In The American Indian in Western Legal Thought Robert Williams, a legal scholar and Native American of the Lumbee tribe, traces the evolution of contemporary legal thought on the rights and status of American Indians and other indiginous tribal peoples. Beginning with an analysis of the medieval Christian crusading era and its substantive contributions to the West's legal discourse of 'heathens' and 'infidels', this study explores the development of the ideas that justified the New World conquests of Spain, England and the United States. Williams shows that long-held notions of the legality of European subjugation and colonization of 'savage' and 'barbarian' societies supported the conquests in America. Today, he demonstrates, echoes of racist and Eurocentric prejudices still reverberate in the doctrines and principles of legal discourse regarding native peoples' rights in the United States and in other nations as well.

In The American Indian in Western Legal Thought Robert Williams, a legal scholar and Native American of the Lumbee tribe, traces the evolution of contemporary legal thought on the rights and status of American Indians and other indiginous tribal peoples. Beginning with an analysis of the medieval Christian crusading era and its substantive contributions to the West's legal discourse of h̀eathens' and ìnfidels', this study explores the development of the ideas that justified the New World conquests of Spain, England and the United States. Williams shows that long-held notions of the legality of European subjugation and colonization of s̀avage' and b̀arbarian' societies supported the conquests in America. Today, he demonstrates, echoes of racist and Eurocentric prejudices still reverberate in the doctrines and principles of legal discourse regarding native peoples' rights in the United States and in other nations as well.--

This readable yet sophisticated survey of treaty-making between Native and European Americans before 1800, recovers a deeper understanding of how Indians tried to forge a new society with whites on the multicultural frontiers of North America-an understanding that may enlighten our own task of protecting Native American rights and imagining racial justice.

Exploring the history of contemporary legal thought on the rights and status of the West's colonized indigenous tribal peoples, Williams here traces the development of the themes that justified and impelled Spanish, English, and American conquests of the New World.

Robert A. Williams Jr. boldly exposes the ongoing legal force of the racist language directed at Indians in American society. Fueled by well-known negative racial stereotypes of Indian savagery and cultural inferiority, this language, Williams contends, has functioned “like a loaded weapon” in the Supreme Court’s Indian law decisions. Beginning with Chief Justice John Marshall’s foundational opinions in the early nineteenth century and continuing today in the judgments of the Rehnquist Court, Williams shows how undeniably racist language and precedent are still used in Indian law to justify the denial of important rights of property, self-government, and cultural survival to Indians. Building on the insights of Malcolm X, Thurgood Marshall, and Frantz Fanon, Williams argues that racist language has been employed by the courts to legalize a uniquely American form of racial dictatorship over Indian tribes by the U.S. government. Williams concludes with a revolutionary proposal for reimagining the rights of American Indians in international law, as well as strategies for compelling the current Supreme Court to confront the racist origins of Indian law and for challenging bigoted ways of talking, thinking, and writing about American Indians. Robert A. Williams Jr. is professor of law and American Indian studies at the James E. Rogers College of Law, University of Arizona. A member of the Lumbee Indian Tribe, he is author of The American Indian in Western Legal Thought: The Discourses of Conquest and coauthor of Federal Indian Law.

Robert A. Williams Jr. boldly exposes the ongoing legal force of the racist language directed at Indians in American society. Fueled by well-known negative racial stereotypes of Indian savagery and cultural inferiority, this language, Williams contends, has functioned “like a loaded weapon” in the Supreme Court’s Indian law decisions. Beginning with Chief Justice John Marshall’s foundational opinions in the early nineteenth century and continuing today in the judgments of the Rehnquist Court, Williams shows how undeniably racist language and precedent are still used in Indian law to justify the denial of important rights of property, self-government, and cultural survival to Indians. Building on the insights of Malcolm X, Thurgood Marshall, and Frantz Fanon, Williams argues that racist language has been employed by the courts to legalize a uniquely American form of racial dictatorship over Indian tribes by the U.S. government. Williams concludes with a revolutionary proposal for reimagining the rights of American Indians in international law, as well as strategies for compelling the current Supreme Court to confront the racist origins of Indian law and for challenging bigoted ways of talking, thinking, and writing about American Indians. Robert A. Williams Jr. is professor of law and American Indian studies at the James E. Rogers College of Law, University of Arizona. A member of the Lumbee Indian Tribe, he is author of The American Indian in Western Legal Thought: The Discourses of Conquest and coauthor of Federal Indian Law.

The Oxford Handbook of American Indian History presents the story of the indigenous peoples who lived-and live-in the territory that became the United States. It describes the major aspects of the historical change that occurred over the past 500 years with essays by leading experts, both Native and non-Native, that focus on significant moments of upheaval and change.