphere, we were looking at 1992. And the Quincentenary celebrations
of jubilee that were being planned by the Vatican and Spain.
I'll tell you a real quick, funny story. There was a
resolution put on the floor of the general assembly to celebrate the
500th anniversary of Columbus, the Quincentenary. At that time, Jean
Kirkpatrick—you know who I'm talking about? Some of you in the room
won't know how I'm talking about. Jean Kirkpatrick was the U.S.
Ambassador. There's her signature on the resolution. It got adopted
unanimously by every single country in this continent, and I saw the
signatures myself, Jean Kirkpatrick's signature right next to the
minister of Cuba. Cuba was ready to sign, too. "Let's go to the party,
let's go to the party."
Who was the only ones who stood up and said "Hold
it." Indigenous peoples. We stood up after this gathering in putting
together the continental resistance, to say "Just a second, just a
minute, let's take 500 years of seconds and minutes." Let's come back
to reality and acknowledge one simple fact.
In 1960, as you know we've been organizing as Tonatierra, we
had 100,000 people march through the state capitol last year. A lot of
the people were wearing t-shirts that said "Legalize Arizona."
Legalize Arizona. Now let's get this clear. Those 100,000 people with
that message of legalize Arizona, when we went to the state capitol, we
don't go to present ourselves to the state capitol, Brewer, Governor
Brewer. We had the indigenous nations of this territory waiting for us
there, the O’odham people were there waiting for us with their songs,
with their ceremonies, with their narratives of relationships to each
other, with each other, and of the land. Preceding the document of
discovery, preceding the Divine Right of Kings, preceding the Divine
Right of States, and still present until today. And still acting as if
what we said was said again, but now trying to express it and broadcast
it at a larger level, at what is the public.
One of the groups that was accompanying us in that process
were the Mississippi summer folks, the folks who had been in
Mississippi during that time. We had a side conversation with them,
like in this room here. Hey, you know what? None of what Martin Luther
King or the leadership of the SNCC and the other groups that were
mobilizing in that time in Alabama, similar to how we're mobilizing in
Arizona...that movement that Martin Luther King was pushing for civil
rights within the framework of U.S. protections, responsibilities and
rights...that movement would not have had a chance—we’re talking about
the Mississippi summer movement, remember—that movement would not have
had a chance, if Africa hadn't been moving toward decolonization. The
U.S. Civil Rights movement being led by the African-American
constituencies wouldn't have had a chance if Africa itself wasn't
pushing through a decolonization process itself.
Decolonization was not a crime up until 1960. It wasn't a
crime to come into another continent and take and rape and pillage,
exploit, expropriate the natural resources of those peoples. The
colonization of the European mercantile interests that began in 1492, I
always say it like this‑‑when did World [inaudible] begin? I'll wait
for an answer. When did World War I begin? |
| Man |
1914 |
| Mr. Acosta |
World War I began on October 12, 1492. [audience laughter]
From that time to this time, up until this resolution in 1960, that was
normal. It was considered civilized. A particular part of that burden
of civilization was given to a particular sector of our human family.
Some of our relatives that were extracted from the rest of us and
basically deformed and tortured into a cultural identity that is known
as "white people". Whereas if you go to any place on Mother Earth and
say "Where's that country that's called 'white'?", there's nothing
there. There's nothing there; we're all just human beings.
The General Assembly makes colonization illegal, but it
wasn't until September 13, 2007—that's only four years ago, not even
four years ago—that indigenous peoples were put into that same
category. Up until that date, we're not peoples. We don't have access
to those procedures to decolonize. So it isn't a wonder that we're here
at this place where we are now. This is Thomas Banyacya, Hopi Nation,
in front of the United Nations, according to the Hopi prophecies,
fulfilling the prophecy of the Hopis that they would present themselves
before the House of Micah to bring the message of indigenous nations to
this body.
This clarifies, for purposes of communications. Yes, there
are governments, look at all the flags. Yes, there are states,
[pointing] boom boom boom. However, we are the nations.
Ser nacido. Nacer. Nacionalidad. Todo viene
siendo de la madre tierra. El mismo raiz de pensar te dice eso. Que
hace posible la vida? Nacer. La relacion con lo que es la madre tierra.
La relacion con el agua, la relacion con el viento, la relacion con el
sol.
Or you could say it like this: the material world.
Solid, liquid, gases, and plasma. The four phases of matter. It's
essential, it's elemental but it's also very scientific. In other
words, it's reality.
Reality checks in every once in a while. Mother Earth's
telling us, "Abya Yala, I am here. I am Yala. I am here, and I am going
to the ceremony that Mother Earth is going to." She has elders, too.
She's our mom. Father Sun, but even they have elders, too. We're part
of a larger community of realities that we coincide in and coalesce
around, according to the principles that we call the [Kasoli?] in our tradition of the Mexicayotl.
The [Kasoli?] of the Mexicayotl
has pulled us together, since 1990 at the first continental encounter.
We've had five summits since then. The last one took place in Puno,
Peru. That should be in 2009. At this particular event, it was stated "Nosotros no somos imigrantes en nuestra propio continente."
A political position was put forward to all of the government-states,
not just the U.S., not just Mexico, Canada. The statement was made, "We
are not immigrants in our own continent."
Especially since we haven't moved into the phase of
decolonization in this continent. If we're going to discuss
immigration, we're going to have to go back to October 12, 1492.
Otherwise, we're not discussing immigration. The issue is being
manipulated in the interests of certain economic interests that are
entrenched and embodied in the political bodies of the
government-states that come across as a result of colonization.
This one, go back one real quick. Last October. For all of
this to occur requires communication. It requires the rebellion and
cognition that is going to make it possible. This is the rebellion we
are speaking of today, not just a rebellion in terms of political.
There has to take place a reality check that is going to bring about a
rebellion in the systems of cognition and to accomplish that, we need
communication. We have in place a continental network of comunicadores indigenas. This was in Colombia just last November.
This is the symbolism of the iconography of our messaging to
humanity. How we are going to regenerate and reclaim our place in
global society, outside of the distinctions and contradictions and
legalizations of our government-states, not only in this hemisphere,
but planetarily.
This is our emblem of the Nahuacali.
We have a process that drives all this which is inherent to our
internal reality that we express at external levels according to the
need and circumstances of the time.
This is the embassy of indigenous peoples in Phoenix where
we operate out of. And this is one of our latest campaigns. It's an
educational campaign. This was the document that was put in the hands
of Senator Pierce when he came out on the first day he was going to
announce the 14th Amendment. We put this in his hands and, we made it
accessible to him, but unfortunately he didn't want to accept it as of
yet. But the reality is there. The cognition is there. What part of
illegal do you not understand? It's very simple.
We're going to have a hearing on this issue and the
invitation to that event is on your packet. Please look at that. At
Pueblo Grande one month from now, we're going to have a hearing. The
United Nations has launched a preliminary study on the impact of the
doctrine of discovery on indigenous peoples. We're going to have a
hearing on that next month at Pueblo Grande. So this story here is to be
continued at that point one month from now, so I urge you to keep in
contact with us through our website and the different means that we're
going to put in place.
You see that line up there? That's the Adams-Onis line,
right? There's no indigenous nation indicated in that line at all. So,
whatever jurisdiction territorial that Mexico thought they had that
they were passing to the U.S., guess what? There's flaws in the concept
not to mention it's the absolute deformation of reality. This is a
more closer version.
This is what the relatives were speaking about. These are
our confederations, the ancient confederacy of the Ute-Azteca nations.
When we speak about borders, really the only borders we have as human
beings is language because we all use the same thought process. We have
the same cerebrum in all parts of the world, in India and everywhere.
We've had the same hardware for 100,000 years. The only borders we have
are cultural borders. And this is why the fight in Egypt is so
critical, because you're talking about getting to the core of that
relationship and finding a seed of how we might regenerate our
self-determination as humanity.
You see that these maps, there's a misconception here. They
were never like that. You saw the Yaquis overlapped with the O’odham ,
the O’odham with the Mayo. We never had borders that were: “I’m on this
side, you’re on that side.” That's a flat world conception. That's
like “the world is flat.” The world is not flat. The world is made up
of relationships.
And the expression of value that we give externally to those
value systems that we carry, that's called law. This is the law of the
description from one perspective in the central part of the continent
known as Mexico. Tenotichlan. The eagle and the condor you see evident
in the background.
And this is up here in Phoenix. There's a bunch of junk on
the riverbed. You've seen all the dumping that took place up there.
We're talking again about our ecological relationships, and that means
our ecological responsibilities—I said law—to the Mother Earth and to
the natural world. You see these creatures here, [A’astar?]; in our language, they're called [A’astar?], the white heron. The messenger and the responsible, el responsible, for relaying the message of confederacy and peace among these nations because they live along the waterways.
You see more of the picture now but it's the same picture,
no? What kind of weaponry is that? What kind of resistance is that?
Change that gun and put in place the government state mechanism
planetary, change her to Mother Earth and change this guy to… maybe
it's us. But what about the uniform? Is that our uniform? What are we
fighting to defend? What are we fighting to protect? What should we be
fighting to defend and protect?
What we say is this, it's the ways of life that makes life
possible. The water, they go together in pairs—the land and the water,
the air and the fire.
And reality, the reality is that—and I got into trouble with
my elders once for saying this, for asking this; I almost got into
trouble; I thought I was going to get in trouble—but I asked it like
this. "Hey elders," (I work with an organization called the Seventh
Generation Fund. We're part of the traditional confederacies of the
continent of the north, the Turtle Island that is part of this
continental, like was mentioned, no? …reality of indigenous
confederacies at a continental and planetary level. For us, there isn't
seven seas. There is only one ocean. And the ocean doesn't separate us.
The ocean binds us together.) So I asked them like this, "Hey,
Elders." (My time is up, no?) "Elders, isn't it true, elders, that
we're all originally and eventually we are all indigenous people of
Mother Earth?" Elders said, "You got it. You got it." That's the
distinction and that's the reality we wanted to share with you today as
we go forward.
Next Tuesday, we'll be back at the state capitol bringing
the more precise elements of this argument to try to convince those who
want to be convinced, who are willing to be convinced, related to the
justifications that have been proposed in the state of Arizona in terms
of the Arizona state citizenship acts and its implications on the 14th
amendment. It's one of the activities we're engaged with on the street
level, at the ground level and the community level. We have 400
families in Phoenix in the comites en defense del barrio that are working with us together.
By way of closing, I want to extend my appreciation to the
folks in the museum and the staff here who made all of this possible.
And thank you for your kind attention and patience. Thank you. |
Sin embargo la policía de Phoenix, con un descendiente
mexicano al mando, no dio conferencia de Prensa. No tuvo que enviar carta de
abogados al Juez que lo encontrara culpable de perfil racial. Su policía ha sido responsable de más
deportaciones que el propio Sheriff y el solo dice que la SB1070 es la ley y el
juro hacer respetar la ley. Cuando sus policías son descubiertos de esperar en
ciertos barrios y en ciertas calles para quitar carros y deportar gente. Solo
los cambian de lugar a una área menos barrio, mas blanquita, donde siguen
parando gente que tiene que ir a limpiar casas o arreglar jardines, pero pues
allá no es tan notado. Pero la policía de Phoenix no es como Arpaio. Ellos no
cometen perfil racial, o más bien no son tan bocones pero son más eficientes.
