[
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/10-religous-dimensions/",
    "title": "Ten Religious Themes of the Doctrine of Christian Discovery (DoCD) that Contrast with Indigenous Values",
    "publishedAt": "2022-09-26T07:54:46Z",
    "description": "With issuance of 15th century Papal Bulls known as the Doctrine of Christian Discovery, religion has been used all over the world as a weapon against Indigenous Peoples and the land.",
    "tags": [
      "Christian",
      "Indigenous",
      "featured",
      "Religion"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"We were planting corn and they were planting crosses.\" Faithkeeper Oren Lyons By Philip P. Arnold and Sandra L. Bigtree With issuance of 15th century Papal Bulls known as the Doctrine of Christian Discovery, religion has been used all over the world as a weapon against Indigenous Peoples and the land. This globalized aggressive and destructive use of religion began here with the Vatican’s justification for Portugal and Spain to raid West Africa and the Americas—resulting in the near annihilation of traditions, ecosystems and human life. Today, this religious framework has been codified into law and utilized by multinational corporations to seize Indigenous lands and extract resources for profit. Religion, therefore, is relevant today as foundational to social justice struggles and environmental devastation. To counteract this trajectory into the world, we call for a shift away from religion to that of Indigenous values as a way of understanding and aligning ourselves with the Earth. The Earth is the material and spiritual basis of all life and what constitutes our human survival. The opposition between religion and Indigenous values was initiated through the DoCD. The Indigenous Peoples of the Americas were often gracious in welcoming newcomers until they realized that they had come to take possession of their bodies and lands. 1. Assumed Superiority of Christianity (Christian Hegemony). Christian explorers who encountered non-Christians were to enslave their bodies, seize their worldly goods and their lands (referred to as terra nullius, or “empty lands”) deeding all possessions to the Vatican and sponsoring Monarchs. This Christian hegemony was developed in what is now known as Europe but expanded with explorers travelling to foreign lands. Christian hegemony was the driving force behind settler-colonization—it is also foundational to the ideology of white supremacy. - Indigenous values response: Human beings are not in charge of the world, but part of its regenerative life. The Earth provides everything we need—we are identified by the land and our traditions maintain that proper relationship. 2. Creation of Christian Empire (Christendom) drives the need for material riches and fires the discoverer’s imagination toward the unsatiated acquisition of wealth. Complete domination of the non-Christian world—both human and non-human. Christianity joined with the militaristic Roman Empire in the 4th century with Constantine. The Crusades, which began in the 11th century, was an attempt by the Vatican and Christian Monarchs to remove Muslims from the ‘Holy Land.’ Initiated in the 15th century and justified by the Vatican during the Age of Discovery, militarism was essentially a continuation of the Crusades which resulted in the Inquisition, the War on Witches and the Reconquest of the Iberian Peninsula. - Indigenous values response: Material riches are meant to be shared, in the tradition of the potlatch and “One Bowl, One Spoon” wampum. Gifts of the Earth are intrinsically there for all beings and meant to be shared. 3. Patriarchy and hierarchy. Popes, Kings, aristocrats are at the top of the “Great Chain of Being.” Women, children, animals and other non-human beings fall under their domination. White Christian Supremacy evolved into White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPs) from the 16th century onward. - Indigenous values response: The Haudenosaunee follow matrilineal clans because women are responsible for life on this Earth, which is female. All beings have their respective responsibilities—there is no hierarchy. 4. Apocalyptic thinking eagerly anticipates the end of the world, the return of Jesus Christ, and the rapture—where the chosen people return to a heavenly paradise. This Christian message connects with millennialism, and what drives the fanaticism of explorers, missionaries, ‘end of the world’ thinking, etc. Today, this paranoid thinking about how the world ends drives global Capitalism and consumerism. - Indigenous values response: if there is to be an end of the world it will not come with a promise of a new world. It is our responsibility to keep this Creation alive for seven generations into the future. 5. “Original Sin,” establishes the ‘natural’ fallenness of human beings in the world, being born in sin and what frames the urgent need for salvation, whether alive or dead (conversion after death). The world is sinful without Christ’s salvation, and only through human intervention is the world made suitable for Christ’s return. With God as Otiosus (obscured and removed from the world) human beings are required to become the agents of fulfilling God’s plan on Earth. - Indigenous values response: We belong to the earth and therefore all beings are constituted by the same fundamental spiritual and material reality that is regenerative and freely available to those who live without domination of others. If personal salvation is the only way out of the restraint of having been born in sin, how can anyone feel anything but dominated? 6. Reconquest of the Holy Land. Driven to reattain direct relationship at the site of the hierophany (where the sacred manifested in the world) led to a violent Crusade against Muslims who inhabited the Holy Land. Jerusalem is where Christians could directly appeal to their God, who was removed from the world (Deus Otiosus), mediated by Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection after having appeared to save the world. European Christianity, therefore, is out of place (utopian) and outside immediate relationship with the sacred, but it is Christianity that gave religious justification and authority to the Pope and all Christian Monarchies. Power is legitimated by removing Muslims, and other non-Christians from the Holy Land. Complete Vatican and Royal authority rests on the hierarchy of human relationships under a transcendent and displaced God. - Indigenous values response: we live every day in close proximity to the hierophany (manifestation of the sacred), in the water, in the air we breath, and in the regenerative lifeways of all living beings who constitute our very existence. To the earth and all living beings we say, Nya weñha Skä·noñh (Thank you for being well) because peace and wellness depend on living in proper relationship with the natural world. 7. Biblical authority and literalism. The Christian Bible was compiled in the 4th century and has been viewed as the ultimate authority. In Protestant Christianity (16th century onward) it is often understood to be the unfiltered word of God. The biblical text has been driven by a movement toward utopia (Sir Thomas More’s book by the same name). “No place,” or the disengagement with the meaning of place, is what defines American Christian Millennialism, and its urgent determination to prepare for the end of the world, as with ideas like Manifest Destiny and the Great Awakenings. - Indigenous values response: “oral traditions” have been reliable in maintaining our proper relationships with an everchanging natural world for hundreds of generations because we live our traditions every day through our, wampum belts, ceremonies, language, music, dancing, clothing, foods, medicines, clans, etc. 8. Presence of ultimate Evil in the world (Devil, Satan, Lucifer, etc.) that directly opposes the good established from the salvation of Christ’s sacrifice. There is a drama between the forces of Good and Evil being played out in the world. The terror of ultimate evil and hell motivates the drive toward personal salvation. The cosmic duality of Good v Evil locked in an inexorable battle which can only be resolved after the world has ended and good triumphs over evil. - Indigenous values response: There are interactions of opposing forces in the world—life and death, sky and earth, light and dark—exchanges that are necessary in creating and recreating the world and maintaining proper relationships. For the Haudenosaunee, through the interactions of the Creator Twins, the Earth was made. 9. Individual or personal salvation is foundational to individualism and the understanding of the Self as a discrete being which is separate from the world. It is this Self that requires salvation by the grace of God through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. - Indigenous values response: the individual is an intersection of vital forces composed of all the beings of the world. Individuals exist as a web of material interactions--including the living and the dead. 10. Creation of the Global Monetary Economy (enacted by 11th century monastics). Acquisition of material goods through the slave trade and extractive industries is exemplified by the commodification of the world which has aligned and unified the Christian Empire. Wealth is proof that the individual has been blessed by God. - Indigenous values response: our ceremonies are based on a gift exchange economy that moves between different beings. Gratitude for these gifts of life orient all ceremonies. The circulation of gifts to and from those non-human beings makes all life possible."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/2014-conference-photo-gallery/",
    "title": "2014 Conference Photo Gallery",
    "publishedAt": "2018-07-26T11:45:17Z",
    "description": "2014 conference photo gallery",
    "tags": [
      "photos",
      "Event"
    ]
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/about/",
    "title": "About",
    "publishedAt": "2024-06-11T04:34:30Z",
    "textContent": "Overview The Doctrine of Discovery educational resource, is lovingly maintained by Indigenous Values Initiative and the American Indian Law Alliance. It is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Land Acknowledgement We begin by acknowledging with respect the Onondaga Nation, Central Fire of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, on whose ancestral lands we now inhabit. Wherever you are located be aware of the Indigenous Peoples on whose lands you reside. We are mindful that the technology that makes this conference possible comes from the mineral extraction by multinational corporations, which decimate and displace Indigenous people and their land all over the world. May the information you glean from this website motivate you to uphold Indigenous values, protect Mother Earth, Honor Indian Treaties and hold your government and various institutions accountable who stand in the way. Contact If you have any questions, comments, or additions please contact us . contact us{: .btn .btn--primary .btn--x-large} Indigenous Values Initiative - Philip P. Arnold, President of Indigenous Values Initiative - mail: P.O. Box 336 DeWitt, New York 13214-9211 - email: info@indigenousvalues.org - web: indigenousvalues.org Collaborators American Indian Law Alliance Indigenous Values Initiative Onondaga Nation Kanatsiohareke Mohawk Community Matilda Josyln Gage Foundation Neighbors of the Onondaga Nation Quotidian: A curated blog about everyday religion Sullivan/Clinton Campaign THEN & NOW Syracuse University Syracuse University Department of Religion Tonatierra License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Security Verify SSL. Web Administrator Adam DJ Brett"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/anglican-church-of-canada-repudiates-the-doctrine-of-discovery/",
    "title": "Anglican Church of Canada Repudiates the Doctrine of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2018-07-27T11:18:09Z",
    "description": "Anglican Church of Canada's statement repudiating the Doctrine of Discovery.",
    "tags": [
      "anglican",
      "Christian",
      "PDF",
      "Canada",
      "Repudiations",
      "Faith-Communities"
    ],
    "textContent": "Anglican Church of Canada's Statement on \"Indian Residential Schools\" Download the Anglican Church of Canada's statement (⤓ PDF)"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/basic-call/",
    "title": "Basic Call to Consciousness",
    "publishedAt": "2019-03-26T03:47:22Z",
    "description": "Basic Call to Consciousness copies are available in English and Spanish.",
    "tags": [
      "Books",
      "Education",
      "Indigenous-Peoples",
      "resources",
      "basic-call-to-consciousness",
      "Resources"
    ],
    "textContent": "Basic Call to Consciousness, edited by Akwesane Notes. Position papers delivered to the Non-Governmental Organization of the United Nations in Geneva in 1977 describe oppression of Native peoples in the US. Copies in English and Spanish are available for sale from Indigenous Values Initiative. Email info@indigenousvalues.org"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/bibliography/",
    "title": "Bibliography",
    "publishedAt": "2018-07-24T09:15:28Z",
    "updatedAt": "2021-09-17T21:20:02Z",
    "tags": [
      "Bibliography",
      "Resource"
    ],
    "textContent": "The Doctrine of Discovery Working Bibliography Critical Research on the Doctrine of Discovery Arnold, Philip P. The Urgency of Indigenous Values. Syracuse University Press, 2023. Augustine, Sarah. The Land Is Not Empty: Following Jesus in Dismantling the Doctrine of Discovery. MennoMedia, Inc., 2021. Charles, Mark, and Soong-Chan Rah. Unsettling Truths: The Ongoing, Dehumanizing Legacy of the Doctrine of Discovery. InterVarsity Press, 2019. Churchill, Ward. A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas 1492 to the Present. City Lights Books, 1997. Conroy-Krutz, Emily. Christian Imperialism: Converting the World in the Early American Republic. Cornell University Press, 2017. Deloria Jr, Vine. For This Land: Writings on Religion in America. Routledge, 2013. Deloria, Vine. Custer Died for Your Sins: An Indian Manifesto. University of Oklahoma Press, 1988. ---------. God Is Red : A Native View of Religion. 1 online resource (344 pages) vols. New York: Fulcrum Pub., 2003. . D'Errico, Peter P. Federal Anti-Indian Law : The Legal Entrapment of Indigenous Peoples. Santa Barbara, California: Praeger, an Imprint of ABC-CLIO, LLC, 2022. Dunbar-Ortiz, Roxanne. Not\" a Nation of Immigrants\": Settler Colonialism, White Supremacy, and a History of Erasure and Exclusion. Beacon Press, 2021. Greenberg, Joy H. \"The Doctrine of Discovery as a Doctrine of Domination.\" Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature & Culture 10, no. 2 (2016). Harvey, Roberta Carol, 1950-. The Earth Is Red : The Imperialism of the Doctrine of Discovery. Santa Fe: Sunstone Press, 2021. Heath, Joseph J. \"The Doctrine Of Christian Discovery: Its Fundamental Importance In United States Indian Law And The Need For Its Repudiation And Removal.\" Albany Government Law Review 10, no. 1 (April 27, 2017). . Jennings, Willie James. The Christian Imagination: Theology and the Origins of Race. Yale University Press, 2010. Jones, Robert P. The Hidden Roots of White Supremacy: And the Path to a Shared American Future. Simon and Schuster, 2023. Matthiessen, Peter, Daniel K. Inouye 1924-2012, Oren Lyons, John Mohawk 1945-2006., Robert W. Venables, Howard R. Berman, Curtis Berkey, Donald A. Grinde 1946-, Vine Deloria, and Laurence M. Hauptman. Exiled in the Land of the Free : Democracy, Indian Nations, and the U.S. Constitution. 1st ed. Santa Fe, N.M.: Clear Light Publishers, 1992. Miller, Robert J. Native America, Discovered and Conquered : Thomas Jefferson, Lewis & Clark, and Manifest Destiny. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2008. Miller, Robert J., Jacinta Ruru, Larissa Behrendt, and Tracey Lindberg. Discovering Indigenous Lands: The Doctrine of Discovery in the English Colonies. Oxford University Press, 2010. . Newcomb, Steven T. \"Original Nations of 'Great Turtle Island' and the Genesis of the United States.\" The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Religion and Politics in the US, 2016, 5--17. ---------. Pagans in the Promised Land: Decoding the Doctrine of Christian Discovery. Fulcrum Publishing, 2008. Notes, Akwesasne. A Basic Call to Consciousness: The Haudenosaunee Address to the Western World. Akwesasne, Mohawk Nation: Akwesasne Notes, 1978. Robertson, Lindsay G. Conquest by Law: How the Discovery of America Dispossessed Indigenous Peoples of Their Lands. Oxford University Press, 2005. Ruehl, Robert Michael. \"Thoreau's 'A Week,' Religion as Preservative Care : Opposing the Christian Doctrine of Discovery, Manifest Destiny, and a Religion of Subjugation.\" Syracuse University, 2014. WorldCat. . Seed, Patricia. Ceremonies of Possession in Europe's Conquest of the New World, 1492-1640. Cambridge University Press, 1995. The Doctrine of Discovery : Unmasking the Domination Code. [Morton, Minnesota]: 38 Plus 2 Productions [distributor], 2015. Tinker, George E. American Indian Liberation: A Theology of Sovereignty. Orbis Books, 2020. ---------. Missionary Conquest: The Gospel and Native American Cultural Genocide. Fortress Press, 1993. Williams Jr, Robert A. The American Indian in Western Legal Thought: The Discourses of Conquest. Oxford University Press, 1992. Open Access Resources Listed by Author d’Errico, Peter. “Replacing the Doctrine of Christian Discovery and Implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.” \\\\\\\\\\. \"Indigenous Lèse-majesté: Questioning U.S. Federal Indian Law\" (⤓ Download as PDF). \\\\\\\\\\. \"Seeing through the chimera of U.S. federal Indian 'trust' law.\" (⤓ Download as PDF). Gonnella Frichner, Tonya. \"Preliminary study of the impact on Indigenous peoples of the international legal construct known as the Doctrine of Discovery,\" UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues Ninth session, New York, 19-30 April 2010. (Download as PDF). Heath, Joseph J. The Doctrine of Christian Discovery: Its Fundamental Importance in United States Indian Law and the Need for its Repudiation and Removal. 10 Alb. Govt. L. Rev. 112 (2017)  (⤓ Download as a PDF). \\\\\\\\\\. A Brief History of Haudenosaunee Treaty Making and The Obligations of the United States to Protect Haudenosaunee Lands and to Not Disturb the Free Use and Enjoyment Thereof. (⤓ Download as PDF). \\\\\\\\\\. The Citizenship Act of 1924 was an Integral Pillar of The Colonization and Forced Assimilation Policies of the United States in Violation of Treaties. (Download as PDF). \\\\\\\\\\. Nations Are Sovereign; They Are Not \"Tribes.\" (⤓ Download as PDF). \\\\\\\\\\. Statement on the Historical Use of the Doctrine of Christian Discovery by the United States Supreme Court Since 1823. (Download as PDF). Hauptman, Laurence M. Conspiracy of Interests, Iroquois Dispossession and the Rise of New York State. Laurence M. Hauptman, professor of history at the State University of New York at New Paltz. A study of the three interlocking forces -transportation, land and national defense- shows its impact on Iroqoia. Mander, Jerry (ed.). Paradigm Wars, Indigenous Peoples’ Resistance to Globalization, Edited by Jerry Mander, founder of the International Forum on Globalization, and Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, Igorat leader from the Philippines, director of Tebtebba Foundation and chair of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. Firsthand reports tell of the momentous collision of worldviews collide with the Earth’s indigenous peoples. Francis, Robert, Two Kinds of Beings: The Doctrine of Discovery And Its Implications for Yesterday and Today. Manataka American Indian Council. (archive.org edition) Miller, Robert J. Native America, Discovered and Conquered, Thomas Jefferson, Lewis and Clark and Manifest Destiny, Robert J. Miller, (Eastern Shawnee), associate professor at the Lewis and Clark Law School in Portland, Oregon. Professor Miller traces the concept of the Doctrine of Discovery and Manifest Destiny and their foundation in justifying the exploration and settlement of the United States. \\\\\\\\\\. “The Doctrine of Discovery: The International Law of Colonialism,” The Indigenous Peoples’ Journal of Law, Culture & Resistance, 5(1), 2019. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3cj6w4mj The International Law of Colonialism a Comparative Analysis by Robert J. Miller (76 page ⤓ PDF download). \\\\\\\\\\. 10 elements which constitute the Doctrine of Discovery ⤓ PDF download). \\\\\\\\\\. Discovering Indigenous Lands The Doctrine of Discovery in the English Colonies eds. Robert J. Miller, Jacinta Ruru, Larissa Behrendt, Tracey Lindberg, (OUP) 2010. Nelson, Melissa K. Original Instructions, Indigenous Teachings for a Sustainable Future, Edited by Melissa K. Nelson, professor of American Indian studies at San Francisco State University. Beautiful, wise voices gathered at the Bioneers conference share stories safeguarded by Indigenous cultures remind us about gratitude, kinship and reverence for community and creation. Newcomb, Steven T. Pagans in the Promise Land, Decoding the Doctrine of Christian Discovery (Fulcrum Publishing 2008), Steven T. Newcomb, (Shawnee/Lanape), cofounder and co-director of the Indigenous Law Institute, fellow with the American Indian Policy and Media Initiative of Buffalo State College and columnist with the newspaper Indian Country Today. A startling challenge to federal Indian law and policy using history and cognitive theory to challenge the separation of church and state. \\\\\\\\\\. Pagans in the Promised Land: a Primer on Religious Freedom. - a short article connecting the discourse of religious freedom to the Doctrine of Christian Discovery. - Now Streaming: The Doctrine of Discovery: Unmasking the Domination Code, directed by Sheldon Wolfchild \\\\\\\\\\\\\\. “Evidence of Christian Nationalism In Federal Indian Law: The Doctrine of Discovery, Johnson v. M’Intosh, and Plenary Power” in NYU Review of Law and Social Change (volume 20, issue 2), 1992. (⤓ Download as PDF). \\\\\\\\\\\\\\. The Biblical Basis of Federal Indian Law & Policy. Robertson, Lindsay G. \"John Marshall as Colonial Historian: Reconsidering the Origins of the Discovery Doctrine,\" Journal of Law & Politics 13, no. 4 (Fall 1997): 759-778. Smith, Mark A.A. Sovereignty Over Unoccupied Territories--The Western Sahara Decision, (1975). Stogre, Michael. That the World May Believe, The Development of Papal Social Thought on Aboriginal Rights, Michael Stogre, Jesuit priest and medical doctor engaged in native ministry. The Church’s mission to evangelize and the human rights of the receiver are traced through seven centuries of papal teaching. Watson, Blake A., \"The Impact of the American Doctrine of Discovery on Native Land Rights in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand,\" Seattle University Law Review 34, no. 2 (Winter 2011): 507-552 Williams, Robert A. Jr. The American Indian in Western Legal Thought: The Discourses of Conquest (OUP 1992). Multiple Authors Basic Call to Consciousness, edited by Akwesasne Notes. Position papers delivered to the Non-Governmental Organization of the United Nations in Geneva in 1977 describe oppression of Native peoples in the US. - To purchase a copy of the Basic Call to Consciousness in English or Spanish contact Indigenous Values Initiative at info@indigenousvalues.org Roots of the Iroquois, Tehanetorens, various native authors, traces the origins of the Confederacy and its growth and attempts to destroy it. Story Earth, Native Voices on the Environment, Compiled by Inter Press Service. This book draws a clear distinction between cultures and how the environment is viewed.   Films The Doctrine of Discovery: Unmasking the Domination Code, now on Vimeo Spirit Game: Pride of a Nation. Now on DVD and streaming. Also view our list of Online Resources"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/1CEMANAHUAC/",
    "title": "Superseding the Doctrine of Discovery: World Water One",
    "publishedAt": "2023-03-29T07:54:46Z",
    "description": "CEMANAHUAC Superseding the Doctrine of Discovery: World Water One www.www.www Ten years since the  First Dismantling the Doctrine of Discovery International Conference  held at Arizona State University West on April 1920, 2013, the  Continental Commission Abya Yala  will advance into the next cycle of INTENT and ENGAGEMENT towards the objectives and goals of the local-regional, continental-global initiative which has remained active across the continent throughout this most recent chapter of our collective history as  Original Nations  of  Indigenous Peoples  of the  Great Turtle Island Abya Yala .",
    "tags": [
      "law",
      "religion",
      "Christianity",
      "featured",
      "WorldWaterOne",
      "domination",
      "doctrineofdiscovery",
      "cemanahuac",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "CEMANAHUAC Superseding the Doctrine of Discovery: World Water One www.www.www Ten years since the First Dismantling the Doctrine of Discovery International Conference held at Arizona State University West on April 1920, 2013, the Continental Commission Abya Yala will advance into the next cycle of INTENT and ENGAGEMENT towards the objectives and goals of the local-regional, continental-global initiative which has remained active across the continent throughout this most recent chapter of our collective history as Original Nations of Indigenous Peoples of the Great Turtle Island Abya Yala. The continental call to consciousness and courage will be emitted today at dawn during the Tlanexpapalotl (Butterfly Sun) ceremonies of the Izcalli Abya Yala. The date corresponds to the spring equinox north of the equator, and the fall equinox in the south which will occur on March 20, 2023. As was the case ten years ago, the call by the Continental Commission Abya Yala is being led by the same three convening organizations of Indigenous Peoples: Techantit, Vision Maya, and TONATIERRA. Now advancing beyond the initial ten-year phase of the Dismantling of the Doctrine of Discovery of Christendom, the Continental Commission will coordinate and synchronize with ceremonial protocols appropriate to each particular nation and territory, the EMERGENCE and REGENERATION of the Original Nations of Indigenous Peoples of Abya Yala in exercise of an autonomous and interdependent geopolitical continental alliance of Indigenous Self Determination. In the north, the ceremonies will commence at sunrise and go to noon of the Tlanexpapalotl (Spring Equinox) on March 20, 2023. South of the equator, the Original Nations of Indigenous Peoples of Abya Yala will synchronize and coordinate accordingly as they celebrate the Yohualpapalotl (Fall Equinox) in complementarity with the spirit of the Kundur Anka, the Continental Confederation of the Eagle-Condor. It was in 1990, during the First Continental Indigenous Encounter in Quito, Ecuador that the seeds of the mandate of the Continental Commission Abya Yala were first collected and planted among the delegations of Indigenous Peoples who came to together in that historic event. After the First Encounter in 1990, the Second Continental Encounter took place in Temoaya, Mexico in 1993. Subsequently, there have been five continental indigenous summits: First Continental Indigenous Summit - Teotihuacan, Mexico 2000 Second Continental Indigenous Summit - Quito, Ecuador 2004 Third Continental Indigenous Summit – Iximché, Guatemala 2007 Fourth Continental Indigenous Summit – Puno, Peru 2009 Fifth Continental Indigenous Summit – Cauca, Colombia 2013 At the plenary of the Fifth Continental Summit in Colombia in 2013, the decision was made to take the sixth summit to Honduras at the request of Berta Cáceres and COPINH. Due to the assassination of Berta Cáceres in 2016 and the pall of violence and impunity in Honduras against COPINH and other human rights defenders and environmental activists, the trajectory of the continental indigenous movement also was set back, but not deterred. Then came the COVID pandemic of 2019-2021. In response, TONATIERRA traveled twice as emissary and representative of the Continental Commission Abya Yala to Honduras, to propose that the objective of organizing a singular continental summit be modified and reformed as a call for Continental Council instead. We proposed to continue coordinating our work in continental solidarity and synchronicity, by setting our own agenda with our own indigenous calendar systems to convene annually during the Fall and Spring Equinoxes of every year, each Indigenous Nation within their own territory across Abya Yala. This proposal was supported by the elders of the Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras (COPINH) and in 2020 the Izcalli Abya Yala was initiated. Since 2020, in the fall and the spring, these actions of cultural indigenous self- determination have continued to mature and develop. Now, in 2023, with this foundation, the Izcalli Abya Yala echoes the call of the original Continental Encounter of 1990 in Quito, Ecuador and all of the subsequent summits and diverse initiatives of the Original Nations of Indigenous Peoples to proclaim the Superseding of the Doctrine of Discovery of Christendom as the objective of the next cycle of the work of the Continental Commission Abya Yala. CEMANAHUAC Superseding the Doctrine of Discovery The world is not flat, it never was. Similarly, the dogma of the geocentric description of the cosmology of Christendom, which was imposed upon its constituents and colonial outposts, has now been abandoned for the fallacies and bias of the cultural hubris of its perpetrators in the hierarchies in power. The dogma of the geocentric model has been superseded. Abandoning the geocentric doctrine of cosmology, the \"Western World\" of Christendom moved into a heliocentric description of our solar system. Yet, as a physical description of interrelationships among spatial bodies of mass in the solar system relative to each other, while the sun does not revolve around the earth -- neither does the earth revolve around the sun. Both Sun and Earth, entities of mass and therefore revolution and spiral orbit, revolve around their respective centers of gravity, in barycentric and cosmetric interrelationships within the entire field of gravitational forces, including the vectors of distance, duration, and energy that describes our world in the Universe of the Four Directions: Cemanahuac. The doctrine of a geocentric universe was challenged by Copernicus and eventually superseded by the current \"BIG BANG\" model, but to challenge the dogma of the Holy Roman Catholic Church in terms cosmology in 1492 was blasphemy punishable by excommunication, torture, and death under the courts of the Inquisition. Today, although the corresponding political dogma of Eurocentric theology known as the Doctrine of Discovery falls in the same category of antiquated and globally repudiated concepts of cultural supremacy and colonialism as geocentrism, the Doctrine of Discovery remains as the fundamental legal principle that defines all US property law and jurisprudence not only within the courts but the entire US legal system of jurisdiction and law enforcement. Internationally, the dogma of the Doctrine of Discovery also perpetuates the norm of 531 years of continental colonialism across the entire continent by the political mechanism of the concept of \"successor states\" to the doctrine that is upheld by each and every \"American\" state today. This nefarious international policy of impunity in violation of the right of self- determination of the Original Nations of Indigenous Peoples is further reinforced by another discriminatory dogma of contemporary international law known as the \"Blue Water Rule\" relevant to the right of Self Determination of Indigenous Nations. \"The question is no longer whether the Doctrine of Discovery as it is still being perpetuated in policy and practice across the hemisphere is valid. That question has been answered, definitively and finally. There is no moral, legal, or cultural presentation that can legitimately argue that the theory of the Divine Right of Kings, which spawned the Doctrine of Discovery by Christendom, can hold any validity in a democratic society by positing the \"Divine Right of States\". What is in question now, is on what side of history will each of us as individuals, as families, as communities, as nations and as human beings stand.\" Continental Commission Abya Yala Superseding the Doctrine of Discovery World Water One CONTEXT Today, just as there is no valid legal, moral, religious or ethical case to be made in defense of the Doctrine of Discovery of Christendom as the theological premise for the continued normalization of the ongoing colonization and genocide of Indigenous Peoples of the Great Turtle Island Abya Yala, operating with purported privileged of territorial claims of jurisdiction over Indigenous Nations territories, neither is there a valid presumption to continue to prescribe and officialize the temporal aspects of the regimes of domination that originate from the same cultural pathology of the \"Western World\". TIME is NOW: Territorial Integrity of Mother Earth The celebration of the fulfillment of the 13th Baktun of the Maya Calendar on the winter solstice of 2012 has as its measurement of cyclical proportion a fundamental set unit of 20 days which is marked by the Maya Long Count starting on August 13, 3114 BCE. Known today in Izkaloteka tradition as the Cicitlalmina, the original date has correspondence to the annual appearance of the Perseid Meteor Shower every year in mid-August. Today, the Tolteka Izkaloteka continue to celebrate the annual arrival of the cicitlalmina. The active imagery of this astronomical phenomena symbolically depicts the falling of rain upon the original milpa (cornfield) of the ancestral nations of Anáhuac. With this millennial history and collective consciousness in place and activated, in 2020 the Continental Commission Abya Yala called for the Izcalli Abya Yala as Continental Indigenous Uprising and Emergence to coincide and synchronize with the Spring-Fall equinoxes of that year. The call of the Izcalli Abya Yala of 2020 was to vision, to organize and exercise the Right of Self Determination as Original Nations of Indigenous Peoples acting in Continental Alliance and Confederation in defense of the Territorial Integrity of Mother Earth. Since 2020, the processes of uprising and emergence, evaluation and organizing from local-regional, continental-global scales of incidence by the Indigenous Nations of Abya Yala continues to develop and mature. The Cochabamba Protocols The World Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth in Cochabamba, Bolivia took place in 2010. The event was attended by some 30,000 people from over 100 countries. After Cochabamba, the conceptual and political disconnect between the rhetoric of the \"progressive\" and \"ecologically sustainable\" discourse at the international levels collapsed of its own weight. It became evident, not for the first time of course, but in today's time that there was an urgent need to intentionally shift the paradigm of context of the global climate debate beyond the limiting and controlling agendas of the \"sovereign state\" Westphalian system (AKA the UN system) and move strategically into regeneration of a global set of relationships of INTERDEPENDENCE as Nations of Peoples of Mother Earth. In Cochabamba at the World Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth, these principles were hailed as the Cochabamba Protocols. The Cochabamba Protocols Respect Inclusion Complementarity Self Determination and Interdependence Today in 2023, in the wake of the recent failures of the UN systems to competently address the climate crisis impacting the planet and all humanity, the call is now for the invocation of the defense of the Territorial Integrity of Mother Earth as a fundamental and complementary principle and strategic framework in order to interconnect, interrelate and move forward outside of the fractured and competing agendas of the states, and the economic interests of supra-national corporate dominion and exploitation that control and define the terms of the climate change crisis in terms of \"development\". What is in question is the need for the international legal system of the planet to escape the conceptual constraints and the ethical void of the colonial legacy which gave origin to the present international framework, in open violation of the right of self-determination of the Indigenous Peoples, equal to all other peoples. Such a geopolitical trajectory could provide an effective strategic repositioning of global ecological concerns vis-à-vis the fractured interests of the states and the corresponding geopolitical blocs of power and competition. A multilateral world that integrated the recognition of Indigenous Nationhood, where the rights and responsibilities of the Original Nations of Indigenous Peoples of Mother Earth are acknowledged and respected could provide a possible alternative to the self-destructive modus operandi of the present international regimes of competition, consumption, and finally the fatal degradation of the biosphere. Today the Continental Commission Abya Yala reaffirms and now proclaims our mutual commitment to defend and protect the Territorial Integrity of Mother Earth as a fundamental tenet of contemporary International Law which integrates the Right of Self Determination of the Nations of Indigenous Peoples to intervene in the defense of Mother Earth and to take necessary corrective action in exercise of the right of Free, Prior and Informed Consent in defense of their territories and nations. We further proclaim the fundamental precept of World Water One as the common cultural principle of human cognition, collective planetary consciousness and responsibility, in order to empower our collective efforts of corrective actions to ensure the well-being of all humanity and the future generations. The issue is not about what we want. It is about what we WILL. Self Determination of Original Nations of Indigenous Peoples of Mother Earth In a moment's time There is a place. Where all that came to be Arrives In grace then- there Here-Now Nican Tlacah Cemanahuac \\#WorldWaterOne www.www.www Contact Information Continental Commission Abya Yala TECHANTIT - VISION MAYA TONATIERRA www.tonatierra.org PDF Download as a PDF"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/200-years-jvm/",
    "title": "200 Years of Johnson v. M'Intosh: Law, Religion, and Native American Lands",
    "publishedAt": "2024-07-25T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Our Canopy Forum Thematic Series 200 Years of  Johnson v. M’Intosh : Law, Religion, and Native American Lands “Introduction to the 200 Years of  Johnson v. M’Intosh : Law, Religion, and Native American Lands Series” “ Johnson v. M’Intosh  and the Missing Cover of the Jigsaw Puzzle” “ Johnson v. M’Intosh ,  Wi Parata v. Bishop of Wellington , and the Legacy of the Doctrine of Discovery in Aotearoa-New Zealand” “The Legacy of the Right to Control Land and Dependency” “The International Law of Colonialism:   Johnson v. M’Intosh  and the Doctrine of Discovery Applied Worldwide” “ Johnson v. M’Intosh,  Plenary Power, and Our Colonial Constitution” “However, Extravagant The Pretensions of  Johnson V. M’Intosh ”. “Did Pope Alexander VI Authorize England’s Colonization of North America?” “ Haaland v. Brackeen  and the Logic of Discovery” “The Contemporary Presence of Discovery’s Assertion in Canada” “Order, Economy, and Legality:  Johnson v. M’Intosh  after Two Hundred Years” “Federal Anti-Indian Law: The Legal Entrapment of Indigenous Peoples” Zotero Library Other Pieces on the topic Johnson v. M’Intosh: Overview Podcasts S02E01 - The Backstory of Johnson v. M’Intosh with Lindsay Robertson S02E02 – The International Dimensions of Johnson v. M’Intosh with Robert J. Miller S02E03 - Johnson v M’intosh and Federal Anti-Indian Law with Peter d’Errico S02E04 - The Doctrine of Discovery In The Social Psyche with Tina Ngata S02E05: Dissecting the Doctrine of Discovery: Indigenous Rights, White Supremacy, and the United Nations with Betty Lyons S04E01: Unearthing the Foundations: Examining Native American Legal Battles and the Doctrine of Discovery",
    "tags": [
      "canopy",
      "doctrine-of-discovery",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Our Canopy Forum Thematic Series 1. 200 Years of Johnson v. M'Intosh: Law, Religion, and Native American Lands 2. \"Introduction to the 200 Years of Johnson v. M'Intosh: Law, Religion, and Native American Lands Series\" 3. \"Johnson v. M'Intosh and the Missing Cover of the Jigsaw Puzzle\" 4. \"Johnson v. M'Intosh, Wi Parata v. Bishop of Wellington, and the Legacy of the Doctrine of Discovery in Aotearoa-New Zealand\" 5. \"The Legacy of the Right to Control Land and Dependency\" 6. \"The International Law of Colonialism: Johnson v. M'Intosh and the Doctrine of Discovery Applied Worldwide\" 7. \"Johnson v. M'Intosh, Plenary Power, and Our Colonial Constitution\" 8. \"However, Extravagant The Pretensions of Johnson V. M'Intosh\". 9. \"Did Pope Alexander VI Authorize England's Colonization of North America?\" 10. \"Haaland v. Brackeen and the Logic of Discovery\" 11. \"The Contemporary Presence of Discovery's Assertion in Canada\" 12. \"Order, Economy, and Legality: Johnson v. M'Intosh after Two Hundred Years\" 13. \"Federal Anti-Indian Law: The Legal Entrapment of Indigenous Peoples\" Zotero Library Other Pieces on the topic Johnson v. M’Intosh: Overview Podcasts S02E01 - The Backstory of Johnson v. M’Intosh with Lindsay Robertson S02E02 – The International Dimensions of Johnson v. M’Intosh with Robert J. Miller S02E03 - Johnson v M’intosh and Federal Anti-Indian Law with Peter d’Errico S02E04 - The Doctrine of Discovery In The Social Psyche with Tina Ngata S02E05: Dissecting the Doctrine of Discovery: Indigenous Rights, White Supremacy, and the United Nations with Betty Lyons S04E01: Unearthing the Foundations: Examining Native American Legal Battles and the Doctrine of Discovery"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/Canadian-Museum-for-Human-Rights/",
    "title": "Canadian Museum for Human Rights on the Doctrine of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2023-07-07T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "The Doctrine of Discovery is a legal and religious concept that has been used for centuries to justify Christian colonial conquest. It advanced the idea that European peoples, culture and religion were superior to all others… In the Canadian context, the Doctrine of Discovery has led to the seizure of Indigenous lands and the displacement of Indigenous peoples. As colonial settlement spread over the territory that became Canada, many Indigenous peoples entered treaty relationships defining how they would share the land with the newcomers. Influenced by the absolute claims to power and authority expressed by the Doctrine, Canadian law interpreted these agreements as surrendering title and control, despite these concepts being largely alien to Indigenous cultures. The Canadian government has also claimed title and control over unceded Indigenous lands. This was demonstrated in the 2014 Supreme Court of Canada ruling in  Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia . The ruling found that the Tsilhqot’in had indeed demonstrated their Aboriginal title to their land. This meant that they had “an exclusive right to use or occupy the land for the nation’s collective benefit.” However, the ruling also said that Aboriginal title could be defied by the Crown (either the provincial or federal governments) if it could justify such action. The racist assumption of superiority and dominance embodied in the Doctrine of Discovery underpins many aspects of Canada’s colonial history, including the Indian Act, the reserve system, the Indian residential school tragedy, and the Sixties Scoop.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "Post Formats",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "The Doctrine of Discovery is a legal and religious concept that has been used for centuries to justify Christian colonial conquest. It advanced the idea that European peoples, culture and religion were superior to all others... In the Canadian context, the Doctrine of Discovery has led to the seizure of Indigenous lands and the displacement of Indigenous peoples. As colonial settlement spread over the territory that became Canada, many Indigenous peoples entered treaty relationships defining how they would share the land with the newcomers. Influenced by the absolute claims to power and authority expressed by the Doctrine, Canadian law interpreted these agreements as surrendering title and control, despite these concepts being largely alien to Indigenous cultures. The Canadian government has also claimed title and control over unceded Indigenous lands. This was demonstrated in the 2014 Supreme Court of Canada ruling in Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia. The ruling found that the Tsilhqot'in had indeed demonstrated their Aboriginal title to their land. This meant that they had \"an exclusive right to use or occupy the land for the nation's collective benefit.\" However, the ruling also said that Aboriginal title could be defied by the Crown (either the provincial or federal governments) if it could justify such action. The racist assumption of superiority and dominance embodied in the Doctrine of Discovery underpins many aspects of Canada's colonial history, including the Indian Act, the reserve system, the Indian residential school tragedy, and the Sixties Scoop.",
    "externalUrl": "https://humanrights.ca/story/doctrine-discovery"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/GIPC/",
    "title": "Global Indigenous People’s Caucus 2024",
    "publishedAt": "2024-03-26T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Dear Relatives, We invite you to join us on the 13-14 April 2024 from 9:00 AM––3:00 PM on the Second Floor of the Church Center of the United Nations (CCUN) located at 777 United Nations Plaza, New York, NY 10017. We look forward to welcoming each of you in person. As we prepare for the upcoming twenty-third session of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues will take place in person from 15-26 April 2024. Theme: “Enhancing Indigenous Peoples’ right to self-determination in the context of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: emphasizing the voices of Indigenous youth.” This UNPFII takes place at the United Nations Headquarters in New York.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "UN",
      "UNPFII",
      "WeAreIndigenous",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Dear Relatives, We invite you to join us on the 13-14 April 2024 from 9:00 AM––3:00 PM on the Second Floor of the Church Center of the United Nations (CCUN) located at 777 United Nations Plaza, New York, NY 10017. We look forward to welcoming each of you in person. As we prepare for the upcoming twenty-third session of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues will take place in person from 15-26 April 2024. Theme: “Enhancing Indigenous Peoples’ right to self-determination in the context of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: emphasizing the voices of Indigenous youth.” This UNPFII takes place at the United Nations Headquarters in New York.",
    "externalUrl": "https://aila.ngo/global-indigenous-peoples-caucus-2024/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/GIWC/",
    "title": "Global Indigenous Women’s Caucus 2024",
    "publishedAt": "2024-03-26T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Dear Sisters, We invite you to join us on the 12 April 2024 from 9:00 AM—-3:00 PM on the Second Floor of the Church Center of the United Nations (CCUN) at 777 United Nations Plaza, New York, NY 10017. We look forward to welcoming each of you in person. As we prepare for the upcoming Twenty-Second Session of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII).  The twenty-third session of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues will take place in-person from 15-26 April 2024. Theme: “Enhancing Indigenous Peoples’ right to self-determination in the context of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: emphasizing the voices of Indigenous youth.”  The UNPFII takes place at the United Nations Headquarters in New York. Breakfast and lunch will be provided; no registration is necessary; as always, all Indigenous women are welcome. As more logistical information becomes available, it will be shared here and on the GIWG listserv. If you have questions, please email  aila@aila.ngo .",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "UN",
      "UNPFII",
      "WeAreIndigenous",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Dear Sisters, We invite you to join us on the 12 April 2024 from 9:00 AM----3:00 PM on the Second Floor of the Church Center of the United Nations (CCUN) at 777 United Nations Plaza, New York, NY 10017. We look forward to welcoming each of you in person. As we prepare for the upcoming Twenty-Second Session of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII). The twenty-third session of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues will take place in-person from 15-26 April 2024. Theme: \"Enhancing Indigenous Peoples' right to self-determination in the context of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: emphasizing the voices of Indigenous youth.\" The UNPFII takes place at the United Nations Headquarters in New York. Breakfast and lunch will be provided; no registration is necessary; as always, all Indigenous women are welcome. As more logistical information becomes available, it will be shared here and on the GIWG listserv. If you have questions, please email aila@aila.ngo.",
    "externalUrl": "https://aila.ngo/global-indigenous-womens-caucus-2024/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/Political-Principles-Indian-Sovereignty/",
    "title": "'Political Principles and Indian Sovereignty': Lee Hester's Philosophical Critique of US Anti-Indian Law",
    "publishedAt": "2024-03-02T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "The Supreme Court now avoids naming the doctrine, as if that makes the problem go away. Hester concludes that the labyrinth of “inherent and retained sovereignty under plenary power” obscures without resolving the fundamental and deepening issue: “Either Indians are or are not a part of the United States.” The question is becoming increasingly difficult to answer.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "law",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "The Supreme Court now avoids naming the doctrine, as if that makes the problem go away. Hester concludes that the labyrinth of “inherent and retained sovereignty under plenary power” obscures without resolving the fundamental and deepening issue: “Either Indians are or are not a part of the United States.” The question is becoming increasingly difficult to answer.",
    "externalUrl": "https://peterderrico.substack.com/p/political-principles-and-indian-sovereignty"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/Political-theology-discovery-and-the-roots-of-the-great-replacement/",
    "title": "Political theology, discovery and the roots of the ‘great replacement’",
    "publishedAt": "2024-05-06T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Bossen, C. (2024). Political theology, discovery and the roots of the ‘great replacement’. Race & Class, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/03063968241238601 .",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "theology",
      "discovery",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Bossen, C. (2024). Political theology, discovery and the roots of the ‘great replacement’. Race & Class, 0(0). .",
    "externalUrl": "https://doi.org/10.1177/03063968241238601"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/S03E06/",
    "title": "S03E06: Exploring the Cultural, Historical, and Culinary Significance of Chilis with Victor Valle.",
    "publishedAt": "2023-12-07T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // → Subscribe In this podcast episode, Phil Arnold and Sandy Bigtree interview Victor Valle, an author and professor, about his book  The Poetics of Fire: Metaphors of Chile Eating in the Borderlands . Valle discusses his research on the history and cultural significance of chile peppers in Mesoamerica and the borderlands. He explores the use of metaphors and poetics in understanding the culinary arts and how different cultures perceive and use chile peppers. Valle also delves into the racialization of chile peppers and the impact of industrial agriculture on their genetic diversity. He emphasizes the importance of maintaining diversity in food crops and the need to recognize and respect Indigenous knowledge and perspectives in culinary arts. Valle also shares his personal background and experiences as a journalist covering issues related to immigration and labor rights.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "Post Formats",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // → Subscribe)) In this podcast episode, Phil Arnold and Sandy Bigtree interview Victor Valle, an author and professor, about his book The Poetics of Fire: Metaphors of Chile Eating in the Borderlands. Valle discusses his research on the history and cultural significance of chile peppers in Mesoamerica and the borderlands. He explores the use of metaphors and poetics in understanding the culinary arts and how different cultures perceive and use chile peppers. Valle also delves into the racialization of chile peppers and the impact of industrial agriculture on their genetic diversity. He emphasizes the importance of maintaining diversity in food crops and the need to recognize and respect Indigenous knowledge and perspectives in culinary arts. Valle also shares his personal background and experiences as a journalist covering issues related to immigration and labor rights.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay2/s3e6/",
    "externalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/season3/episode-06/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/The-Doctrine-of-Discoverys-Disastrous-Legacy/",
    "title": "The Doctrine of Discovery's Disastrous Legacy by Antonia Malchik",
    "publishedAt": "2024-02-26T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Do you ever wonder how land comes to be privately owned? I wonder all the time. It’s the whole reason for this newsletter. I’m interested in other forms of ownership, too, but it’s land ownership that gnaws at me day in and day out. How can you wander at will, let your feet roam, if your path is constricted by roads built to serve cars on one side, and “No Trespassing” or “Private Property” signs backed by laws made to serve landowning classes on the other?",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "article",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Do you ever wonder how land comes to be privately owned? I wonder all the time. It’s the whole reason for this newsletter. I’m interested in other forms of ownership, too, but it’s land ownership that gnaws at me day in and day out. How can you wander at will, let your feet roam, if your path is constricted by roads built to serve cars on one side, and “No Trespassing” or “Private Property” signs backed by laws made to serve landowning classes on the other?",
    "externalUrl": "https://antonia.substack.com/p/the-doctrine-of-discoverys-disastrous"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/a-2005-talk-by-steven-newcomb-during-the-un-permanent-forum-on-indigenous-issues/",
    "title": "A 2005 Talk by Steven Newcomb During the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues",
    "publishedAt": "2024-02-27T05:00:00Z",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "video",
      "un",
      "blog"
    ],
    "externalUrl": "https://stevennewcomb.substack.com/p/a-2005-talk-by-steven-newcomb-during"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/act-now-protect-inidgenous-schools/",
    "title": "Honor Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Act Now to Support Indigenous Schools",
    "publishedAt": "2022-01-13T04:34:30Z",
    "description": "Fund the Onondaga Nation School Act Now to Support Indigenous Schools New York State has consistently underfunded the three schools serving Indigenous students on their own nations for decades Take Action Online Now",
    "tags": [
      "schools",
      "Indigenous",
      "Onondaga",
      "Syracuse",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Fund the Onondaga Nation School Act Now to Support Indigenous Schools New York State has consistently underfunded the three schools serving Indigenous students on their own nations for decades Take Action Online Now{: .btn .btn--danger .btn--x-large} As part of the historic treaty relationship between the Haudenosaunee and the United States, the US is responsible for providing healthcare and education to Indigenous communities. Unfortunately, these treaties have been repeatedly ignored and broken. This history includes the appalling boarding school era, where the motto, \"Kill the Indian, save the man\" was carried out across the continent. Indigenous communities survived through resilience and determination. Almost every public school building in New York New York State is owned by the School District in that community, except for three schools on Indigenous Nations – the Onondaga Nation School (Lafayette School District), the Tuscarora Nation School (Niagara Wheatfield School District) and the St. Regis Mohawk School (Salmon River School District). NYS is responsible for maintaining the buildings which house these three schools. They have been terribly underfunded for decades – leaving them with major facilities problems – crumbling brick walls, poorly functioning heating and cooling systems, dangerously degraded concrete, inadequate security and fire protection and much more. The superintendents of those districts describe them as among “the worst building conditions in NYS.” New York’s Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) plan, approved in January 2018, emphasizes fostering equity in education for all students and ensuring that all students succeed and thrive in school no matter who they are, where they live, where they go to school, or where they come from. It specifically mentions historically disadvantaged students. Neighbors of the Onondaga Nation (NOON) is joining with others across NYS in calling for Governor Cathy Hochul to include $60 million in the 2022-23 NYS Budget, $20 million for each of these three schools, plus $6 million ($2 million per school) on an annual basis for maintenance and improvements moving forward. We ask people to contact Governor Hochul during December to urge her to include this funding in her Executive budget proposal when she submits it to the legislature in January. Customize this sample letter to send to Governor Hochul. Contact Information Governor Kathy Hochul NYS State Capitol Building Albany, NY 12224 Phone 518-474-8390 TOOLS For Organizing Informational Handout - Background Information on one side and a sample letter to Governor Hochul on the back Postcard to Print - Two sided document to create 4 postcards to be sent to Governor Hochul (print two sided) Slideshow on Funding Inequity - This slideshow was created by the Superintendents of the three Indigenous Schools and includes detailed information about the problems Letter to Governor Hochul from the 3 Superintendents Article from Onondaga Nation website about the three superintendents advocating for increased funding"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/animals-doctrine-discovery/",
    "title": "Animal Nations and the Doctrine of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2023-03-03T07:54:46Z",
    "description": "Democracy: “Democracy didn’t come across on the Mayflower. Indeed not. Nor with the Niña nor Santa Maria. Certainly not. Democracy was here. It was in full flower. It was rampant. It was all over. All nations were free, and that includes the buffalo nation, that includes the fish nations and the nations of trees. They were all free.”  — Oren Lyons (Onondaga), from The Ice is Melting , 2004 .",
    "tags": [
      "law",
      "free-exercise",
      "indigenous-peoples",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Democracy: “Democracy didn’t come across on the Mayflower. Indeed not. Nor with the Niña nor Santa Maria. Certainly not. Democracy was here. It was in full flower. It was rampant. It was all over. All nations were free, and that includes the buffalo nation, that includes the fish nations and the nations of trees. They were all free.”  — Oren Lyons (Onondaga), from The Ice is Melting, 2004. All beings everywhere are sentient. For thousands of years, traditional elders have taught this to their children, to live in relationship to and have respect for the natural world. Since Europeans arrived on the shores of Turtle Island, the Western mindset of commodification and ownership, dominion and profit, have ripped apart Indigenous peoples' relationships of reciprocity with the natural world, especially with the animals. What accounts for this destruction is something buried deep down in Western civilization --- the false narrative of human exceptionalism. I used to work as an editor and reporter in the nonprofit world of animal rights. I was concerned with the plight of animals, both wild and domesticated. The more I learned ----about egg-laying hens crammed into battery cages, chimpanzees incarcerated in appalling conditions for medical research, and orcas living in captivity for human entertainment --- the more I asked myself where did this disconnection between human and nonhuman animals begin. What is the root of such heartlessness? If such suffering exists solely in pursuit of the almighty dollar, then how do we deconstruct today's industrial economy? Where do we turn? As I started working with and talking to Indigenous activists and elders, I gradually came to understand that the beaver, the wolf, and the buffalo, as well as countless other species, were Other Nations, rooted in and deeply connected to this land, and just as much victims of colonization as their human counterparts, for they, too, have been dispossessed of their homelands, massacred, their children stolen, and nearly wiped out.  The words of Osage scholar and theologian Tink Tinker helped me to see this more clearly when I heard him explain in a YouTube video why the European mindset and Indigenous thinking are so completely different. He said: \"There are no bosses in the Indian world because we are all the same.\"  Then it hit me. The \"we\" in his statement extends to all humans and beyond to include the natural world, in Native nomenclature \"all our relatives.\" In contrast to medieval Europe, here on Turtle Island there was no hierarchy, no monarchy, no fiefdoms or serfs. Indeed, there were no beasts of burden, no domestication of other animals. Instead, there existed on this land before European contact a great \"democracy of species.\" In stark contrast, so much of how we view animals in Western cultures is based on the idea that we are in charge. Humans rule. We're the boss. Everyone and everything else is less. The Great Chain of Being --- an elaborate hierarchical belief structure popularized by medieval Christianity and thought to come directly from God --- deeply influenced the mindset of early European invaders, colonists and settlers and still resides in my country's consciousness today. In January 2021, on the day the Capital building was under siege, Betty Lyons, Director of the American Indian Law Alliance and a citizen of the Onondaga Nation, wrote on social media: \"When America's forefathers patterned their Government after ours they left out two significant pieces: the voice of women and the voice of Mother Earth.\" Without a doubt, the same mindset that demeans people of color and women also sets itself above nature. America's founders were deaf to the voices of others all around them. Instead of a \"democracy of species,\" they heard only themselves. What follows is a brief lesson in the events that occurred when European Christians unloaded their domesticated animals from their ships on to the Indigenous lands of North America. The arrival of pigs, cattle, and horses --- along with their masters --- ushered in a transformation beyond belief. It all begins with the Doctrine of Discovery. \\\\ Terra Nullius: A Latin term meaning “land belonging to no one;” the refusal to recognize indigeneity; the handmaiden of colonization. Don't feel embarrassed if you've never heard of the 500-year-old racist, sexist, political doctrine issued by the Vatican that became the instrument of genocide and land theft in the Americas and around the world. It's one of the best-kept secrets in world history. Borrowing a Roman law known as \"terra nullius,\" meaning \"empty land\" or \"land without a master,\" the Doctrine of Discovery defined the non-Christian lands of the so-called \"new world\" as empty, and the millions of human beings who lived here for tens of thousands of years or longer as having no rights of title to their land, only the rights of occupancy. Understanding this top-down domination that emanates from the Doctrine of Discovery is, in part, the work of unraveling the trauma of colonization and decentering the myth of white supremacy and human exceptionalism. The colonization of the Americas, New Zealand, Australia, India and much of Africa quickly followed, along with the taking of natural resources and the enslavement of human beings for free labor. In 1823 the doctrine became legal precedent in the United States. And just in case you thought that was then and our laws don't work that way any more, the doctrine was cited as recently as 2005 by the US Supreme Court as reason to deny the Oneida Nation's attempt to regain sovereignty over lands they purchased within their historic reservation. What sort of animals did the Spanish and Portuguese bring to these \"lands without a master\"?  Cattle, sheep, horses, and pigs. All livestock. Somebody's property. Often notched on the ear or branded. No \"democracy of species,\" that's for sure. What was it like to have been one of the hundreds of animals stowed aboard the second sailing of Christopher Columbus' fleet in 1493, or to have been one of the pigs Hernando de Soto brought to Tampa Bay, Florida in 1539? Those that survived the three-month journey and found themselves rooting in the forest or grazing near soldiers' camps unwittingly caused the spread of pathogens such as anthrax, brucellosis, trichinosis, and tuberculosis to which the Indigenous populations had no immunity. The consequences of these germs---plus viruses such as smallpox and influenza--- was the single most devastating event to shape the conquest of the Americas. Estimates on deaths of Indigenous people range up to 90% of the population during the 16th century. \\\\\\ Colonus: Latin for farmer, cultivator, tiller, inhabitant. Root of the words colonization, colonial, and colonist. An illustration of the Andaman Pig. This illustration was extracted from the vintage book :  Zoological sketches Illustrations by :  Wolf, Joseph . According to European tradition, farming is the backbone of civilization. In middle and high schools across the country this is often taught as fact, when in reality, farming in many ways is the backbone of colonization, not civilization. Hardly is it ever taught that these pigs and cattle and milking cows played a far greater role in uprooting Indigenous lifeways than the colonists themselves. The English and Dutch brought cattle and pigs to settlements throughout the eastern seaboard where they let them graze freely and roam quite far. This laissez-faire approach to livestock husbandry was a source of constant disputes between the Indigenous and the colonists, often escalating into violence. To make hunting easier, Native peoples burnt lands near their towns and villages to create a fresh layer of growth that would attract deer, elk and other grazing animals, but cattle often beat the wildlife to it. Pigs especially caused havoc. They scoured through berry patches and gardens, smashed up clam beds and ate all the acorns, disrupting Native peoples' traditional food sources and contributing to food scarcity. The reason Europeans went to all the trouble of transporting and raising livestock, instead of hunting indigenous geese, deer, pheasant, elk, rabbit, etc. in the \"new world,\" goes much deeper than dietary preferences. It was a lot of hard work. So much work that Native people resisted becoming farmers despite their colonist neighbors encouraging them to do so. Why should they raise livestock and grow vegetables in rows of tilled fields when they had already developed far easier ways of gathering, planting, harvesting and hunting?  For the colonists, ownership of their pigs and cattle was a way of demonstrating their perceived superiority over Indigenous ways of life. Dominion over the animals was something they considered natural and divinely sanctioned. Owning animals was a sign of wealth and status, a criteria for being civilized, no matter how much abuse the owners meted out to the animals under their control. The more farmed animals a wealthy English male landowner had, and the fatter they were, the higher his status. Milking dairy cows was considered proper women's work, while men tilled the soil and tended the livestock. Native men, whose traditional roles were hunters, and Native women, whose traditional roles included gardening, didn't fit the mold colonists desired. Cattle and pigs literally preceded the colonists' taking of Indigenous lands and played a far greater role in forcing Indians off their lands than is commonly acknowledged. No one knew this better than Thomas Jefferson. In 1803, as President of the United States, he secretly wrote a letter to Congress requesting $2,500 to fund an exploratory trip deep into Indigenous lands throughout the Great Plains and the Pacific Northwest, an expedition that would come to be know as the Corp of Discovery journey led by Lewis and Clark. Jefferson knew that Native nations in these territories were highly unlikely to enter into treaty relationships or consent to the sale of their lands. He also understood the advantageous role that livestock farming played in tearing Native peoples away from their lands and away from the animals that sustained them. Here is an excerpt from that letter in which he urged Congress to see the foresight of encouraging Native peoples to: \"... abandon hunting, to apply to the raising stock, to agriculture and domestic manufacture, and thereby prove to themselves that less land and labor will maintain them in this, better than in their former mode of living. The extensive forests necessary in the hunting life, will then become useless, and they will see advantage in exchanging them for the means of improving their farms, and of increasing their domestic comforts.\" Both then and now, livestock farming pushes everything in its way aside, leaving no room for forests, fish, or wildlife, and in the last two centuries, creating dead zones at sea, polluting rivers and emitting greens gas emissions. What follows next are brief histories of animal species indigenous to America, telling how their ties with Native Americans have been severed and in many cases how these bonds are being restored. \\\\\\ Mitakue Oyasin: A Lakota prayer meaning “we are all related.” This includes the winged, the finned, the two-legged, the four-legged, the plant nations, and the crawling beings. Some of the species that Indigenous cultures feel the closest kinship with and hold most sacred are the same ones Western science defines as keystone species. Like the name implies, these species play an outsized role in maintaining the health of ecosystems. The Gwich'in of the Arctic are deeply connected to caribou. To the Plains Indians, it is the buffalo. The Tlingit, Chinook, Haida and many more Pacific Northwest tribal nations have such strong bonds with salmon they call themselves, and the fish, Salmon People. According to many Native traditions, if these sacred relationships are destroyed, the world falls out of balance. Perhaps that's where we are now --- living in a world that has fallen seriously out of balance. Beaver Antique Animal Illustration Of Beaver In The Public Domain. This illustration was extracted from the vintage book :  Types du règne animal. Buffon en estampes . Illustrations by :  Traviés, Edouard Beaver were among the first to be killed for the profits made from the sale of their fur when trappers from France and England arrived on Turtle Island. Other animals included fox, marten, mink and otter, but especially beavers. To the Native Americans, their skins were currency, worth beads, metal pots, fabrics, guns and ammunition. To the French and English trappers, their skins were highly valued as the raw material required to make fashionable felt hats popular throughout Europe and western Russia. Influenced by the insatiable market for beaver skins, European trappers kept moving west to find and kill more beavers. The beaver's story is a difficult one. It is often told to highlight how Native people were complicit in the outright commodification of animals. But it's not that simple. Indigenous Traditional Knowledge instructed generations of hunters to take only what they needed, to behave respectfully so not to offend the animal's spirit, and to share the animal's gifts in a respectful manner with human and non-human beings. However, a multitude of factors conspired against them over the initial course of colonization fostering their dependence on manufactured goods, including alcohol. The transition away from traditional lifeways rocked Indigenous communities to their core. By the beginning of the 20th century, 40 to 60 million beaver were dead and long-held traditions lost. Today, the beaver is making a comeback. As a keystone species beaver create freshwater wetlands, improve water quality and salmon habitat, and mitigate the effects of drought and flooding. The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Tulalip Tribe, the Cowlitz Indian Tribe, and the Yurok Tribe are all currently working to restore beaver populations. Tribal members recognize these sites as \"sacred centers,\" their ancestors' name for the beavers' home, because it is a place where fish, heron, turtles, otters, frogs, insects, owls, and ducks all live together, restoring balance to the world. Sturgeon This illustration was extracted from the vintage book:  A history of the fishes of the British islands.  Illustrations by:  Couch, Jonathan . Sturgeon have been here long before the dinosaurs. They have proven their resilience for hundreds of millions of years thriving within their water territories. Native legends \"tell of rivers so full of sturgeon that a person could walk across the water on the backs of the fish.\" To the Menominee, Ojibwe, Potawatomi and other Native peoples the sturgeon ensured they would survive another year, as fishermen caught them swimming to their birthplace to spawn every spring. These massive fish, weighing 400 to 800 pounds, and known to live well over 100 years are credited for having saved the colonists who arrived in Jamestown in 1609 from starvation that winter season. From early colonial history to today, the sacred ties between sturgeon and Native people have been broken. To white fishermen who were after trout, herring and whitefish, the sturgeon were pests, a \"trash fish\" whose barbels and bony plates ripped through their nets. So they slaughtered them. In the 19th century, tens of thousands were killed by commercial fishermen. Their dried but oily carcasses were stacked like logs of firewood along the shores to be later used for fuel on steamships. When the lucrative business of selling sturgeon roe as caviar took off in the late 1800s, it wasn't long before populations of this ancient fish were in catastrophic decline. Today, all 26 species are slipping towards extinction due to pollution, dams, overfishing, and habitat loss. California Condor A condor flying over the water. Photo by Jeffrey Eisen on Unsplash With a wingspan of over 9 feet, condors fly the highest of all birds and for this reason the Yurok see them as spiritual beings and entrust them to carry their prayers to the Creator. \"Condors are necessary for our world be be whole\" said Tiana Williams-Clausen, tribal member of the Yurok Nation and Director of the Yurok Tribe Wildlife Department. Her work raising and releasing condors bridges Western science and Traditional Indigenous Knowledge in remarkable ways. \"A lot of the things that impacted them, also impacted us as tribal people,\" she said at a recent wildlife conference and went on to explain their similar fates: loss of homeland, massacres, loss of large mammals such as deer, bear, elk, and whales. Even exposure to toxins such as lead in bullets, poison, and the insecticide DDT parallels the Yurok peoples struggles with alcohol, drug addiction, and disease, she added. Settlers in search of gold first rushed into Yurok territory around 1849. Logging followed, devastating the forests. Miners committed massacres that were genocidal in scale. Missionaries and government agencies forced Yurok children into residential boarding schools. During this war of extermination, both Yurok and condors were close to being eliminated. In 1910 the Yurok population was under 700. Today, they are the largest tribe in California with more than 5,500 members. In 1982 only 22 condors were left. Today, their population is 537 with more than half living in the wild. Buffalo American Bison (Bos Americanus) from the viviparous quadrupeds of North America (1845) illustrated by John Woodhouse via NYPL . When the US cavalry could not defeat the Plains Indians in battle, they came back to attack their relative, the buffalo. The horror that happened next came out of the greed of market hunters funded in large part by the US federal government. In the late 19th-century, over a period of three decades, buffalo populations in the United States plummeted. After they were shot and killed, their bodies were striped of their fur and their tongues cut out, leaving the rest to rot and stink on the prairie lands. \"Every buffalo dead is an Indian gone.\" The windigo words of Colonel Richard Dodge, 1867. In 1884 only a few hundred remained, finding refuge in Yellowstone National Park. Once as many as 60 million roamed across North America. Today, the last pure wild buffalo herd in the United States numbers around 5,000 individuals that reside in Yellowstone National Park. The rest, approximately 500,000, are raised as livestock and have been crossbred with cattle in unsuccessful attempts to create a hardier cow. Like cattle, they will spend their last days in feedlots. In his book American Serengeti, the environmental historian Dan Flores shared a story told to him several years ago by Fred Dubray (Cheyenne River Sioux), one of the founders of the Intertribal Bison Cooperative. Dubray said when the cooperative was just getting started some people got together to discuss ideas about how to bring buffalo back to reservations. A Lakota elder, a woman, quietly spoke up and said, \"Best you ask the buffalo if they want to come back.\" So they held a ceremony and did just that. What did the buffalo say? \"They said they wanted to come back,\" Dubray told Flores, \"but ...they didn't want to come back and be cows. They said they wanted to be buffalo. They wanted to be wild again.\" Throughout Indian Country, in growing numbers, buffalo are heading home renewing old bonds --- Wind River Reservation in Wyoming, Blackfeet Indian Reservation in Montana, Rosebud Reservation in South Dakota, Fort Peck Reservation in Montana, and more. \\\\\\ Justice: “We seek justice, not just for ourselves, but justice for the whole creation.” — Audrey Shenandoah (Onondaga) In 2001, I had the honor of working with environmental activist and Lakota language teacher Rosalie Little Thunder (Sicangu Lakota) as we fought together to try to close down one of the world's largest hog factories being built on sacred Lakota lands in South Dakota. With Rosalie as my guide, I visited Rosebud Sioux Reservation just as Bell Farms was trying to get an enormous hog confinement facility built as fast as possible, pushing the deal through without a complete Environmental Impact Statement. More than 98 percent of farmed pigs in the United States are raised in overcrowded warehouse-sized buildings called CAFOs (confined animal feeding operations), where piglets mature into adults without ever seeing the outdoors and enormous quantities of water flush the manures away into so-called \"lagoons.\" This was what Bell Farms was forcing on Indian Country, adhering to a form of capitalist economics that calculates the pollution of the land, the water, and the endless suffering of animals as inconsequential compared to the mass production of pork for profit. We were seeking justice not just for the Lakota, but for the whole creation: the land, the water, and the pigs. It took five years to stop the construction of Bell Farms. Rosalie knew we were up against formidable forces. She had been up against them before. Years earlier she co-founded an organization called Buffalo Field Campaign, one of the few groups working to stop the annual slaughter of Yellowstone National Park buffalo for committing the crime of grazing beyond the park's boundaries. She wanted these last wild buffalo not to disappear, and for Native peoples to have more agency in their fate. Stories of decolonization take many forms. Recognizing the dignity of animals is a part of the narrative that's often missing. As we worked together, Rosalie told me how the buffalo fertilize the soil with their droppings, carry seeds in their coats over long distances, and don't stay long enough in any one place to cause damage. They break trails in the winter snow and ice, later to be traversed by elk, deer, coyote and other smaller species, and she said, all the predators benefit---the wolf, the grizzly, birds of prey---when a buffalo dies. \"When we see how the buffalo functions in its ecosystem, we hold it to be sacred,\" she explained. The more she spoke, the more I began to grasp the huge cultural divide between the domesticated pig trapped in industrial agriculture and the wild buffalo, struggling to stay free. Healing these broken bonds requires the will of strong hearts. Such ways are not new. They come from a long time ago when the land had no bosses. Only relatives. When each act of restoration is an act of decolonization, it contributes to breaking down a 500-year-old edict that nearly succeeded in destroying the wisdom of the world.   “Sometimes our truth makes others uncomfortable. But it’s never ok to make anyone feel less than because of it. Nobody is higher or better than anyone else.” — Issac Murdoch, Ojibwe First Nations artist and educator Copyright Notice © 2023 Tracy Basile Biography Tracy Basile is writing a book about the lives of animals in American history. Her articles have been published in The Village Voice, Orion Afield, ASPCA Animal Watch, and more. She teaches writing at Saint Thomas Aquinas College and lives in Lenapehoking in the Hudson Valley of New York."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/april-christian-domination/",
    "title": "Continuing Christian Domination: A Response To The Vatican’s Repudiation Of The Doctrine Of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2023-04-06T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "When the Vatican finally comes to the realization it is mired in the genocidal mud of centuries of racist exploitation of Indigenous peoples around the world, a step towards acknowledging the need for reconciliation is welcome. The  statement by the Vatican  repudiating the Doctrine of Discovery, issued March 30th, is important and is representative of decades of work by Indigenous and non-Indigenous activists who have fought an often-lonely battle across the globe to bring attention to the racist underpinnings that still define so much of the legal mechanisms used to deny Indigenous peoples their rightful standing among the nations of the world.",
    "tags": [
      "law",
      "religion",
      "Christianity",
      "Catholic",
      "Vatican",
      "featured",
      "joint-statement-responses",
      "responses",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "When the Vatican finally comes to the realization it is mired in the genocidal mud of centuries of racist exploitation of Indigenous peoples around the world, a step towards acknowledging the need for reconciliation is welcome. The statement by the Vatican repudiating the Doctrine of Discovery, issued March 30th, is important and is representative of decades of work by Indigenous and non-Indigenous activists who have fought an often-lonely battle across the globe to bring attention to the racist underpinnings that still define so much of the legal mechanisms used to deny Indigenous peoples their rightful standing among the nations of the world.",
    "externalUrl": "https://www.aprilonline.org/continuing-christian-domination/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/bigtree-arnold-religions-origins-white-supremacy/",
    "title": "Sandy Bigtree & Philip Arnold - The Religious Origins of White Supremacy",
    "publishedAt": "2024-05-09T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Sandy Bigtree & Philip Arnold - The Religious Origins of White Supremacy Today’s discussion is one of profound importance, and I am honored to speak with my guests. Sandy Bigtree is a citizen of the Mohawk Nation at Akwesasne. She was a founding board member of the American Indian Law Alliance, and a founding board member of the Indigenous Values Initiative. Sandy was also an original Planning Committee member of the Skä•noñh: Great Law of Peace Center and currently sits on the Educational Collaborative committee. Sandy’s husband is Dr. Philip P. Arnold. Phil serves as President of the Indigenous Values Initiative. He is an associate Professor of Religion at Syracuse University, and he is the Founding Director of the Skä·noñh—Great Law of Peace Center, which is a Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Cultural Center focused on telling the story of the native peoples of central New York. In this episode, we explore the religious origins of white supremacy; the Haudenosaunee Confederacy and its impact on Western democracy, women’s rights, and environmental justice; and the Skä·noñh—Great Law of Peace Center. RESOURCES MENTIONED: https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/ https://indigenousvalues.org/ https://doctrineofdiscovery.org/ https://press.syr.edu/supressbooks/5835/urgency-of-indigenous-values-the/ https://www.skanonhcenter.org/ https://aila.ngo/ Subscribe to the audio-only version here: https://www.divorcing-religion.com/religious-trauma-podcast Follow Janice and the Conference on Religious Trauma on Social Media: Mastodon: JaniceSelbie@mas.to Threads: Wisecounsellor@threads.net Twitter: @divorcereligion Twitter: @wisecounsellor Twitter: @cometocort Facebook: @divorcingreligion TikTok: @janiceselbie Instagram: @wisecounsellor The Divorcing Religion Podcast is for entertainment purposes only. If you need help with your mental health, please consult a qualified, secular, mental health clinician. Podcast by Porthos Media, Copyright © 2024 www.porthosmedia.net",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "podcast",
      "videocast",
      "video",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Sandy Bigtree & Philip Arnold - The Religious Origins of White Supremacy Today’s discussion is one of profound importance, and I am honored to speak with my guests. Sandy Bigtree is a citizen of the Mohawk Nation at Akwesasne. She was a founding board member of the American Indian Law Alliance, and a founding board member of the Indigenous Values Initiative. Sandy was also an original Planning Committee member of the Skä•noñh: Great Law of Peace Center and currently sits on the Educational Collaborative committee. Sandy’s husband is Dr. Philip P. Arnold. Phil serves as President of the Indigenous Values Initiative. He is an associate Professor of Religion at Syracuse University, and he is the Founding Director of the Skä·noñh—Great Law of Peace Center, which is a Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Cultural Center focused on telling the story of the native peoples of central New York. In this episode, we explore the religious origins of white supremacy; the Haudenosaunee Confederacy and its impact on Western democracy, women’s rights, and environmental justice; and the Skä·noñh—Great Law of Peace Center. RESOURCES MENTIONED: Subscribe to the audio-only version here: https://www.divorcing-religion.com/religious-trauma-podcast Follow Janice and the Conference on Religious Trauma on Social Media: Mastodon: JaniceSelbie@mas.to Threads: Wisecounsellor@threads.net Twitter: @divorcereligion Twitter: @wisecounsellor Twitter: @cometocort Facebook: @divorcingreligion TikTok: @janiceselbie Instagram: @wisecounsellor The Divorcing Religion Podcast is for entertainment purposes only. If you need help with your mental health, please consult a qualified, secular, mental health clinician. Podcast by Porthos Media, Copyright © 2024 www.porthosmedia.net",
    "externalUrl": "https://youtu.be/AC1MU0RkuiE?si=ALEOI-WiWH6jOInu"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/call-for-authors-doctrine-of-discovery/",
    "title": "Call for Authors on the Doctrine of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2022-08-10T18:54:46Z",
    "description": "We are now accepting applications for partnership and collaboration with The Doctrine of Discovery Project.",
    "tags": [
      "call-for-authors",
      "doctrine-discovery",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "We are now accepting applications for partnership and collaboration with The Doctrine of Discovery Project. We are interested in publishing original essays roughly 1,000-3,000 words in length for doctrineofdiscovery.org. Applicants must have specific knowledge pertaining to Indigenous Peoples issues and/or graduate level training in religious studies, law, humanities, social sciences, or ecology. This partnership is open to faculty, independent scholars, graduate students and Haudenosaunee and Indigenous knowledge sharers. Stipends are available. Interested authors should submit a 150-300 word abstract, a 150–300 word biography, your resume/cv (if available), and a sample of a previous published article no later than September 30, 2022. The goal of this partnership is to support and amplify Indigenous voices pertaining to the Doctrine of Discovery, so priority will be given to Indigenous Peoples working in this area. Each essay should be geared towards an interested and engaged public and undergraduate audience. Our first high-priority interest is in the following core topics: 200 Years of Johnson v. M’Intosh (JvM): Indigenous Responses to the Religious Foundations of Racism The Doctrine of Discovery and Law The religious dimensions of the Doctrine of Discovery The Doctrine of Discovery as a global phenomenon (international) The environmental impact of the Doctrine of Discovery Doctrine of Discovery and Indian Boarding/Residential Schools And other Doctrine of Discovery related topics. Authors will be notified whether their proposals are accepted by October 1, 2022. First drafts or full essays are due by December 1, 2022, and final versions are due January 15, 2022. All authors must note their educational and social background in their biographies. Only original previously unpublished works will be considered. Authors implicitly agree to the terms of our Creative Commons License. We seek to amplify and prioritize submissions from Indigenous Peoples of Turtle Island/Abya Yala. We also interested in an international range of scholarly contributions. About the Project The Doctrine of Discovery Project (doctrineofdiscovery.org) is a collaborative interdisciplinary open educational resource designed for use in higher education. It is being funded by the Henry Luce Foundation Grant, “200 Years of Johnson v. McIntosh: Indigenous Responses to the Religious Foundations of Racism,” for 3 years (2022-24). About the Principal Investigator Prof. Philip P. Arnold (Religion, Syracuse University) has been writing and working on Indigenous issues for over 30 years. With Sandy Bigtree (Akwesasne Mohawk Nation), they founded the not-for-profit Indigenous Values Initiative where they launched the Doctrine of Discovery Project site in 2009-2010. To learn more see: “Examining the History and Consequences of the Doctrine of Christian Discovery.” Apply Now{: .btn .btn--primary .btn--x-large}"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/canopy-series-abstract/",
    "title": "200 Years of Johnson v. M’Intosh: Law, Religion, and Native American Lands",
    "publishedAt": "2023-03-10T09:54:46Z",
    "description": "A Canopy Forum Thematic Series March – April 2023 Produced through a partnership between  Canopy Forum , the Indigenous Values Initiative (IVI), and Syracuse University, this series of essays brings together religion scholars, legal scholars, and Indigenous activists to explore the problematic legacy of  Johnson v. M’Intosh  (1823) and the 15 th  century Doctrine of (Christian) Discovery – a legal and religious rationale by which European powers claimed the right to discover and claim lands inhabited by non-Christian peoples. Focusing primarily on the 19 th  through the 21 st  centuries, these essays illustrate how  Johnson  and the Doctrine of Christian Discovery have global import to  Turtle Island  (especially the United States and Canada) and  Aotearoa  (New Zealand). ",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "Canopy",
      "Johnson",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "A Canopy Forum Thematic Series March – April 2023 Produced through a partnership between Canopy Forum, the Indigenous Values Initiative (IVI), and Syracuse University, this series of essays brings together religion scholars, legal scholars, and Indigenous activists to explore the problematic legacy of Johnson v. M'Intosh (1823) and the 15 th  century Doctrine of (Christian) Discovery -- a legal and religious rationale by which European powers claimed the right to discover and claim lands inhabited by non-Christian peoples. Focusing primarily on the 19 th  through the 21 st  centuries, these essays illustrate how Johnson and the Doctrine of Christian Discovery have global import to Turtle Island) (especially the United States and Canada) and Aotearoa (New Zealand).  Grounding this conversation in the Two Row Wampum method, the editors of this series have worked to include both Indigenous and non-Indigenous voices so we can journey side by side without violating the waters down the river of life. We recognize the urgency and need for more inclusion of indigenous voices to reaffirm our proper relationship with the natural world in the staid disciplines of religion, law, history, anthropology, and cultural studies. We hope this series inspires generative conversations around Johnson and the Doctrine of Christian Discovery.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/canopy/essay1/abstract/",
    "externalUrl": "https://canopyforum.org/200-years-of-johnson-v-mintosh-law-religion-and-native-american-lands/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/canopy-series-bishop-wellington/",
    "title": "Johnson v. M’Intosh, Wi Parata v. Bishop of Wellington, and the Legacy of the Doctrine of Discovery in Aotearoa-New Zealand",
    "publishedAt": "2023-04-12T01:54:46Z",
    "description": "The presentation of the settlements process as a means for settling the grievances caused by violations of Te Tiriti o Waitangi has more problematic repercussions as well. The Treaty of Waitangi Act, which established the settlements process, limits both the scope and enforceability of possible reparations. For example, the tribunal cannot recommend the return of private land, even when that land has been proven to have been unjustly confiscated by the Crown in the first instance. Further, the settlement process has been described by many who have undergone it as a deeply harmful and traumatizing process, due to the pressure placed upon the process by the Crown, the fact that the tribunal recommendations are not enforceable, and the Crown’s self-appointment as the ultimate authority over claims of its own malfeasance. This inhibits the Crown’s ability to adequately identify and address colonial racism towards Maori. Accordingly, even though the tribunal itself performs an important function as a truth forum for colonial injustice, the settlement process itself continues to protect the power and privilege ascribed through the doctrine of discovery and to limit state accountability to the violations carried out through its application, including judicial attempts to limit the impact of  Johnson v. M’intosh  in Aotearoa-New Zealand.",
    "tags": [
      "Canopy",
      "Johnson",
      "law",
      "link",
      "religion",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "The presentation of the settlements process as a means for settling the grievances caused by violations of Te Tiriti o Waitangi has more problematic repercussions as well. The Treaty of Waitangi Act, which established the settlements process, limits both the scope and enforceability of possible reparations. For example, the tribunal cannot recommend the return of private land, even when that land has been proven to have been unjustly confiscated by the Crown in the first instance. Further, the settlement process has been described by many who have undergone it as a deeply harmful and traumatizing process, due to the pressure placed upon the process by the Crown, the fact that the tribunal recommendations are not enforceable, and the Crown's self-appointment as the ultimate authority over claims of its own malfeasance. This inhibits the Crown's ability to adequately identify and address colonial racism towards Maori. Accordingly, even though the tribunal itself performs an important function as a truth forum for colonial injustice, the settlement process itself continues to protect the power and privilege ascribed through the doctrine of discovery and to limit state accountability to the violations carried out through its application, including judicial attempts to limit the impact of Johnson v. M'intosh in Aotearoa-New Zealand.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/canopy/essay2/johnson-v-mintosh-wi-parata-v-bishop-of-wellington-and-the-legacy-of-the-doctrine-of-discovery-in-aotearoa-new-zealand/",
    "externalUrl": "https://canopyforum.org/2023/04/11/johnson-v-mintosh-wi-parata-v-bishop-of-wellington-and-the-legacy-of-the-doctrine-of-discovery-in-aotearoa-new-zealand/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/canopy-series-brackeen/",
    "title": "Haaland v. Brackeen and the Logic of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2023-03-18T01:54:46Z",
    "description": "In this light, I fear that the  Brackeen  lawsuit is the first in a row of dominoes — if the Court strikes down ICWA, everything else could soon go with it.” So is  Brackeen  a case about race or about sovereignty? A reading through the lens of  Johnson v. M’Intosh  suggests that it is about both.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "Canopy",
      "Johnson",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "In this light, I fear that the Brackeen lawsuit is the first in a row of dominoes --- if the Court strikes down ICWA, everything else could soon go with it.\" So is Brackeen a case about race or about sovereignty? A reading through the lens of Johnson v. M'Intosh suggests that it is about both.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/canopy/essay2/halland-v-braken/",
    "externalUrl": "https://canopyforum.org/2023/03/18/haaland-v-brackeen-and-the-logic-of-discovery/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/canopy-series-canada/",
    "title": "The Contemporary Presence of Discovery’s Assertion in Canada",
    "publishedAt": "2023-03-11T01:54:46Z",
    "description": "One of the striking features of chief justice John Marshall’s articulation of the Doctrine of Discovery is the assertion that Indigenous sovereignty and rights were necessarily diminished and impaired. This was necessary because, to paraphrase Marshall, the act of discovery gave exclusive title to the discoverer. It wouldn’t take too long before countries also determined that discovery alone wasn’t enough — one had to occupy what was discovered. It was essential that people live on and farm that claimed land. The logical inference from Marshall’s observation about discovery was that European monarchs asserted that they alone had ultimate dominion over the lands their subjects had discovered. While it will be seen that progress has been made by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC), this assertion of sovereignty has become the centerpiece of Canadian law dealing with and determining Indigenous rights. The assertion of sovereignty has made it difficult for settler law makers and settler law interpreters to see treaties as a nation-to-nation activity. The effect of this assertion has imposed a forced submission. The Court identifies its purpose in cases involving Indigenous rights, and the interpretation of treaties, to reconcile Indigenous sovereignty and rights with the assertion of Crown sovereignty.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "Canopy",
      "Johnson",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "One of the striking features of chief justice John Marshall’s articulation of the Doctrine of Discovery is the assertion that Indigenous sovereignty and rights were necessarily diminished and impaired. This was necessary because, to paraphrase Marshall, the act of discovery gave exclusive title to the discoverer. It wouldn’t take too long before countries also determined that discovery alone wasn’t enough — one had to occupy what was discovered. It was essential that people live on and farm that claimed land. The logical inference from Marshall’s observation about discovery was that European monarchs asserted that they alone had ultimate dominion over the lands their subjects had discovered. While it will be seen that progress has been made by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC), this assertion of sovereignty has become the centerpiece of Canadian law dealing with and determining Indigenous rights. The assertion of sovereignty has made it difficult for settler law makers and settler law interpreters to see treaties as a nation-to-nation activity. The effect of this assertion has imposed a forced submission. The Court identifies its purpose in cases involving Indigenous rights, and the interpretation of treaties, to reconcile Indigenous sovereignty and rights with the assertion of Crown sovereignty.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/canopy/essay2/content-temporary/",
    "externalUrl": "https://canopyforum.org/2023/03/14/the-contemporary-presence-of-discoverys-assertion-in-canada/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/canopy-series-colonial-constitution/",
    "title": "Johnson v. M’Intosh, Plenary Power, and Our Colonial Constitution",
    "publishedAt": "2023-03-29T01:54:46Z",
    "description": "Johnson v. M’Intosh  was a land dispute, where multiple parties brought competing claims of title. Marshall boiled the case down to one question: can an Indian sell their land to a settler? Of course, this question begot another: can Indians own land at all? To answer these questions, Marshall recounted a story of colonization.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "Canopy",
      "Johnson",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Johnson v. M'Intosh was a land dispute, where multiple parties brought competing claims of title. Marshall boiled the case down to one question: can an Indian sell their land to a settler? Of course, this question begot another: can Indians own land at all? To answer these questions, Marshall recounted a story of colonization.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/canopy/essay2/plenary-power/",
    "externalUrl": "https://canopyforum.org/2023/03/29/johnson-v-mintosh-plenary-power-and-our-colonial-constitution/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/canopy-series-extravagant/",
    "title": "However, Extravagant The Pretensions Of Johnson V. M’Intosh by Betty Lyons and Adam DJ Brett",
    "publishedAt": "2023-03-24T01:54:46Z",
    "description": "”[Tonya] Gonella Frichner, Robert Williams, Jr., Joseph J. Heath, and Peter P. d’Errico have sounded a clarion call for the rescinding and repudiating of the Doctrine of Discovery and Johnson v. M’Intosh everywhere. Law professor Blake Watson calls Williams’s account a “criminal indict” that “presents evidence of the western world’s ‘discourse of conquest,’ and that is not an understatement.” Likewise, Heath is no less direct when he calls for the removal of the Doctrine of Discovery, and by extension Johnson, arguing that “with that ‘moral’ cover removed, we can then move on to building pressure on the United States government and institutions to admit that this racist doctrine has no place in a true democracy.” Heath, as the General Counsel of Onondaga Nation, understands well the Haudenosaunee influence on democracy and that the Haudenosaunee democratic principles present a compelling and powerful alternative to what d’Errico emphatically underscores as “Federal Anti-Indian Law.”",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "Canopy",
      "Johnson",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"\\[Tonya\\] Gonella Frichner, Robert Williams, Jr., Joseph J. Heath, and Peter P. d’Errico have sounded a clarion call for the rescinding and repudiating of the Doctrine of Discovery and Johnson v. M’Intosh everywhere. Law professor Blake Watson calls Williams’s account a “criminal indict” that “presents evidence of the western world’s ‘discourse of conquest,’ and that is not an understatement.” Likewise, Heath is no less direct when he calls for the removal of the Doctrine of Discovery, and by extension Johnson, arguing that “with that ‘moral’ cover removed, we can then move on to building pressure on the United States government and institutions to admit that this racist doctrine has no place in a true democracy.” Heath, as the General Counsel of Onondaga Nation, understands well the Haudenosaunee influence on democracy and that the Haudenosaunee democratic principles present a compelling and powerful alternative to what d’Errico emphatically underscores as “Federal Anti-Indian Law.”",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/canopy/essay2/extravagant/",
    "externalUrl": "https://canopyforum.org/2023/03/23/however-extravagant-the-pretensions-of-johnson-v-mintosh/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/canopy-series-federal-anti-indian-law/",
    "title": "Federal Anti-Indian Law: The Legal Entrapment of Indigenous Peoples by Peter d’Errico",
    "publishedAt": "2023-03-10T13:54:46Z",
    "description": "Chief Justice Marshall constructed federal anti-Indian law in three early nineteenth-century cases. First came  Johnson v. McIntosh  (1823), a property law decision declaring that Native peoples did not own their lands after they had been “discovered” by Christian colonists. The second was  Cherokee Nation v. State of Georgia  (1831), which stated that Native nations were not independent of the United States and Native peoples were subject to U.S. “guardianship.” The third,  Worcester v. State of Georgia  (1832), declared “U.S. ultimate dominion” over all Native peoples and lands.  As the legal historian Paul Finkelman explained, “Marshall’s years on the court . . . coincided with a relentless push to remove Indians from the eastern part of the United States. Thomas Jefferson developed the idea of Indian removal. Under James Madison and James Monroe, the nation’s policy of war and removal devastated the southeastern Indians. President Andrew Jackson continued these policies. Marshall’s decisions in  Johnson and Graham’s Lessee v. M’Intosh , . . .  Cherokee Nation v. Georgia , . . . and  Worcester v. Georgia  . . . provided the legal basis for taking all land from Indians.”",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "Canopy",
      "Johnson",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Chief Justice Marshall constructed federal anti-Indian law in three early nineteenth-century cases. First came Johnson v. McIntosh (1823), a property law decision declaring that Native peoples did not own their lands after they had been \"discovered\" by Christian colonists. The second was Cherokee Nation v. State of Georgia (1831), which stated that Native nations were not independent of the United States and Native peoples were subject to U.S. \"guardianship.\" The third, Worcester v. State of Georgia (1832), declared \"U.S. ultimate dominion\" over all Native peoples and lands.  As the legal historian Paul Finkelman explained, \"Marshall's years on the court . . . coincided with a relentless push to remove Indians from the eastern part of the United States. Thomas Jefferson developed the idea of Indian removal. Under James Madison and James Monroe, the nation's policy of war and removal devastated the southeastern Indians. President Andrew Jackson continued these policies. Marshall's decisions in Johnson and Graham's Lessee v. M'Intosh, . . . Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, . . . and Worcester v. Georgia . . . provided the legal basis for taking all land from Indians.\"",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/canopy/essay2/federal/",
    "externalUrl": "https://canopyforum.org/2023/03/07/federal-anti-indian-law-the-legal-entrapment-of-indigenous-peoples/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/canopy-series-international-law/",
    "title": "Robert J. Miller, The International Law of Colonialism: Johnson v. M’Intosh and the Doctrine of Discovery Applied Worldwide",
    "publishedAt": "2023-03-30T01:54:46Z",
    "description": "This international law, called the Doctrine of Discovery today, is made up of  ten distinct elements . Common law courts dissect crimes and torts into their underlying elements; my co-authors and I have used a similar form of analysis to examine the Doctrine and its legacy. In various books and articles, we have used these factors to compare  how England applied  the Doctrine and its elements in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States, how Portugal used the Doctrine to colonize  Brazil , how Spain used that international law to colonize  Chile , and how England and Germany used the Doctrine and its elements to  colonize East Africa . President Thomas Jefferson also used the elements of this international law and the Lewis & Clark expedition in 1803-06 to strengthen the United States’ claim to the Pacific Northwest. I have also argued that the Doctrine laid the groundwork for American Manifest Destiny. Consequently, the Doctrine of Discovery has played major roles in the colonization of many countries around the world and is omnipresent in the modern-day laws, policies, and cultures of settler colonial countries and societies.",
    "tags": [
      "Canopy",
      "Johnson",
      "law",
      "link",
      "religion",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "This international law, called the Doctrine of Discovery today, is made up of ten distinct elements. Common law courts dissect crimes and torts into their underlying elements; my co-authors and I have used a similar form of analysis to examine the Doctrine and its legacy. In various books and articles, we have used these factors to compare how England applied the Doctrine and its elements in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States, how Portugal used the Doctrine to colonize Brazil, how Spain used that international law to colonize Chile, and how England and Germany used the Doctrine and its elements to colonize East Africa. President Thomas Jefferson also used the elements of this international law and the Lewis & Clark expedition in 1803-06 to strengthen the United States' claim to the Pacific Northwest. I have also argued that the Doctrine laid the groundwork for American Manifest Destiny. Consequently, the Doctrine of Discovery has played major roles in the colonization of many countries around the world and is omnipresent in the modern-day laws, policies, and cultures of settler colonial countries and societies.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/canopy/essay2/colonialism/",
    "externalUrl": "https://canopyforum.org/2023/03/30/the-international-law-of-colonialism-johnson-v-mintosh-and-the-doctrine-of-discovery-applied-worldwide/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/canopy-series-introduction/",
    "title": "Introduction to 200 Years of Johnson v. M’Intosh: Law, Religion, and Native American Lands",
    "publishedAt": "2023-03-10T11:54:46Z",
    "description": "In 1823, Chief Justice John Marshall based the supposed right of colonizing forces to dominate and take ownership of the land on what he viewed as the natural order of conquest. To justify this “ pretension ,” he wove together theological and legal justifications for land theft. Marshall’s creation would go on to shape not only U.S. property law but also international property law, as  Tonya Gonnella Frichner  and  Robert J Miller  underscore. The Doctrine of Discovery, and the 15 th -century Papal Bulls that influenced Marshall remain relevant today. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg famously cited the Doctrine of Discovery in a footnote to her 2005 majority opinion in the  City of Sherrill, New York v. Oneida Indian Nation . As  Joseph J. Heath  and  Dana Lloyd  explain,  Sherrill continues to have a massive impact on Indigenous sovereignty. It is a significant factor in multinational corporations’ extractive enterprises on Indigenous lands. As Steven Newcomb’s contribution to this series highlights, the framework of domination on which the Doctrine of Christian Discovery is built serves the goals of settler colonial conquest and its attendant racism and xenophobia. We invite religious and legal scholars to reflect upon this framework.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "Canopy",
      "Johnson",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "In 1823, Chief Justice John Marshall based the supposed right of colonizing forces to dominate and take ownership of the land on what he viewed as the natural order of conquest. To justify this \"pretension,\" he wove together theological and legal justifications for land theft. Marshall's creation would go on to shape not only U.S. property law but also international property law, as Tonya Gonnella Frichner and Robert J Miller underscore. The Doctrine of Discovery, and the 15 th -century Papal Bulls that influenced Marshall remain relevant today. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg famously cited the Doctrine of Discovery in a footnote to her 2005 majority opinion in the City of Sherrill, New York v. Oneida Indian Nation. As Joseph J. Heath and Dana Lloyd explain, Sherrill continues to have a massive impact on Indigenous sovereignty. It is a significant factor in multinational corporations' extractive enterprises on Indigenous lands. As Steven Newcomb's contribution to this series highlights, the framework of domination on which the Doctrine of Christian Discovery is built serves the goals of settler colonial conquest and its attendant racism and xenophobia. We invite religious and legal scholars to reflect upon this framework.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/canopy/essay1/intro/",
    "externalUrl": "https://canopyforum.org/2023/03/10/introduction-to-the-200-years-of-johnson-v-mintosh-law-religion-and-native-american-lands-series/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/canopy-series-jigsaw/",
    "title": "Johnson v. M’Intosh and the Missing Cover of the Jigsaw Puzzle",
    "publishedAt": "2023-04-13T01:54:46Z",
    "description": "Given that this interpretive work involves words and ideas, and not physical puzzle pieces, we as Native scholars face an interesting challenge: How do we take the vast historical record of ideas and arguments developed centuries ago by intellectuals of the Christian, European world, and by intellectuals of the dominating American society, and interpret that record from our own perspective, for the benefit of our nations and peoples? In my view, our challenge is not a matter of gaining a better understanding of “the law.” If we frame our task in such a limiting manner, we might find ourselves operating on the basis of an unconscious belief that the system of domination which the United States has been forcibly imposing on our nations and peoples for generations is a valid system of “law.” Such an approach would fail to provide us with our own view-from-the-shore vantage point, from which to challenge the ideas and arguments called “U.S. law” and “U.S. federal Indian law.”",
    "tags": [
      "Canopy",
      "Johnson",
      "law",
      "link",
      "religion",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Given that this interpretive work involves words and ideas, and not physical puzzle pieces, we as Native scholars face an interesting challenge: How do we take the vast historical record of ideas and arguments developed centuries ago by intellectuals of the Christian, European world, and by intellectuals of the dominating American society, and interpret that record from our own perspective, for the benefit of our nations and peoples? In my view, our challenge is not a matter of gaining a better understanding of “the law.” If we frame our task in such a limiting manner, we might find ourselves operating on the basis of an unconscious belief that the system of domination which the United States has been forcibly imposing on our nations and peoples for generations is a valid system of “law.” Such an approach would fail to provide us with our own view-from-the-shore vantage point, from which to challenge the ideas and arguments called “U.S. law” and “U.S. federal Indian law.”",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/canopy/essay2/jigsaw-puzzle/",
    "externalUrl": "https://canopyforum.org/2023/04/13/johnson-v-mintosh-and-the-missing-cover-of-the-jigsaw-puzzle/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/canopy-series-legacy-dependency/",
    "title": "The Legacy of the Right to Control Land and Dependency",
    "publishedAt": "2023-03-30T01:54:46Z",
    "description": "Johnson v. M’Intosh  established the precedent that the federal government of the United States had the sole right to negotiate with and  extinguish indigenous nations’ title  to land. Codifying the termination of  Indian or aboriginal title , the right of Indigenous peoples to occupy the lands that had been their home since time immemorial, through the treaties the United States entered into with Indigenous nations  starting in 1774 . Chief Justice  John Marshall ’s opinion in  Johnson v. M’Intosh  not only recognized Indian title but the inherent right of dominion of the United States over Indigenous peoples insofar as, “our whole country been granted by the crown while in the occupation of the Indians” securing the right of dominion to the ancestral lands.",
    "tags": [
      "Canopy",
      "Johnson",
      "law",
      "link",
      "religion",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Johnson v. M'Intosh established the precedent that the federal government of the United States had the sole right to negotiate with and extinguish indigenous nations' title to land. Codifying the termination of Indian or aboriginal title, the right of Indigenous peoples to occupy the lands that had been their home since time immemorial, through the treaties the United States entered into with Indigenous nations starting in 1774. Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion in Johnson v. M'Intosh not only recognized Indian title but the inherent right of dominion of the United States over Indigenous peoples insofar as, \"our whole country been granted by the crown while in the occupation of the Indians\" securing the right of dominion to the ancestral lands.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/canopy/essay2/legacy/",
    "externalUrl": "https://canopyforum.org/2023/04/01/the-legacy-of-the-right-to-control-land-and-dependency/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/canopy-series-pope/",
    "title": "Did Pope Alexander VI Authorize England’s Colonization of North America?",
    "publishedAt": "2023-03-18T01:54:46Z",
    "description": "English imperial adventurism did not begin with Alexander. It began with [King] Henry [VII] skirting or directly contradicting  Inter caetera . Henry would not be the last Englishman to do so.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "Canopy",
      "Johnson",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "English imperial adventurism did not begin with Alexander. It began with [King] Henry [VII] skirting or directly contradicting Inter caetera. Henry would not be the last Englishman to do so.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/canopy/essay2/pope-alexander-VI/",
    "externalUrl": "https://canopyforum.org/2023/03/21/did-pope-alexander-vi-authorize-englands-colonization-of-north-america/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/carleton-papers-project/",
    "title": "The Carleton Papers project",
    "publishedAt": "2024-06-30T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Having been given an exciting opportunity to project manage the cataloguing of the Carleton Papers (record series PRO 30/55), since September 2016 I have been supervising this volunteer-led project.  The private collection of (Ashley family) papers of Sir Guy Carleton, first Baron Dorchester, relate to British Army Headquarters for North America correspondence between 1748 and 1788, and are largely concerned with the American Revolutionary War.  Carleton was to succeed General William Howe and Sir Henry Clinton as the last Commander-in-Chief in North America.  These (‘Dorchester’) papers were originally collated by Maurice Morgan, secretary to Carleton; the collection itself was presented to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II by President Eisenhower in 1957, as a gift from the archives of Colonial Williamsburg, Virginia. Managing a small team of dedicated volunteers, I have produced this blog post in partnership with Eileen Wicks who, as an early recruit, was my longest-serving volunteer.  The cataloguing of this under-used archival resource has been an excellent achievement by all the individuals concerned, with the release of a total of 107 pieces to our Discovery catalogue, some four months ahead of schedule. Comprising 30,000 manuscript pages, the collection was rebound into the present volumes by the New York Public Library between 1934 and 1935.  Arranged in chronological order, each volume contains a run of papers representing the dispatches of the successive commanders-in-chief; the collection also includes correspondence with the Continental Congress in Philadelphia.  Many of these letters concern the American ‘Patriot’ forces, and are often sent by George Washington himself (see  PRO 30/55/66/91  which relates to news of a general peace in April 1783, for example).",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "colonialism",
      "TNA",
      "The-National-Archive",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Having been given an exciting opportunity to project manage the cataloguing of the Carleton Papers (record series PRO 30/55), since September 2016 I have been supervising this volunteer-led project.  The private collection of (Ashley family) papers of Sir Guy Carleton, first Baron Dorchester, relate to British Army Headquarters for North America correspondence between 1748 and 1788, and are largely concerned with the American Revolutionary War.  Carleton was to succeed General William Howe and Sir Henry Clinton as the last Commander-in-Chief in North America.  These ('Dorchester') papers were originally collated by Maurice Morgan, secretary to Carleton; the collection itself was presented to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II by President Eisenhower in 1957, as a gift from the archives of Colonial Williamsburg, Virginia. Managing a small team of dedicated volunteers, I have produced this blog post in partnership with Eileen Wicks who, as an early recruit, was my longest-serving volunteer.  The cataloguing of this under-used archival resource has been an excellent achievement by all the individuals concerned, with the release of a total of 107 pieces to our Discovery catalogue, some four months ahead of schedule. Comprising 30,000 manuscript pages, the collection was rebound into the present volumes by the New York Public Library between 1934 and 1935.  Arranged in chronological order, each volume contains a run of papers representing the dispatches of the successive commanders-in-chief; the collection also includes correspondence with the Continental Congress in Philadelphia.  Many of these letters concern the American 'Patriot' forces, and are often sent by George Washington himself (see PRO 30/55/66/91 which relates to news of a general peace in April 1783, for example).",
    "externalUrl": "https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/carleton-papers-project/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/cayuga-legal-defense-fund/",
    "title": "Gayogohó:nǫ˺ (Cayuga) Legal Defense Fund Launches: Justice for an Indigenous People",
    "publishedAt": "2024-02-20T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Ithaca, NY- On Sunday, Feb 4th, over 400 Haudenosaunee and US citizens celebrated Gayogo̱hó꞉nǫʼ (Cayuga) culture, the local traditional community, and the new Gayogo̱hó꞉nǫʼ Legal Defense Fund. Indoors and out, people enjoyed Haudenosaunee food, music, and craftwork, as well as guest speakers and a documentary showing. US solidarity groups collaborated on this vibrant event with Gayogo̱hó꞉nǫʼ and other Haudenosaunee citizens, including from Onondaga Nation.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "legal",
      "fund",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Ithaca, NY- On Sunday, Feb 4th, over 400 Haudenosaunee and US citizens celebrated Gayogo̱hó꞉nǫʼ (Cayuga) culture, the local traditional community, and the new Gayogo̱hó꞉nǫʼ Legal Defense Fund. Indoors and out, people enjoyed Haudenosaunee food, music, and craftwork, as well as guest speakers and a documentary showing. US solidarity groups collaborated on this vibrant event with Gayogo̱hó꞉nǫʼ and other Haudenosaunee citizens, including from Onondaga Nation.",
    "externalUrl": "https://www.redlakenationnews.com/story/2024/02/13/news/gayogohn-legal-defense-fund-launches-justice-for-an-indigenous-people/120212.html"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/challenging-justifications-domination-law/",
    "title": "JCRT Publishes The Second of Two Special Issues from the 2023 Mapping the Doctrine of Discovery Conference",
    "publishedAt": "2026-04-18T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "JCRT publishes the second of two special issues from the 2023 Mapping the Doctrine of Discovery Conference, with scholarship on history, law, and justice.",
    "tags": [
      "theology",
      "religion",
      "domination",
      "christian-nationalism",
      "journal",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "For immediate release JCRT Publishes The Second of Two Special Issues from the 2023 Mapping the Doctrine of Discovery Conference The second of two special issues emerging from the 2023 Mapping the Doctrine of Discovery Conference is now available in The Journal for Cultural and Religious Theory (JCRT). Issue 25.1, Spring 2026, is titled “Challenging the Justifications of Domination through Law: Indigenous Resistance and the Undoing of Christian Empire”. This law-focused companion to Issue 24.2 grows out of “The Religious Origins of White Supremacy: Johnson v. M’Intosh and the Doctrine of Christian Discovery,” the conference held at Syracuse University on December 8–10, 2023, with support from the Henry Luce Foundation and Syracuse University. Where the first volume addressed the religious justifications of conquest and domination, this second volume turns directly to law, sovereignty, and the continuing effects of the Doctrine of Christian Discovery. Together, the essays in Issue 25.1 examine how federal Indian law, colonial jurisprudence, treaty interpretation, Christian supremacy, and Indigenous resistance remain entangled in the ongoing struggle to overturn domination frameworks and restore right relations. Issue link: Table of Contents for JCRT 25.1, Spring 2026 Federal Anti-indian Law: Why a Challenge to “Christian Discovery” Creates a Metaphysical Crisis for the US — Peter d'Errico Right & Respectful Relations: A Memoir of the Road to the Historic Yakama Nation Amicus Brief Challenging ‘Christian Discovery’ in Washington State V. Cougar Den — Jode Goudy The Doctrine of Christian Discovery and Domination: How It Has Been Used by United States Courts to Deny Treaty Rights & Dismiss the Haudenosaunee Land Rights Cases — Joseph J. Heath The International Law of Colonialism: The Doctrine of Discovery — Robert J. Miller My Decades-long Inquiry Into the Doctrine of Christian Discovery and Domination — Steven T. Newcomb An Intergenerational and Perpetual Imperium of Domination and Subjugation of Indigenous Peoples: The Doctrine of Christian Discovery and Royal Supremacy — Phillip Rodgers-Falk An Appeal to the American People—Overturning “Federal Indian Law” — Steven J. Schwartzberg Conclusion: Dismantling the Doctrine of Christian Discovery Cultivating Right Relations — Philip P. Arnold, Sandra Bigtree, and Adam DJ Brett A Postscript: Sovereignty is Still the Issue — Adam DJ Brett, Betty Hill (Lyons), and Nethanial Belmont With both parts of this project now published, readers can trace the conference’s larger arc from the religious origins of white supremacy to the legal architectures that continue to shape domination in the present. We offer deep thanks to Connie Castro for the cover art, to Carl Raschke and Victor Taylor of JCRT for their flexibility and partnership in bringing these companion volumes to publication, and to all sponsors, presenters, and contributors whose work made these issues possible."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/challenging-vatican-papal-bulls/",
    "title": "Challenging the Vatican Papal Bulls of DominationNOT",
    "publishedAt": "2024-01-26T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Challenging the Vatican Papal Bulls of Domination from Original Free Nations Advocates on Vimeo .",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "video",
      "vatican",
      "Papal-Bulls",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Challenging the Vatican Papal Bulls of Domination from Original Free Nations Advocates on Vimeo .",
    "externalUrl": "https://vimeo.com/906571533"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/christian-control-women-mother-earth/",
    "title": "Christian Control Of Women And Mother Earth: The Doctrine Of Discovery And The Doctrine Of Male Domination",
    "publishedAt": "2023-04-08T07:54:46Z",
    "description": "How did the world come to be? How did humans come to be? What is the origin of all living beings? The myth-history of who we are begins with the creation stories we tell. These stories guide us on the path to who we will become and how we understand ourselves and our relation to the planet and the other life on Earth. We settler colonialists have our origin story in the Christian Bible , the fiction that set our Western worldview on the path to Christian male domination of the earth and women. It set us spiritually, politically, economically and socially in a trajectory toward destruction. This is the best knowledge I can share with you after over 50 years of learning from Indigenous people, studying their history and examining my own settler colonialist world view.",
    "tags": [
      "law",
      "religion",
      "Christianity",
      "feminism",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "How did the world come to be? How did humans come to be? What is the origin of all living beings? The myth-history of who we are begins with the creation stories we tell. These stories guide us on the path to who we will become and how we understand ourselves and our relation to the planet and the other life on Earth. We settler colonialists have our origin story in the Christian Bible, the fiction that set our Western worldview on the path to Christian male domination of the earth and women. It set us spiritually, politically, economically and socially in a trajectory toward destruction. This is the best knowledge I can share with you after over 50 years of learning from Indigenous people, studying their history and examining my own settler colonialist world view. Mother Earth to Indigenous people is the sacred and generous creator of everything that we need to survive; to Christians it is their real estate, taken by the force of spiritual superiority. Earth is nothing but dirt, which is synonymous with evil: a dirty mind, lower than dirt, etc. The Christian earth is the resistant enemy that Adam must overpower to survive. It begins with the Bible's creation myth. The Bible's first creation story in Genesis, chapter one declares that God creates \"mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.\"[^1] There is no reciprocity indicated; nothing akin to the Indigenous belief in the relationship of responsibility among all living things including humans, each having their own gift to offer toward the balance of life. Notice the pronoun, \"they.\" Mankind is plural. The next passage further clarifies: \"male and female he created them.\"[^2] Woman and man are created together. But then, given that the Bible was written by different authors over time, a different creation story emerges in the next chapter of Genesis. \"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.\"[^3] God creates just man with no mention of woman in this tale. Seeming to realize He has forgotten something, \"… the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.\"[^4] In this version of the story, God doesn't create woman the way He did in the first Genesis telling. She is not molded in His image, equally with man. Instead, God put Adam to sleep \"and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.\"[^5] Adam, who has named the other living things, now does his final naming, saying, \"This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.\"[^6] Man starts the whole human race; his rib provides the first birth, according to the Bible. God then sets Adam and Eve up in the Garden of Even surrounded by beautiful trees bearing tasty food, but with one rule. You can eat from all of them, God instructs, except for \"… the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.\"[^7] A serpent appeals to Eve's reason. God doesn't want you to eat it, the snake says, \"For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.\"[^8] This is the critical moment in Christian history when everything will be decided from this time forward. The woman faces the ultimate decision. Will she act on faith or reason? God has told man that he'll die if he eats the fruit from the tree. But her eyes, her mind, tells her a different story. \"…the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes.\" In addition to feeding the body, it would feed the mind, for God had said it would \"make one wise.\" Woman, who was to be a help meet, acts instead as an agent, choosing nourishment and wisdom and \"she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat.\" Not only that, she goes beyond agent to decision-maker \"and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.\"[^9] Eve brings sin into the world by eating fruit from the forbidden tree and convincing Adam to try it, too. Discovering her disobedience, an angry God decrees, \" I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over there.\"[^10] God robs woman of her autonomy as punishment for her noncompliance. Because Adam listened to Eve, he is also punished: \"Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.[^11] Genesis establishes hierarchy as God-ordained. Adam has already been given authority over every living being in the Bible's first creation story. In the second version, man's punishment sets earth up as an enemy he must subdue to his will. Men are given the power to decide the fate of every creature alive and an antagonistic power over the earth. The direct agent of God, the Pope, will later require it in his papal bulls. Where does this Biblical account of creation leave us? All living creatures are put on earth for man to rule over; Adam is set into perpetual warfare with the earth. The position of women, however, could either be established as autonomous, if the first creation story of equality is followed through in the Bible, or as submissive, if the Eve-apple version becomes the dominant narrative throughout the Christian Holy Book. The rest of the Bible settles the question clearly. While Galatians 3:28 affirms, \"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus,\" this voice is drown out by the clear message repeated throughout the Bible from Corinthians through Ephesians, Colossians, Timothy and Titus to Peter, \"wives, be in subjection to your own husbands.\"[^12] Papal Bulls later enforced these Biblical edicts about the power of men over women and the earth. Around the time Columbus \"discovered\" the \"New World,\" Catholic Popes issued papal bulls giving religious sanction to a hierarchy that devastated the lives of women, Indigenous people and the earth that continues today. A series of these Papal Bulls – variously labeled the Doctrines of Discovery or Christian Domination – were issued before the Protestant Reformation, when the Catholic monopoly on Christianity remained. The Doctrine of Discovery established a spiritual, political, and legal justification for colonization and seizure of land not inhabited by Christians. Foundational elements of the Doctrine of Discovery can be found in a series of papal bulls, or decrees, beginning in the 1100s, which included \"sanctions, enforcements, authorizations, expulsions, admonishments, excommunications, denunciations, and expressions of territorial sovereignty for Christian monarchs supported by the Catholic Church,\" according to a Doctrine of Discovery description in the Catholic Benedictine University Library.[^13] Because God had given instructions to man about how he was to dominate the earth as eternal punishment for his sin, it made logical sense that if any men had not received their proper Christian instruction, they would not know what their relationship to the land should be. It should not be surprising, then, that Papal Bulls declaring if land wasn't inhabited by Christians, it was vacant and available to be claimed by European monarchs would become the legal basis for the wholesale taking of Indigenous (read pagan) land. This logic may have been enhanced by the shocking awareness that it was not Indigenous men who were cultivating the land; it was women. Women working the land was an outright violation of the Bible's instructions of men and women's roles. Titus 2:5, for example, instructs women \"To be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.\" It was clear: Christians must control the land if God's will was to be carried out. Further, it was the sacred responsibility of Christians to spread the word of the gospel, for only by faith in Jesus Christ could one attain eternal salvation. Pope Alexander VI, a Valencia native, Pope Alexander VI issued a Papal Bull, Inter caetera in 1493. In it, he greeted the good news that \"our beloved son, Christopher Columbus, a man assuredly worthy and of the highest recommendations and fitted for so great an undertaking\" had \"with divine aid…discovered certain very remote islands and even mainlands that hitherto had not been discovered by others.\" His highest priority, the pope told King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain, the venture capitalists funding Columbus' mission, is that the \"Catholic faith and the Christian religion be exalted and be everywhere increased and spread, that the health of souls be cared for and that barbarous nations be overthrown and brought to the faith itself.\" To do this work of God, the pope explained in Inter caetera, the Bull he issued, the invaders must take possession of \"all islands and mainlands found and to be found, discovered and to be discovered\" so the Pope made sure to \"give, grant, and assign\" to the Spanish royalty, and their \"heirs and successors…all their dominions, cities, camps, places, and villages, and all rights, jurisdictions, and appurtenances, within this area forever.\"[^14] While the Doctrine of Discovery established the spiritual explanation for the Christian appropriation of land inhabited by Indigenous people, it set the stage for the political and legal justification as well. The Doctrine of Discovery Catholic mandate for Christian seizing of Indigenous land was joined by a Doctrine of Male Domination issued during the same time period. Based on a foundation of spiritual control of women going all the way back to Eve in the Bible, this doctrine also established the spiritual foundation for the political and legal control of women by men. A Papal Bull, Summis desiderantes affectibus, issuing protection for the Inquisitors who were enforcing the torture and murder of the wise, empowered women called witches was issued in 1484, nine years before Inter caetera. It may not be a coincidence that the colonization of Indigenous land and the colonization of women were religiously established in concert. Pope Innocent VIII had appointed two Dominican scholars, \"our beloved sons Henricus Institoris (Heinrich Kramer) and Jacobus Sprenger (Jacob Sprenger)\" as Inquisitors to ferret out and punish heretics and witches. However, the pope bemoaned, \"It has recently come to our ears, not without great pain to us,\" that in parts of Germany \"certain of the clergy and of the laity\" had openly revolted against the activity of Kramer and Sprenger, declaring that the church had no authority to prosecute those it deemed witches. Pope Innocent VIII felt it necessary to \"decree, by virtue of our apostolic authority, that it shall be permitted to the said inquisitors in these regions to exercise their office of inquisition and to proceed to the correction, imprisonment, and punishment of the aforesaid persons for their said offences and crimes.\"[^15] Pope Innocent VIII was acting on the instruction found in Exodus 22:18 and elsewhere in the Bible that \"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live\" when he issued his Bull, Summis desiderantes affectibus (\"desiring with supreme ardor\"). He had to act because heretics and witches \"heedless of their own salvation and forsaking the catholic faith, give themselves over to devils male and female, and by their incantations, charms, and conjurings, and by other abominable superstitions and sortileges, offences, crimes, and misdeeds, ruin and cause to perish the offspring of women, the foal of animals, the products of the earth, the grapes of vines, and the fruits of trees, as well as men and women, cattle and flocks and herds and animals of every kind, vineyards also and orchards, meadows, pastures, harvests, grains and other fruits of the earth; that they afflict and torture with dire pains and anguish, both internal and external, these men, women, cattle, flocks, herds, and animals, and hinder men from begetting and women from conceiving, and prevent all consummation of marriage.\"[^16] Women deemed as witches were practicing birth control and abortion; they were controlling reproduction. To carry out their witch hunting, Kramer and Sprenger produced their Malleus Maleficarum (\"The Hammer of Witches\") in 1486. Although it never received Official Imprimatur of the church and may have been disavowed by the church four years later in 1490 the widely popular book became the de-facto handbook for witch-hunters and Inquisitors throughout Late Medieval Europe. Among the seven methods the Malleus Maleficarum identified by which witches \"infect with witchcraft the venereal act and the conception of the womb\" are \"obstructing\" the \"generative force\" of men, destroying it in women and \"procuring abortion\". Abortion and birth control had not just been developed, of course; ancient records of both are abundant. Birth control and abortion were among \"the foulest abominations and filthiest excesses,\" the church decreed, sins that were punishable by burning alive at the stake. There was another horrendous sin. Assisting a woman in childbirth and relieving the pain she was experiencing was an act against God and a violation of His edict that woman should suffer in childbirth because of Eve's sin. The evil of helping a woman in childbirth spread beyond the \"witch\" midwife to anyone who enabled or benefited from the midwife's work. They, too, should be punished. Sprenger and Kramer asserted that \"the greatest injuries to the Faith as regards the heresy of witches are done by midwives.\"[^16] Evil was women having control of their own bodies. Goodness rested in men having control of reproduction. The witch-hunters use this justification to prove why there were more women heretics than men: All witchcraft comes from carnal lust, which is in women insatiable…Wherefore for the sake of fulfilling their lusts they consort even with devils. More such reasons could be brought forward, but to the understanding it is sufficiently clear that it is no matter for wonder that there are more women than men found infected with the heresy of witchcraft. And in consequence of this, it is better called the heresy of witches than of wizards since the name is taken from the more powerful party.[^17] In justifying the targeting of women, Kramer and Sprenger held forth with a misogynistic diatribe in their Malleus Maleficarum. These Inquisitors quoted partly from Ecclesiasticus, a book which appeared in the Bible at the time they were writing. The book of Ecclesiasticus was part of the apocrypha, the portion of the Bible appearing between the Old and New Testament until removed from the King James Bible in 1885. Malleus Maleficarum cites Ecclesiasticus 25:13-26 as a source of Biblical proof of woman's inherent evil nature, and then goes on: There is no head above the head of a serpent: and there is no wrath above the wrath of a woman. I had rather dwell with a lion and a dragon than to keep house with a wicked woman… All wickedness is but little to the wickedness of a woman…What else is woman but a foe to friendship, an unescapable punishment, a necessary evil, a natural temptation, a desirable calamity, a domestic danger, a delectable detriment, an evil of nature, painted with fair colours!…they are more credulous; and since the chief aim of the devil is to corrupt faith, therefore he rather attacks them … since they are feebler both in mind and body, it is not surprising that they should come more under the spell of witchcraft… Women also have weak memories; and it is a natural vice in them not to be disciplined, but to follow their own impulses without any sense of what is due… Justly we may say with Cato of Utica: If the world could be rid of women, we should not be without God in our intercourse. For truly, without the wickedness of women, to say nothing of witchcraft, the world would still remain proof against innumerable dangers…she is a liar by nature… the sin which arose from woman destroys the soul by depriving it of grace, and delivers the body up to the punishment of sin…woman is a wheedling and secret enemy.[^18] The witch-hunts went on for over three hundred years, taking a staggering toll, the practice picked up by the Protestants and governments after the Reformation. The total number of women tortured and killed first by the church and then the state in Europe and the United States is in scholarly dispute. Studying historical records, suffragist Matilda Joslyn Gage in 1893 estimated that nine million people were put to death for witchcraft in the three hundred years after 1484. Her estimate, she pointed out, didn't include \"the vast number who were sacrificed in the preceding centuries upon the same accusation.\" While others have used a similar figure, most scholars today put the figure much lower, between 40,000 and100,000. Whatever the total, all agree many were slaughtered, and an overwhelming majority of them were women.[^19] Whatever the number of women executed, charges of witchcraft were good for business. The church killed single women of wealth, seized their property, and fattened its coffers.[^20] It was this money from the witch-burnings, Seneca scholar John Mohawk speculated, that funded the venture capitalists' excursion into the \"New World.\" If true, Columbus travelled on blood money taken from women burned at the stake as witches. Both The Doctrine of Discovery and the Doctrine of Male Domination papal bulls began with the same justification. Since a belief in Christ was the only key to get into heaven, and the Catholic church in this pre-protestant reformation time had a monopoly on religion, Summis desiderantes decreed \"that the Catholic faith should especially in this Our day increase and flourish everywhere, and that all heretical depravity should be driven far from the frontiers and bournes of the Faithful.\"[^21] This Bull was issued out of concern for the souls and salvation of the human race, as was Inter caetera, which began, \"Catholic faith and the Christian religion be exalted and be everywhere increased and spread, that the health of souls be cared for and that barbarous nations be overthrown and brought to the faith itself.\" Both Bulls ended with the extreme threat: Through the \"fullness of power\" bestowed upon him by Christ through Peter both popes warned that \"if any dare\" to oppose these Bulls \"upon him will fall the wrath of Almighty God, and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.\"[^22] The Doctrine of Male Domination laid the foundation for the political and legal oppression of women. As canon, or church law became the basis for common law, the British Blackstone Code adopted by the Founding Fathers decreed that, as the two became one in marriage and the one was the man, women were \"dead in the law.\" Required to promise obedience to her husband in the church wedding vows, a wife lost the right to her possessions, her children, her political voice and even her body. A husband had the right to all his wife brought into the marriage, inherited or earned; could will-away an unborn child, rape her and also beat her if she disobeyed him, as long as he didn't inflict permanent injury. She could not vote nor decide whether or not to have children. This was the law of the land, enforced state and federally, until the women's suffrage movement 175 years ago began the demand for women to have their own identity; not exist as the property of their father or husband. The struggle continues today. The impact of the Doctrine of Male Domination continues as well. The \"preeminent priority\" in public policy of U.S. Catholic bishops today is to outlaw abortion. Initially the Catholic Church did not condemn abortion until quickening, which was the moment when the pregnant woman felt fetal movement, a point only she could determine. While Catholics today recite a catechism affirming \"the moral evil of every procured abortion,\" they may not be aware that it wasn't until scientists understood in the mid-nineteenth century the biological course of reproduction, beginning with the union of egg and sperm that Pope Pius IX, in 1869, decreed abortion at any point in pregnancy, from the moment of conception, to be a sin punishable by excommunication. By then, the emerging Protestant religions were winning over Catholics, and the church was concerned about needing more parishioners. As the Equal Rights Amendment guaranteeing women constitutional protection of equality came within reach in February, 2023, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops expressed their alarm, strongly urging senators to oppose the ERA. The Bishops fear that the amendment would be used to strike down reproductive choice laws, further public funding for abortion and restrain the ability of federal and state governments to enact other measures regulating abortion. The Malleus Mallifacarum also carries over into our day when contemporary Crusaders who burn clinics and murder abortion providers are, to them, simply practicing traditional Christianity. They are the modern-day Inquisitors, the witch hunters. Similarly, the political and legal effects of the Doctrine of Discovery continue today. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivering the opinion of the U. S. Supreme Court in the 2005 case of City of Sherrill, New York, Petitioner v .Oneida Indian Nation of New York et al, wrote: \"Under the Doctrine of Discovery … fee title to the land occupied by Indians when the colonists arrived became vested in the sovereign – first the discovering European nation and later the original States and the United States.\"[^23] The decision denied the Oneida their right of sovereignty over their aboriginal land, which had been guaranteed to their nation under treaties dating back to the 18th century. The Doctrine of Discovery – the Catholic edict that land not inhabited by Christians wasn't inhabited – trumped the treaties, the Supreme Court ruled. The Sherrill case is only the most recent in the long history of law upholding the legitimacy of the Doctrine of Discovery and the right of \"Christian people\" to seize the lands of \"heathens\", established in the 1823 Supreme Court ruling in Johnson & Grahams Lessee v. MacIntosh. Steve Newcomb, author of Pagans in the Promised Land: Decoding the Doctrine of Christian Discovery documents the embedding of the Doctrine of Discovery in United States law \"which left Indigenous nations with just the 'right of occupancy' to their lands, while the United States claimed the 'ultimate title' to all lands within the claimed boundaries of the United States\".[^24] Courts in Australia, Canada and New Zealand have repeatedly joined United States courts in citing Johnson to hold that the Doctrine of Discovery granted European settler societies \"plenary power\" over Indigenous Peoples along with the legal title to their lands. Plenary power is rarely granted in the United States, given the reality that it takes power absolutely from another body. The result, according to the World Council of Churches has \"diminished sovereign, commercial and international rights for Indigenous Peoples and governments\".[^25] While Pope Francis, after decades of demands from Indigenous people to rescind the Doctrine of Discovery formally \"repudiated\" it on March 30, 2023, he did not rescind it. The damage remains. We are back to the original question of where do our creation tales lead us? Who creates life? A male God creates the world and all living beings in the Christian myth. Indigenous knowledge answers the question with scientific/myth precision. Females are the creators of human life. Mother Earth, the land on which all life lives, gives what is needed to sustain life: food, water, air and shelter. This simple truth has become so shrouded in patriarchal control that the answer does not come quickly. In whose interest is it that we settler colonialists don't see, and live with, this obvious reality? If you control women and land, you have the means of controlling humanity; you control the production of life and the reproduction of daily life. Was that the underlying goal of the early Catholic church? To Indigenous people, woman has always been the sacred creator of life who also, as the agriculturalist, was the creator of life from the soil. She was deposed from this revered status as Earth lost its creative power in Genesis and woman became the source of evil.[^26] Earth was magically disempowered in the patriarchal mind from an active agent, the creator of life, to a passive receptacle into which men placed their seed. Woman's image followed. Her vibrant, God-like creative powers followed Earth into submission; her body simply became a receptacle for men's seed. Just as woman had been exalted by her creative connection to Earth in pre-Christian times, man, who was now the creator of the seed of life, recreated God in his image. The Earth Mother was deposed by the Sky Father. The circle of relational life was sacrificed upon the hierarchical, linear cross of Christianity.  Christians who have been looking skyward for our salvation have wrestled Mother Earth into submission, just as God required in Genesis. We've poisoned and polluted and plundered Her, assuming She would be there for us always, like a good and obedient wife and mother. We've poisoned her with fertilizer and pesticide to force her to produce more. We are paying the price of domination. As the Earth warms, the seas rise, and the weather is increasingly powerful, Mother Earth is speaking to us, and She is fed up. She's demanding respect or She'll shake us off like so many irritating fleas. Survival requires that we go through an attitude change about what, and who, is sacred.[^27] Women, who the Bible placed under the authority of men as punishment from God for bringing evil into the world, are now rising to take leadership. Survival of life on the planet requires us to renew our pre-Christian reciprocal relationship with Mother Earth and all living beings and return women to their sacred position as the creators of life. Appropriately, it is Indigenous women who are leading this process of \"rematriation,\" returning the sacred to the mother.[^28] Footnotes [^1]: Italics are the author's. Innocent VIII: BULL Summis desiderantes, Dec. 5th, 1484 Bullarium Romanum (Taurinensis editio), sub, anno 1484. The Bull is also printed in full at the head of the Malleus maleficarum. [^2]: Genesis 1:26. [^3]: Genesis 1: 27. [^4]: Genesis 2: 7-8. [^5]: Genesis 2:18. [^6]: Genesis 2: 21-22. [^7]: Genesis 2:23. [^8]: Genesis 2:17. [^9]: Genesis 3:5. [^10]: Genesis 3:6. [^11]: Genesis 3:16. [^12]: Genesis 3:17-19. [^13]: See, for example: 1 Corinthians 11:3, 8, 9; 1 Corinthians 14: 34, 35; Ephesians v. 23; Colossians 3:18; I Timothy 2: 11-14; Titus 2: 4,5; 1 Peter 3:1. [^14]: \"Doctrine of Discovery: About the Doctrine\", Benedictine University Library. [^15]: \"Inter caetera\", European Treaties bearing on the History of the United States and its Dependencies to 1648, Frances Gardiner Davenport, editor, Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1917, pp. 75-78.  [^16]: Innocent VIII: BULL Summis desiderantes, Dec. 5th, 1484 Bullarium Romanum (Taurinensis editio), sub, anno 1484. The Bull is also printed in full at the head of the Malleus maleficarum. [^17]: Heinrich Kramer and Jacob Sprenger, Malleus Maleficarum: The Hammer of Witches, Pennethorne Hughes (ed.), Montague Summers (trans.) (London: the Folio Society, 1968), p. 128. Quoted in Barbara Ehrenreich and Deirdre English, For Her Own Good: 150 Years of the Experts' Advice to Women (New York: Anchor Books, 1978), p.36. [^18]: Heinrich Kramer and James Sprenger, Part I, Question VI. \"Concerning Witches who copulate with Devils. Why is it that Women are chiefly addicted to Evil superstitions?\" The Malleus Maleficarum.  Transcribed by Wicasta Lovelace and Christie Jury. [^19]: Heinrich Kramer and James Sprenger, Part I, Question VI. \"Concerning Witches who copulate with Devils. Why is it that Women are chiefly addicted to Evil superstitions?\" The Malleus Maleficarum.  Transcribed by Wicasta Lovelace and Christie Jury. [^20]: Matilda Joslyn Gage, Woman, Church and State: The Original Expose' of Male Collaboration Against the Female Sex (Watertown, Massachusetts: Persephone Press, 1980), p. 106-7; William Wood, A Casebook on Witchcraft (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1974), p. 26. Quoted in Gena Corea, The Hidden Malpractice (New York: William Morrow and Co., Inc., 1977), p. 23. Barstow, Anne Llewellyn, (Witchcraze: A New History of the European Witch Hunts (Pandora, 1994) says 100,000 while Ronald Hutton, in The Triumph of the Moon (Oxford Univ. Press), says 40-50,000 executions took place between 1428 and 1782, arguing that Barstow \"has misunderstood\" her sources.  [^21]: Walter Senner, \"How Henricus Institorus became Inquisitor for Germany: The Origin of Summis desiderantis affectibus.\" Praedicatores, Inquisitores 1 (2004): 402. [^22]: [^23]: The translation of this Bull is reprinted from \"The Geography of Witchcraft,\" by Montague Summers, pp. 533-6 (Kegan Paul). \"The Malleus Maleficarum\" was transcribed by Wicasta Lovelace and Christie Rice; \"Inter caetera\",European Treaties bearing on the History of the United States and its Dependencies to 1648, Frances Gardiner Davenport, editor, Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1917, pp. 75-78.  [^24]: Under the \"doctrine of discovery,\" County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of N. Y.,470 U.S. 226, 234 (1985) (Oneida II), \"fee title to the lands occupied by Indians when the colonists arrived became vested in the sovereign--first the discovering European nation and later the original States and the United States,\" Oneida Indian Nation of N. Y. v. County of Oneida,414 U.S. 661, 667 (1974) (Oneida I). City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of N. Y. (03-855) 544 U.S. 197 (2005) 337 F.3d 139, reversed and remanded. [^25]: World Council of Churches Executive Committee, \"Statement on the doctrine of discovery and its enduring impact on Indigenous Peoples\". 17 February 2012. [^26]: Ibid. [^27]: McElvaine, Eve's Seed: Biology, the Sexes and the Course of History, p. 128. [^28]: From Commencement Address the author delivered at SUNY Environmental Sciences and Forestry, Syracuse, New York, May 9, 2009."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/christian-domination-event/",
    "title": "Save the Date: Christian Domination & The Genocide of Turtle Island",
    "publishedAt": "2023-04-12T13:54:46Z",
    "description": "Please join us for panel discussion with Philip P. Arnold, Tupac Enrique Acosta, Sandy Bigtree, Joe Heath, Betty Lyons, Tina Ngata. Details Christian Domination & The Genocide of Turtle Island 19 April 2023 at 5:00PM CCUN Chapel, 777 United Nations Plaza, New York, NY 10017 Art by Analena Provost Download the flyer as a PDF",
    "tags": [
      "Christianity",
      "featured",
      "conference",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Please join us for panel discussion with Philip P. Arnold, Tupac Enrique Acosta, Sandy Bigtree, Joe Heath, Betty Lyons, Tina Ngata. Details Christian Domination & The Genocide of Turtle Island 19 April 2023 at 5:00PM CCUN Chapel, 777 United Nations Plaza, New York, NY 10017 Art by Analena Provost Download the flyer as a PDF"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/christian-zionism/",
    "title": "The Doctrine of Discovery and Christian Zionism",
    "publishedAt": "2023-03-13T07:54:46Z",
    "description": "The Doctrine of Discovery (DoD) has a well-documented and researched connection to the colonization of Turtle Island. Its ideology, however, reaches far beyond the continent's bounds. What is less researched is the DoD's connection to European colonialism in the rest of the world.",
    "tags": [
      "law",
      "Christianity",
      "Christian-Zionism",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Abstract The Doctrine of Discovery (DoD) has a well-documented and researched connection to the colonization of Turtle Island. Its ideology, however, reaches far beyond the continent's bounds. What is less researched is the DoD's connection to European colonialism in the rest of the world. In this paper, I will explore how the settler logic, clearly articulated in the DoD, was and continues to be an animating factor of the colonization of Palestine through Christian Zionist political thought and action. Dating before the political Jewish Zionist movement, British Christian theologians imagined a Jewish \"return\" to Palestine as a dispensational necessity. Devout Christian British leaders like Prime Minister David Lloyd George and Lord Arthur Balfour made this a political reality in the early 20th century. Formerly under British mandate, the newly created state of Israel in 1948 has been viewed as a European colonial outpost by critics and supporters. This is rightly understood as more closely connected to the religious aspects of colonialism than economic or political. After Israeli military forces occupied Jerusalem in 1967 a new wave of far-right Christian Fundamentalists (mostly in the United States) became supporters of Israel's most expansionist colonial policies. Today Israeli leaders openly admit that the backbone of support for Israel is Evangelical Christians. Understanding Christian colonialism as a key aspect of what is often misnamed as \"The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict,\" we can see the key concepts of the Doctrine of Discovery being used, specifically Christian domination, terra nullius, and divine right to subjugate. The Doctrine of Discovery and Christian Zionism Introduction The Doctrine of Discovery (DoD) has a well-documented and researched connection to the colonization of Turtle Island. Its ideology, however, reaches far beyond the continent's bounds. What is less researched is the DoD's connection to European colonialism in the rest of the world. In this paper, I will explore how the settler logic, clearly articulated in the Doctrine of Discovery, was and continues to be an animating factor of the colonization of Palestine through Christian Zionist political thought and action. The quintessential quote to understand the ideology of the Doctrine of Discovery can be found in Dum Diversas by Nicolas V to  Alfonso V, \"We grant you by these present documents, with our Apostolic Authority, full and free permission to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and other property [...] and to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery.\" The horrendous legacy of this doctrine upon indigenous peoples of North America has been well documented. The colonial concepts of the DoD made their way clearly into U.S. land law and have been used as recently as 2005 to deny Native Americans land rights. Less studied are the various areas of Christian political thought and diplomacy which are born from the ideology of Discovery. One often overlooked example is how the trans-Atlantic trafficking of African peoples leaned heavily on the concept of \"perpetual slavery\" of \"pagans\" to create the legal mechanisms of enslaving African people. I contend that Western interference in Palestine, led by the British (and later American) Empire is another overlooked offshoot of the Doctrine of Discovery. The colonization of Palestine has been backed heavily by the theology of Christian Zionism, an ideology that draws heavily on the Doctrine of Discovery to justify colonization, particularly the concept of terra nullius and white Christian dominance. Understanding these connections helps situation the Palestinian struggle for self-determination as part of the global decolonization movement. Christian Zionism's rise to political power Britain came to political power in Palestine after World War One, but its influence on the region goes back much further. As transportation technology allowed Brits to travel more in the early 1800s, Palestine became a major destination, and British theological theories about the \"Holy Land\" began to boom. This is also at a time when Britain was at the height of its colonial expansion. The theology mimicked the imperial mindset. British Christians thought of themselves as \"Christian Soldiers\" enacting God's battle plans from the Bible into the modern era, or \"dispensation,\" to use the term that would define this form of theology.  With an eye on Palestine, they believed that Jewish rule in Palestine was part of God's strategy for winning the universal battle of good vs evil. God's strategy also included converting Jews to Christianity, sending everyone who wasn't a Protestant to hell, and bringing on the apocalypse. It was a Christian Zionist, Rev. Alexander Keith, who, in the 1850s is credited with coining the term, \"A land without a people for a people without a land\" to describe the political and theological underpinnings of his desire to send Britain's Jewish population to Palestine.  By the late 20th century, leading theological, cultural, and political figures in Britain were deeply influenced by this idea of sending Jews to Palestine. Proponents of \"Restorationism\" as Christian Zionism was known then included John Locke, Sir Isaac Newton, George Elliot, Prime Minister David Lloyd George, and Lord Arthur Balfour to name a few. These political leaders supported the fledgling Jewish Zionist movement, helping it grow power and influence in Britain. Jewish Zionists didn't have the power to see their settler colonial project succeed in Palestine, but by aligning with antisemitic Christian Zionists who wanted them out of Europe they were able to achieve their goals.  This alliance culminated in the Balfour Declaration, in which British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour, himself an antisemite, gave British backing to a \"Jewish state in Palestine.\" This gave Jewish political Zionism international recognition. The Balfour Declaration is still celebrated as justification for the Zionist colonization of Palestine. This British, and broader Western support for Israel continues to this day. Despite a consensus amongst international human rights organizations that Israel is an apartheid state, Israel receives special treatment from the \"Western world,\" especially the United States. The United States is considered Israel's most stalwart ally. It is no coincidence that this support comes from a country whose public discourse has been more deeply shaped by Christian Zionism than any other. The US became the center of Christian Zionist thought in the early twentieth century when leading American evangelists saw how popular the ideas were with their audiences. Christian Zionism became a key pillar of the Christian Fundamentalist movement of the early 1900s. That movement -- and the Evangelical \"Religious Right\" movement it has spawned -- has mobilized millions of followers to oppose racial integration, women's rights, LGBTQ rights, and indigenous rights. Throughout the century, as their political aspirations -- and political enemies -- shifted, support for Israel remains a major tenet of Christian Fundamentalism. It took on a new level of importance after the Israeli colonization of Jerusalem in 1967, which Fundamentalist pastors claimed was a fulfillment of the prophecy they had predicted. Therefore, using the colonization of Palestine as proof that their bigoted ideology is the true. Today it is estimated that 20% of the US population believes that the State of Israel is a fulfillment of biblical prophecy, a key tenet of Christian Zionist thought. This constitutes a huge, organized voting bloc. The largest lobby supporting Israel's attempts to displace Palestinians is Christians United for Israel. The largest groups giving money directly to Israeli settlements are Christian Zionist. Christian Zionists support Israel's most repressive, colonial, and potentially genocidal policies. Christian Zionists are a major force behind the United States' continued financial, military, and ideological support for the apartheid Israeli regime. As a former Israeli ambassador put it the \"Backbone of Israeli support in the US is Evangelical Christians.\" Connecting Christian Zionism and the Doctrine of Discovery The colonial theology of Christian Zionism is deeply tied to the ideology of the Doctrine of Discovery. Take for instance the rallying cry of the Christian Zionist -- and later Jewish Zionist -- movement \"A Land without a People for a people without a Land.\" Anyone who went to Palestine in the mid-1800s would have seen a thriving Palestinian community made up of indigenous Muslims, Christians, and Jews. It wasn't that there weren't people there. The phrase came from the idea that the people were \"no people\" because they weren't European and didn't practice European Christianity. This is a redeployment of the concept of Terra Nullius, created by the Doctrine of Discovery. Terra Nullius, or \"Empty Land\" is the idea that the lands that European Christians set foot on should be considered \"empty,\" as indigenous people not ruled by Christian kings did not count as people. In other words, \"a land without people.\" The denial of personhood set out by the Doctrine of Discovery not only led to land theft but also to the attempted genocide of indigenous peoples. Similarly, this denial of Palestinian peoplehood allowed the Nakbah, or catastrophe. Nakbah refers to the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, which the Zionist military started in 1948, and the Israeli state continues to this day. Over 750,000 Palestinians were removed from their homes in 1948 alone. Over 500 cities were literally wiped off the face of the map. Many were replaced with Hebrew-named cities. The displacement and colonization of Palestine continues today. Over the past year, Israel has drawn international scorn with its plans to displace more Palestinian families from the Sheikh Jarrah and Silwan neighborhoods of Jerusalem. It is also in the process of depopulating a dozen Palestinian towns in the Masafer Yatta region through the displacement of over 1000 Palestinian families. Israeli officials openly advocate for Jewish supremacist laws. All of this is done with the help of the United States in the form of $4 billion a year in military aid (receiving more than any other country) and in political cover in the UN (The US has used its veto power to protect Israel from accountability more than any other country has used that power for any reason).  These actions by Israel, supported by the US, are still underpinned by the ideology of Terra Nullius. It is not uncommon to hear religious and political leaders in the US and Israel claim that Palestinians do not exist or are not a people. John Hagee, the head of Christians United for Israel, the largest \"pro-Israel\" lobby in the US has said, \"There is no such thing as an autonomous Palestinian society. There is no Palestinian language. There is no Palestinian currency. There is no Palestinian pottery. It is all Arab. And before 1967 these people saying this land is our land lived in Syria, they lived in other Arab countries.\" This idea was parroted by former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who claimed Palestinians were an \"invented\" people. This idea of Terra Nullius connects Right-wing Christians with Right-Wing Israelis. Israeli Knesset member Anat Berko, claimed, in a session of parliament, that Palestinians couldn't possibly exist, since they are Arabic speakers and Arabic doesn't have the letter \"P.\" The denial of Palestinian peoplehood is important for Zionists, both Christian and Jewish, because it is a first step in denying sovereignty. Palestinians, like indigenous peoples in North America, have to fight these racist arguments that are based on the Doctrine of Discovery. Seeing these connections provides an often-missing aspect of the discourse in the US about the situation in Palestine. While Christian Zionists portray it as a cosmic conflict of good vs evil, the mainstream narrative does not differ much, viewing it as an ancient religious conflict spurred on mostly by Muslim Palestinian's hatred for Jewish people. This narrative is simplistic and is very similar to the racist \"Cowboys and Indians\" motifs amongst European settlers on Turtle Island. Understanding how colonial Christianity is an instrumental part of perpetuating the violence in the region helps debunk two false assumptions in the above narrative. First, it breaks down the \"Jews vs Muslims\" dichotomy by recognizing the role Western Christians have had historically and continue to play. Secondly, and more importantly, it reframes the situation from an equal conflict based on prejudice, to a struggle of an indigenous people against Western Colonialism. The ideology of domination, of white/European supremacy, of divine right to indigenous land, and of empty land are not remnants of past theology. They are widely held amongst US Christians. Christian Zionism is but one colonial aspect of American Christianity. Christian Zionists tend to also be Christian Nationalists. In other words, those who hold a dehumanizing view of Palestinians also hold a dehumanizing view of Indigenous Peoples in the US. The fight against them connects the Palestinian and Turtle Island struggles for sovereignty."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/churches-solidarity-wabanaki-alliance/",
    "title": "How Do Christians Stand in Solidarity with Wabanaki Nations?",
    "publishedAt": "2023-09-27T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "St. Andrew’s Episcopal Church, Newcastle, Maine 17 th Sunday after Pentecost September 24, 2023 Living into Christ’s Great Commandment, Our Baptismal Covenant, and the Biblical Imperative to Do Justice: How Do We Stand in Solidarity with Wabanaki Nations? By John Dieffenbacher-Krall readings Genesis 1:11-12, 20-22 Psalm 104:25-32 Revelation 5:11-14 Matthew 13:31-32 Season of Creation Theme Overall theme “Let Justice and Peace Flow” This Sunday “advocate” Introduction I thank Steve Ward and the Rev. Dr. Suzannah Rohman for inviting me to preach this morning. My sermon is titled “Living into Christ’s Great Commandment, Our Baptismal Covenant, and the Biblical Imperative to Do Justice: How Do We Stand in Solidarity with Wabanaki Nations?” This is the tenth congregation that I have preached to within the Episcopal Diocese of Maine spanning from Cumberland County to The County. Though we find ourselves in the midst of the longest liturgical season of the year, Pentecost, we are also celebrating the Season of Creation. All the lessons we heard this morning reverberated with the theme of creation, God’s animating life force, and how thankful we should be for God’s creation. The theme for this year’s Season of Creation is “Let Justice and Peace Flow.” I most certainly want to talk to you this morning about justice. You may be aware that each of the Sundays within the Season of Creation has a theme. For this Sunday, it is advocate. In addition to justice, I will talk to you this morning about how we as settlers can be effective advocates to stand in solidarity with Wabanaki Nations. I preach to you today conscious of rising public expressions of hate, anti-semitism, white supremacy, and racism within the State of Maine. All of the beliefs, ideas, and meanings associated with those words or terms run counter to the core of our faith, to love our neighbor, to “strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being,” and “to do justice.” Though we haven’t heard of many reports of hate directed at the Wabanaki, don’t believe for a second that they are not vulnerable to this same violence. If you don’t recognize those references to our faith, I am referring when citing “love our neighbor” to the Great Commandment which you can find in three of the Gospels, Matthew 22:35–40 , Mark 12:28–34, and Luke 10:27a. As it appears in Mathew, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” The passage “Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being” constitutes part of our Baptismal Covenant when we answer in response to the celebrant’s query, “I will, with God’s help.” We don’t pledge sometimes, when we feel like it, when it is convenient. We say, “I will.” We have all of those faith-filled prophets of the Old Testament calling us to “do justice.” I began a sermon that I preached at St. Anne’s Episcopal Church in Calais in June 2018 with multiple references to prophets exhorting us to “do justice” in case anyone in the congregation was thinking, why is this guy bringing this liberal political stuff into our church? Recall at the beginning of this sermon I told you the theme for this Season of Justice is “Let Justice and Peace Flow.” It is inspired by Amos, “But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never- failing stream!” (Amos 5:24) Many of us are fond of that passage from Amos. But we can find that same message from other prophets. Micah 6:8 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) ^8^ He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God? Isaiah 1:17 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) ^17^     learn to do good; seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow. I assume all of us gathered here this morning strive to follow the example of Jesus Christ and call ourselves Christians. According to Wikipedia (Christianity by Country ), Christianity has more adherents than any other religion in the world estimated at 2.38 billion people out of a human population of 8 billion. Yet we know Christians have a range of views about key tenets of our faith. Some read the Bible as the literal Word of God. Others, including Episcopalians, read scripture as the inspired Word of God with a faithful reading of Gospel passages requiring reason, historical understanding, and prayer. Biblical texts have deep meanings at time requiring more than an instructions-manual or cookbook approach to understanding them. We well know interpreting Biblical passages can be challenging. Yet we have movements within Christianity rejecting what some of us might believe constitute core principles of our faith. National Public Radio conducted an interview earlier this year with Russell Moore, formerly one of the top officials of the Southern Baptist Convention. In an excerpt from a story filed from the interview, he says: It was the result of having multiple pastors tell me, essentially, the same story about quoting the Sermon on the Mount, parenthetically, in their preaching — “turn the other cheek” — [and] to have someone come up after to say, “Where did you get those liberal talking points?” And what was alarming to me is that in most of these scenarios, when the pastor would say, “I’m literally quoting Jesus Christ,” the response would not be, “I apologize.” The response would be, “Yes, but that doesn’t work anymore. That’s weak.” And when we get to the point where the teachings of Jesus himself are seen as subversive to us, then we’re in a crisis. (NPR, “He was a top church official who criticized Trump. He says Christianity is in crisis,” 8/8/23 https://www.npr.org/2023/08/08/1192663920/southern-baptist- convention-donald-trump-christianity ) Human beings have often selectively quoted from sacred texts to justify their actions. Does anyone remember this chilling dialogue from the 1982 movie Sophie’s Choice ? To remind you, Sophie’s Choice depicts the horrible decision thrust on the title character when a SS officer asks her to choose her son or daughter to be exterminated in the Nazi gas chambers. SS officer : You believe in Christ the redeemer ? Sophie : Yes. SS officer : Did He not say… “Suffer the children, come unto me?” You may keep one of your children. Sophie : I beg your pardon? SS officer : You may keep one of your children. The other must go away. I want to return to the social climate in our state. As these public demonstrations, race- and anti-semitic-related graffiti, and flyers become more common in this State, some people might dismiss them saying “they don’t truly reflect us, at least the majority” or “this is not who we are in Maine.” A recently published op-ed in the Bangor Daily News explored this premise. As unique, and prophetically accepting as our state must be, if there is no place for white supremacy in Maine, why are there so many of them throughout the beautiful, mostly rural state of Maine?… If we do not want Maine to be a state that is a host to the parasite of hatred, how did we get here? Then, we pose: if possible, how do we move forward? (Bangor Daily News, 9/15/23, Raymond Diamond, “If there are so many hate groups in Maine, maybe this is who we are”) The prophet Isaiah has an answer to the writer’s rhetorical question, “learn to do good; seek justice, rescue the oppressed.” (Isaiah 1:17 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)) What does the rising climate of hate in Maine have to do with the struggle to have Maine State Government and many other settler institutions fully and unconditionally acknowledge Wabanaki sovereignty or the right to self-determination? The attempted domination and destruction of the Original Peoples and Nations of this land we today call Maine was morally, religiously, legally, and politically justified by a concept that originated in Christianity, the Doctrine of Christian Discovery and Domination, and it became accepted international law. At its core, the Doctrine of Christian Discovery and Domination reflects a mindset of white supremacy and racism. I initially preached about it on the Sunday before Indigenous Peoples’ Day in 2006 when I called upon my home parish, St. James’ Episcopal Church in Old Town, the Episcopal Diocese of Maine, the entire Episcopal Church, and the Anglican Communion to repudiate it. The good news is the first three have taken that action. For those of you unfamiliar with the Doctrine of Christian Discovery and Domination, it constitutes a worldview and legal concept that espouses Christians have a right and justification because of their religious faith to invade non-Christian lands not in the possession of any other Christians and take control of those lands and the property of those peoples and if the original inhabitants don’t submit to the Christian conquerors the invaders can enslave them and kill them. Sound shocking? Unbelievable? Skeptical? Thinking where did this guy get this from? I got it from the leader of Christianity at the time, Pope Nicholas V. In 1452, he issued the papal bull, think of a papal bull as a formal declaration from the pope, titled Dum Diversas. It grants the king of Portugal the Pope’s blessing to go to the western coast of Africa, and to … “‘capture, vanquish and subdue the Saracens, pagans and other enemies of Christ, and put them into perpetual slavery and to take all their possessions and their property.’” Several other papal bulls declared this same right of discovery and domination along with numerous charters issued by English monarchs, including the Cabot Charter issued in 1496 by King Henry VII. As more people have learned about the Doctrine of Christian Discovery and Domination, a growing number of religious bodies have repudiated it including the Episcopal Church in 2009 in resolution D035 (https:/ /www.episcopalar c hives.org/cgi- bin/acts/actsresolution-complete.pl?resolution=2009-D035). While many faith communities are grappling with the Doctrine of Christian Discovery and Domination, it remains the foundation of Federal Indian Law, the: treaties, statutes, executive orders, administrative decisions, and court cases – that define and exemplify the unique legal and political status of the over 550 federally recognized American Indian and Alaska Native tribes, the relationship of tribes with the federal government; and, the role of tribes and states in our federalism. (NARF: the Native American Rights Fund Indian Education Legal Support Project “Tribalizing Indian Education” Federal Indian Law and Policy Affecting American Indian and Alaska Native Education, Oct. 2000 (https:/ /www.narf.org/w )o rdpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/purple.pdf). ) Supreme Court Justice John Marshall used the concept in part as the legal reasoning for the 1823 Supreme Court decision Johnson v. McIntosh . The brilliant Indigenous scholar Steve Newcomb writes in FIVE HUNDRED YEARS OF INJUSTICE: The Legacy of Fifteenth Century Religious Prejudice 1992 , “Writing for the unanimous court, Chief Justice John Marshall observed that Christian European nations had assumed “ultimate dominion” over the lands of America during the Age of Discovery, and that– upon “discovery”–the Indians had lost “their rights to complete sovereignty, as independent nations,” and only retained a right of “occupancy” in their lands. In other words, Indian nations were subject to the ultimate authority of the first nation of Christendom to claim possession of a given region of Indian lands.” Wabanaki Nations, the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians, the Mi’kmaq Nation, Passamaquoddy Tribe consisting of two communities, Motahkomikuk and Sipayik, and the Penobscot Nation, have been engaged in an epic campaign to have the State of Maine and many settler institutions recognize their inherent sovereignty. I purposefully used the term “inherent sovereignty.” Inherent sovereignty means no entity outside the Wabanaki Nations confers sovereignty upon them. Wabanaki Nations possess sovereignty as part of their original existence. Their political struggle involves achieving State of Maine legal and political recognition of that inherent sovereignty. Much of the political struggle concerning Wabanaki sovereignty centers on the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act (MICSA), the 1980 law that includes a state law, the Maine Implementing Act, that was only made effective upon President Carter signing MICSA on October 10, 1980. The MICSA settled the lawsuit brought by the Dept. of Justice on behalf of the Passamaquoddy Tribe and Penobscot Nation in 1972 concerning illegal acquisition of land by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the State of Maine in violation of the 1790 Nonintercourse Act, a Federal law that specifies any land agreements entered into by states must be approved by Congress. In other words, Congress, or the Federal Government, has primacy in governmental relations with tribes, not state governments. Congress had not ratified a number of Massachusetts and Maine land deals with the Wabanaki, thus putting legal title to two thirds of the State of Maine in question. While MICSA effectively ended the Passamaquoddy and Penobscot lawsuit, it did not end the struggle over the tribes’ inherent sovereignty. For the last three legislatures, the Wabanaki Alliance, a nonprofit organization created by the Wabanaki Nations in Maine in 2020, has been leading the effort to pass 22 recommended changes to the Maine Implementing Act that resulted from a Task Force ( https://legislature.maine.gov/maine-indian-claims-tf ) of state legislators, Wabanaki Chiefs, representative of the Governor’s Office and Office of the Attorney General, and the Maine Indian Tribal-State Commission. During the 129^th^ Legislature (2019- 2020), the bill died without a floor vote due to the interruption of the legislative session by the pandemic. A similar bill was introduced during the 130^th^ Legislature, LD 1626. It fully passed the House and required one final vote in the Maine Senate but it died on the Appropriations Table when legislative Democrats acquiesced to Gov. Mills’ demand that they not send the bill to her as she did not want to deal with the political consequences of her expected veto. This year a bill embodying the Task Force recommendations has been introduced a third time, LD 2007 An Act to Advance Self-determination for Wabanaki Nations. It will be considered when the Legislature reconvenes in January. People of St. Andrews’, I appeal to you to have a bias towards action on the side of justice. There are dozens of constructive things you can do both collectively as a congregation and individually to support LD 2007, other Wabanaki-backed legislative initiatives, and to stand with Wabanaki Nations. Given this is not the 18^th^ or 19^th^ century when two-hour sermons were common, I won’t describe all those potential actions now. You have a great resource among you in Steve Ward who is active with the Episcopal Committee on Indian Relations. Please confer with him. I am also available to talk to you, either to your vestry or any other group of St. Andrews’ parishioners, who want to learn how you can be meaningfully involved to make a difference. With Zoom, that is much easier compared to when we were limited to in-person gatherings. We know every one of us will die and shed this mortal coil. When God asks what kind of life have we lived, be prepared should God ask did you stand with colonialism, racism, and white supremacy, or did you stand with the Wabanaki? Amen. PDF Download the Sermon as a PDF",
    "tags": [
      "Churches",
      "Christianity",
      "Sermon",
      "Solidarity",
      "Wabanaki",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "St. Andrew's Episcopal Church, Newcastle, Maine 17 th Sunday after Pentecost September 24, 2023 Living into Christ's Great Commandment, Our Baptismal Covenant, and the Biblical Imperative to Do Justice: How Do We Stand in Solidarity with Wabanaki Nations? By John Dieffenbacher-Krall readings Genesis 1:11-12, 20-22 Psalm 104:25-32 Revelation 5:11-14 Matthew 13:31-32 Season of Creation Theme Overall theme \"Let Justice and Peace Flow\" This Sunday \"advocate\" Introduction I thank Steve Ward and the Rev. Dr. Suzannah Rohman for inviting me to preach this morning. My sermon is titled \"Living into Christ's Great Commandment, Our Baptismal Covenant, and the Biblical Imperative to Do Justice: How Do We Stand in Solidarity with Wabanaki Nations?\" This is the tenth congregation that I have preached to within the Episcopal Diocese of Maine spanning from Cumberland County to The County. Though we find ourselves in the midst of the longest liturgical season of the year, Pentecost, we are also celebrating the Season of Creation. All the lessons we heard this morning reverberated with the theme of creation, God's animating life force, and how thankful we should be for God's creation. The theme for this year's Season of Creation is \"Let Justice and Peace Flow.\" I most certainly want to talk to you this morning about justice. You may be aware that each of the Sundays within the Season of Creation has a theme. For this Sunday, it is advocate. In addition to justice, I will talk to you this morning about how we as settlers can be effective advocates to stand in solidarity with Wabanaki Nations. I preach to you today conscious of rising public expressions of hate, anti-semitism, white supremacy, and racism within the State of Maine. All of the beliefs, ideas, and meanings associated with those words or terms run counter to the core of our faith, to love our neighbor, to \"strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being,\" and \"to do justice.\" Though we haven't heard of many reports of hate directed at the Wabanaki, don't believe for a second that they are not vulnerable to this same violence. If you don't recognize those references to our faith, I am referring when citing \"love our neighbor\" to the Great Commandment which you can find in three of the Gospels, Matthew 22:35--40, Mark 12:28--34, and Luke 10:27a. As it appears in Mathew, \"'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the greatest and first commandment. And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.\" The passage \"Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being\" constitutes part of our Baptismal Covenant when we answer in response to the celebrant's query, \"I will, with God's help.\" We don't pledge sometimes, when we feel like it, when it is convenient. We say, \"I will.\" We have all of those faith-filled prophets of the Old Testament calling us to \"do justice.\" I began a sermon that I preached at St. Anne's Episcopal Church in Calais in June 2018 with multiple references to prophets exhorting us to \"do justice\" in case anyone in the congregation was thinking, why is this guy bringing this liberal political stuff into our church? Recall at the beginning of this sermon I told you the theme for this Season of Justice is \"Let Justice and Peace Flow.\" It is inspired by Amos, \"But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never- failing stream!\" (Amos 5:24) Many of us are fond of that passage from Amos. But we can find that same message from other prophets. Micah 6:8 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) ================================================== ^8^ He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God? Isaiah 1:17 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) ==================================================== ^17^     learn to do good; seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow. I assume all of us gathered here this morning strive to follow the example of Jesus Christ and call ourselves Christians. According to Wikipedia (Christianity by Country), Christianity has more adherents than any other religion in the world estimated at 2.38 billion people out of a human population of 8 billion. Yet we know Christians have a range of views about key tenets of our faith. Some read the Bible as the literal Word of God. Others, including Episcopalians, read scripture as the inspired Word of God with a faithful reading of Gospel passages requiring reason, historical understanding, and prayer. Biblical texts have deep meanings at time requiring more than an instructions-manual or cookbook approach to understanding them. We well know interpreting Biblical passages can be challenging. Yet we have movements within Christianity rejecting what some of us might believe constitute core principles of our faith. National Public Radio conducted an interview earlier this year with Russell Moore, formerly one of the top officials of the Southern Baptist Convention. In an excerpt from a story filed from the interview, he says: It was the result of having multiple pastors tell me, essentially, the same story about quoting the Sermon on the Mount, parenthetically, in their preaching --- \"turn the other cheek\" --- [and] to have someone come up after to say, \"Where did you get those liberal talking points?\" And what was alarming to me is that in most of these scenarios, when the pastor would say, \"I'm literally quoting Jesus Christ,\" the response would not be, \"I apologize.\" The response would be, \"Yes, but that doesn't work anymore. That's weak.\" And when we get to the point where the teachings of Jesus himself are seen as subversive to us, then we're in a crisis. (NPR, \"He was a top church official who criticized Trump. He says Christianity is in crisis,\" 8/8/23 https://www.npr.org/2023/08/08/1192663920/southern-baptist- convention-donald-trump-christianity) Human beings have often selectively quoted from sacred texts to justify their actions. Does anyone remember this chilling dialogue from the 1982 movie Sophie's Choice)? To remind you, Sophie's Choice depicts the horrible decision thrust on the title character when a SS officer asks her to choose her son or daughter to be exterminated in the Nazi gas chambers. SS officer: You believe in Christ the redeemer? Sophie: Yes. SS officer: Did He not say... \"Suffer the children, come unto me?\" You may keep one of your children. Sophie: I beg your pardon? SS officer: You may keep one of your children. The other must go away. I want to return to the social climate in our state. As these public demonstrations, race- and anti-semitic-related graffiti, and flyers become more common in this State, some people might dismiss them saying \"they don't truly reflect us, at least the majority\" or \"this is not who we are in Maine.\" A recently published op-ed in the Bangor Daily News explored this premise. As unique, and prophetically accepting as our state must be, if there is no place for white supremacy in Maine, why are there so many of them throughout the beautiful, mostly rural state of Maine?... If we do not want Maine to be a state that is a host to the parasite of hatred, how did we get here? Then, we pose: if possible, how do we move forward? (Bangor Daily News, 9/15/23, Raymond Diamond, \"If there are so many hate groups in Maine, maybe this is who we are\") The prophet Isaiah has an answer to the writer's rhetorical question, \"learn to do good; seek justice, rescue the oppressed.\" (Isaiah 1:17 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)) What does the rising climate of hate in Maine have to do with the struggle to have Maine State Government and many other settler institutions fully and unconditionally acknowledge Wabanaki sovereignty or the right to self-determination? The attempted domination and destruction of the Original Peoples and Nations of this land we today call Maine was morally, religiously, legally, and politically justified by a concept that originated in Christianity, the Doctrine of Christian Discovery and Domination, and it became accepted international law. At its core, the Doctrine of Christian Discovery and Domination reflects a mindset of white supremacy and racism. I initially preached about it on the Sunday before Indigenous Peoples' Day in 2006 when I called upon my home parish, St. James' Episcopal Church in Old Town, the Episcopal Diocese of Maine, the entire Episcopal Church, and the Anglican Communion to repudiate it. The good news is the first three have taken that action. For those of you unfamiliar with the Doctrine of Christian Discovery and Domination, it constitutes a worldview and legal concept that espouses Christians have a right and justification because of their religious faith to invade non-Christian lands not in the possession of any other Christians and take control of those lands and the property of those peoples and if the original inhabitants don't submit to the Christian conquerors the invaders can enslave them and kill them. Sound shocking? Unbelievable? Skeptical? Thinking where did this guy get this from? I got it from the leader of Christianity at the time, Pope Nicholas V. In 1452, he issued the papal bull, think of a papal bull as a formal declaration from the pope, titled Dum Diversas. It grants the king of Portugal the Pope's blessing to go to the western coast of Africa, and to ... \"'capture, vanquish and subdue the Saracens, pagans and other enemies of Christ, and put them into perpetual slavery and to take all their possessions and their property.'\" Several other papal bulls declared this same right of discovery and domination along with numerous charters issued by English monarchs, including the Cabot Charter issued in 1496 by King Henry VII. As more people have learned about the Doctrine of Christian Discovery and Domination, a growing number of religious bodies have repudiated it including the Episcopal Church in 2009 in resolution D035 (https://www.episcopalarchives.org/cgi- bin/acts/actsresolution-complete.pl?resolution=2009-D035). While many faith communities are grappling with the Doctrine of Christian Discovery and Domination, it remains the foundation of Federal Indian Law, the: treaties, statutes, executive orders, administrative decisions, and court cases -- that define and exemplify the unique legal and political status of the over 550 federally recognized American Indian and Alaska Native tribes, the relationship of tribes with the federal government; and, the role of tribes and states in our federalism. (NARF: the Native American Rights Fund Indian Education Legal Support Project \"Tribalizing Indian Education\" Federal Indian Law and Policy Affecting American Indian and Alaska Native Education, Oct. 2000 (https://www.narf.org/w)ordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/purple.pdf).) Supreme Court Justice John Marshall used the concept in part as the legal reasoning for the 1823 Supreme Court decision Johnson v. McIntosh. The brilliant Indigenous scholar Steve Newcomb writes in FIVE HUNDRED YEARS OF INJUSTICE: The Legacy of Fifteenth Century Religious Prejudice 1992, \"Writing for the unanimous court, Chief Justice John Marshall observed that Christian European nations had assumed \"ultimate dominion\" over the lands of America during the Age of Discovery, and that-- upon \"discovery\"--the Indians had lost \"their rights to complete sovereignty, as independent nations,\" and only retained a right of \"occupancy\" in their lands. In other words, Indian nations were subject to the ultimate authority of the first nation of Christendom to claim possession of a given region of Indian lands.\" Wabanaki Nations, the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians, the Mi'kmaq Nation, Passamaquoddy Tribe consisting of two communities, Motahkomikuk and Sipayik, and the Penobscot Nation, have been engaged in an epic campaign to have the State of Maine and many settler institutions recognize their inherent sovereignty. I purposefully used the term \"inherent sovereignty.\" Inherent sovereignty means no entity outside the Wabanaki Nations confers sovereignty upon them. Wabanaki Nations possess sovereignty as part of their original existence. Their political struggle involves achieving State of Maine legal and political recognition of that inherent sovereignty. Much of the political struggle concerning Wabanaki sovereignty centers on the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act (MICSA), the 1980 law that includes a state law, the Maine Implementing Act, that was only made effective upon President Carter signing MICSA on October 10, 1980. The MICSA settled the lawsuit brought by the Dept. of Justice on behalf of the Passamaquoddy Tribe and Penobscot Nation in 1972 concerning illegal acquisition of land by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the State of Maine in violation of the 1790 Nonintercourse Act, a Federal law that specifies any land agreements entered into by states must be approved by Congress. In other words, Congress, or the Federal Government, has primacy in governmental relations with tribes, not state governments. Congress had not ratified a number of Massachusetts and Maine land deals with the Wabanaki, thus putting legal title to two thirds of the State of Maine in question. While MICSA effectively ended the Passamaquoddy and Penobscot lawsuit, it did not end the struggle over the tribes' inherent sovereignty. For the last three legislatures, the Wabanaki Alliance, a nonprofit organization created by the Wabanaki Nations in Maine in 2020, has been leading the effort to pass 22 recommended changes to the Maine Implementing Act that resulted from a Task Force ( ) of state legislators, Wabanaki Chiefs, representative of the Governor's Office and Office of the Attorney General, and the Maine Indian Tribal-State Commission. During the 129^th^ Legislature (2019- 2020), the bill died without a floor vote due to the interruption of the legislative session by the pandemic. A similar bill was introduced during the 130^th^ Legislature, LD 1626. It fully passed the House and required one final vote in the Maine Senate but it died on the Appropriations Table when legislative Democrats acquiesced to Gov. Mills' demand that they not send the bill to her as she did not want to deal with the political consequences of her expected veto. This year a bill embodying the Task Force recommendations has been introduced a third time, LD 2007 An Act to Advance Self-determination for Wabanaki Nations. It will be considered when the Legislature reconvenes in January. People of St. Andrews', I appeal to you to have a bias towards action on the side of justice. There are dozens of constructive things you can do both collectively as a congregation and individually to support LD 2007, other Wabanaki-backed legislative initiatives, and to stand with Wabanaki Nations. Given this is not the 18^th^ or 19^th^ century when two-hour sermons were common, I won't describe all those potential actions now. You have a great resource among you in Steve Ward who is active with the Episcopal Committee on Indian Relations. Please confer with him. I am also available to talk to you, either to your vestry or any other group of St. Andrews' parishioners, who want to learn how you can be meaningfully involved to make a difference. With Zoom, that is much easier compared to when we were limited to in-person gatherings. We know every one of us will die and shed this mortal coil. When God asks what kind of life have we lived, be prepared should God ask did you stand with colonialism, racism, and white supremacy, or did you stand with the Wabanaki? Amen. PDF Download the Sermon as a PDF"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/conference-press-daily-orange/",
    "title": "SU hosts conference on white supremacy 200 years after Johnson v. McIntosh ruling",
    "publishedAt": "2023-12-15T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Ilianna Murphy, a junior at Simpson College who attended the conference, said her biggest takeaway is the importance of listening more to Indigenous people and recognizing the privilege of colonizers. “Basically, a foundation of everything that we have is based on Christian documents, the document on Christian discovery,” Murphy said. “(We) should be realizing that we should give our lands back, that it wasn’t our land in the first place.”",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "event",
      "Conference",
      "press",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Ilianna Murphy, a junior at Simpson College who attended the conference, said her biggest takeaway is the importance of listening more to Indigenous people and recognizing the privilege of colonizers. “Basically, a foundation of everything that we have is based on Christian documents, the document on Christian discovery,” Murphy said. “(We) should be realizing that we should give our lands back, that it wasn’t our land in the first place.”",
    "externalUrl": "https://dailyorange.com/2023/12/su-hosts-conference-200-years-after-johnson-v-mcintosh-ruling/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/conference-press-wtl/",
    "title": "WTL Conversations [S3E15]: Robert P. Jones Conversation with Phil Arnold and Sandy Bigtree on the Mapping the Doctrine of Discovery Podcast",
    "publishedAt": "2023-12-15T05:00:00Z",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "event",
      "Conference",
      "press",
      "blog"
    ],
    "externalUrl": "https://www.whitetoolong.net/p/wtl-conversations-s3e15-my-conversation"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/conference-proceedings-part1/",
    "title": "JCRT Publishes First of Two Special Issues from the 2023 Mapping the Doctrine of Discovery Conference",
    "publishedAt": "2026-03-08T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "JCRT publishes the first of two special issues from the 2023 Mapping the Doctrine of Discovery Conference, with scholarship on history, law, and justice.",
    "tags": [
      "theology",
      "religion",
      "domination",
      "christian-nationalism",
      "journal",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "For immediate release JCRT Publishes First of Two Special Issues from the 2023 Mapping the Doctrine of Discovery Conference The first of two special issues emerging from the 2023 Mapping the Doctrine of Discovery Conference is now available in The Journal for Cultural and Religious Theory (JCRT). Issue 24.2, Winter 2026, is titled “Challenging the Justifications of Domination Through Religion: ‘We Were Planting Corn and They Were Planting Crosses’ Part 1”. The issue grows out of “The Religious Origins of White Supremacy: Johnson v. M’Intosh and the Doctrine of Christian Discovery,” the conference held at Syracuse University on December 8–10, 2023, with support from the Henry Luce Foundation and Syracuse University. This first volume gathers essays that confront the religious logics of conquest, white supremacy, and domination across theory and method, U.S. case studies, international case studies, and pedagogy. Issue link: Table of Contents for JCRT 24.2, Winter 2026 A Preface to Challenging the Justifications of Domination Through Religion: “We Were Planting Corn, and They Were Planting Crosses” — Philip P. Arnold, Sandra Bigtree, and Adam DJ Brett Introduction — Philip P. Arnold, Sandra Bigtree, and Adam DJ Brett Christian Control of Women and Mother Earth: The Doctrine of Discovery and the Doctrine of Male Domination— Sally Roesch Wagner Charting the Doctrine in the Colonial Archive: Papal Bulls and the Translation of the “Discovery” Purpose — Sebastian Modrow Using the Doctrine of Discovery to Increase Shared Language and Conceptual Frameworks Between Black and Indigenous Feminist Organizing — Sarah Nahar The Medieval Origins of Religious White Supremacy: English Imperialism, Crusade Defeats, and the Doctrine of Discovery — Maeve Callan The Chosen People at Grouse Mountain — Wendy Felese “Engineering Marvel”: Towards Resisting the Affective Politics of Erie Canal Heritage — Danielle S. Nagle Deconstructing the Erie Canal: Three Lessons for its Next Century — Renée Barry Silencing the Doctrine of Discovery – The Brazilian Process: Accidental Discoveries, Secret Manuscripts, Imaginary Lines and Myths — Telma Alencar Baltic Religion: The Sacred Things — Eglutė Trinkauskaitė and Ellen B. Cutler Other Forms of Dwelling: A Dalit – Feminist Perspective — Shrutika Lakshmi Hindu Political Theology: Beyond Hindutva’s Political Monotheism — Pranay Somayajula Expecting Excellence in Education: When Content Conditions Class Consciousness — Michael E. Chaness Flesh of Words: Confrontation, Navigation, and Integrity in the English Classroom — Roberta Hurtado Schools, Teachers, and Teacher Educators: Education Through the Disruption of White Supremacy — Ritu Radhakrishnan Dismantling White Supremacy in the Classroom and Beyond — Celinet Duran Jimenez Unselling the Classroom: Confronting History and Ourselves — Elaina Berlin Looking Ahead to Part 2 The forthcoming companion issue will turn from religion to law. It will feature essays by Adam DJ Brett and Betty Hill (Lyons), Peter d’Errico, Joseph J. Heath, Steven J. Schwartzberg, Phillip Rodgers-Falk, Robert J. Miller, Steven Newcomb, and Jode Goudy, along with a conclusion by Philip P. Arnold, Sandra Bigtree, and Adam DJ Brett, and a postscript by Adam DJ Brett, Betty Hill (Lyons), and Nethanial Belmont. We offer deep thanks to Connie Castro for the cover art, to Carl Raschke and Victor Taylor of JCRT for their flexibility and partnership in bringing these volumes to publication, and to all sponsors and presenters whose work made these issues possible. live press release"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/conference-reflection/",
    "title": "Attendee Reflection: Conference: The Religious Origins of White Supremacy: Johnson v. M’Intosh and the Doctrine of Christian Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2023-12-28T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "I wanted to get some thoughts written in a place where I could share them, but this post only scratches the surface of what I heard and experienced. One person likened the weekend as providing more information than an academic class and that is true. It was overwhelming. And because there was so much to say and discuss, nearly every session ran long and every break was eliminated! Very full days! I’m looking forward to talking with some folks I know who attended the conference and sharing what we learned. I think the more I talk about it, the more it will become working knowledge and the more I may find ways of helping to counter the harm done by the Doctrine of Christian Domination.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "event",
      "Conference",
      "press",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "I wanted to get some thoughts written in a place where I could share them, but this post only scratches the surface of what I heard and experienced. One person likened the weekend as providing more information than an academic class and that is true. It was overwhelming. And because there was so much to say and discuss, nearly every session ran long and every break was eliminated! Very full days! I'm looking forward to talking with some folks I know who attended the conference and sharing what we learned. I think the more I talk about it, the more it will become working knowledge and the more I may find ways of helping to counter the harm done by the Doctrine of Christian Domination.",
    "externalUrl": "https://hurstassociates.blogspot.com/2023/12/conference-religious-origins-of-white.html"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/conference-schedule/",
    "title": "Conference Schedule The Religious Origins of White Supremacy: Johnson v. M'Intosh and the Doctrine of Christian Discovery.",
    "publishedAt": "2023-10-10T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Website Note The printed conference schedeule will have panel locations. The printed schedule is canonical. Land Acknowledgement We acknowledge with respect the Onondaga Nation, firekeepers of the Haudenosaunee, the Indigenous peoples on whose ancestral lands Syracuse University now stands. Description December 8-10, 2023, Syracuse University Sponsors The Henry Luce Foundation Syracuse University Religion Department Biology Department Indigenous Values Initiative American Indian Law Alliance American Indian Community House Good Faith Media (GFM) Neighbors of Onondaga Nation (NOON) Syracuse Peace Council Syracuse Cultural Workers Tonatierra Toward Our Common Public Life Unitarian Universalist Association Register Register Now Conference Hotel Sheraton Syracuse University Hotel & Conference Center 801 University Avenue, Syracuse, New York, USA, 13210 Tel: +1 315-475-3000 Book your group rate for Indigenous Values Initiative Room Block Parking Friday, December 8th: Parking available in Hillside, College Place, Carnegie lots and Irving garage Saturday, December 9th and Sunday, December 10th events: Comstock Avenue Garage, and the following open lots: University Ave. North, University Ave. South and Harrison. Campus WiFi You need a text-capable mobile phone to complete the process. Connect to the AirOrangeGuest wireless network and wait for the Network Guest Service Portal to open on your device. If it doesn’t open on its own, open your browser to the guest portal . Follow the instructions. Meals Friday dinner is provided at the Skä-noñh Center Saturday and Sunday lunch is provided Book Display Many of our conference attendees have new or recent books on topics related to the conference. We encourage you to stop by the Syracuse University bookstore display on the first floor of the Hall of Languages. Some of these books will only be easily available at this conference. Questions Find event staff wearing the event lanyard and ask. Ask at the info table on the first floor of the Hall of Languages Classroom technology options In the Hall of Languages here is what is available technology wise Navigation For a detailed campus map visit maps.syracuse.edu In the Court of the Conqueror “In the Court of the Conqueror” written and performed by george emilio sanchez and in collaboration with visual artist Patty Ortiz. Techical Assistance Lights: Jorgen Skjaervold Video projections: Patty Ortiz Acknowledgements for the program: Thanks We especially would like to acknowledge and thank: Lauren Parrish-Tech Director for  In the Court of the Conqueror Andre Bouchard and Indigenous Performance Productions The University of Oklahoma’s Indigenous Peoples Law Masters of Legal Studies program Annotated Bibliography In the Court of the Conqueror Annotated Bibliography by george emilio sanchez Tenative Conference Schedule Friday, 12/8/2023 12:00 - 4:00 Check in Location Sheraton 12:00-5:00 Skä•noñh Great Law of Peace Center Tour & Dinner 6:00 Social Dancing Location Gifford Auditorium 7:00-8:00 PM Keynote by Steven T Newcomb with JoDe Goudy: Unveiling the Doctrine of Domination Location Gifford Auditorium Saturday, 12/9/2023 Session 1 Session 2 Session 3 Session #: A101 Session #: B101 Session #: C101 8:30 - 9:20 Syracuse University Discovery and Indigenous Peoples Seminar The Religious Origins of January 6th The Story of the Empty Cradleboard Mandate: Indigenous Delegates to Vatican Discuss Lessons Learned and Next Steps After Repudiation Presenters Pierson, Willsbrough, Patel, Lakshmi, Arnold Northern Virginia Community College Schenandoah, Herne, Antoine, Beauvais Session #: A102 Session #: B102 Session #: C102 9:30 - 10:20 Confronting Religious Racism Panel Political Theologies of Discovery Christian Control of Women and Mother Earth: The Doctrine of Discovery and The Doctrine of Male Dominion Presenters Boaz, Chaves, Melo Cerqueira, Desir Bossen, Peacock, Somayajula Reeder (c), Bigtree, Reeder, Roesch Wagner Session #: A103 10:30 - 11:20 Law Panel I: 200 Years of Johnson v. M'Intosh Presenters Johnson (c), Heath, Jacobs, Miller, Robinson Location HBC Gifford 11:20 - 12:00 Lunch Break Location HBC Gifford Session #: A104 12:00 - 12:50 Bishops Panel Presenters Arnold (c), Edwards, Lucia, Miller, Duncan-Probe, Jacques Location HBC Gifford Session #: A105 Session #: B105 Session #: C105 1:00 - 1:50 The impact of the Doctrine in Aotearoa upon wellbeing and Indigenous knowledge Challenging Christianization and Civilization Narratives Pupils in the professed Lands: Confronting White Supremacy Across the Disciplines Presenters Ngata, Kopua, Kopua, Webster, Jones, Solomon, Williams Chestek, Klein, Long, Raju Chaness, Hurtado, Duran-Jimenez, Radhakrishnan, Garvis Session #: A106 Session #: B106 Session #: C106 2:00 - 2:50 Engaged Humanities Network: Engaging the Doctrine of Discovery Beyond the Classroom International Dimensions of the Doctrine of Discovery Panel I Catholicism and the Doctrine of Discovery Presenters Loewen-Colon, Stevens, Pezzarossi, Royster Kirkhusmo Pharo, Ness Hill Fletcher, Hunsinger, Lopez Session #: A107 Session #: B107 Session #: C107 3:00 - 3:50 Law Panel III: White Christian Desire for the Indigenous and the Logic of Discovery Land Panel I: Devestated Landscapes and Eco-Justice International Dimensions of the Doctrine of Discovery Panel III: International Human Rights Presenters Chi, Lloyd, Miller Barry, Henkel, Telles Brett, Lyons, Reyes-Aguirre, Johnson-Zafiris Session #: A108 4:00 - 4:50 \"Davíd Carrasco: INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND RELIGIOUS MODES OF OTHERING: A History of Religions Perspective\" Location HBC Gifford 5:00 - 7:00 Dinner Break Location On your own Session #: A109 7:00 In the Court of the Conqueror written and performed by george emilio sanchez in collaboration with visual artist Patty Ortiz Location Goldstein Auditorium Sunday, 12/10/23 Session 1 Session 2 Session 3 Session #: A110 Session #: B110 Session #: C110 8:30 - 9:20 Law Panel II: Federal Anti-Indian Law International Dimensions of the Doctrine of Discovery Panel II Contesting White Christian Nationalism Presenters Heath, Newcomb, d'Errico Alencar, Miller, Mendoza, Trinkauskaite J. Nahar, Perkinson, Randall Session #: A111 Session #: B111 Session #: C111 9:30 - 10:20 Documenting the Doctrine of Discovery, Museums, Libraries & Data Science Land Panel II: Narratives for Collective Survival Open   Presenters Adams, Callan, Cunningham, Modrow, Loewen-Colon S. Nahar, Felese, Wolcott   Session #: D111 9:30 - 12:00 Witness to Injustice Location HL 214 10:30 - 11:20 Witness to Injustice Continued Location HL 214 Session #: A112 Session #: B112 Session #: C112 10:30 - 11:20 Recognizing Indigenous Rights Inter-nationally New Books in the Study of Domination Open Presenters Robinson, Sudol Arnold, Boaz, Chaves, Jones, Lloyd, Ngata Session #: A113 Session #: B113 Session #: C113 11:20-12:00 Spirits Unyielding: Sabotaging the Ideologies of white Christian Supremacy from the US South and the Global South Using the Two Row Wampum Method at the Vatican SUNYESF Student Presentations Presenters SoulForce Arnold, Bigtree, Brett, Lyons, Modrow Students, S. Nahar, Moran 12:00 - 12:50 Lunch Break Location HBC Gifford Session #: A114 Session #: B114 Session #: C114 1:00 - 1:50 Documenting the Doctrine of Discovery, Museums, Libraries & Data Science Part 2 Confronting Religious Racism Workshop Colonial Words Creating Worlds Presenters Arnold, Adams, Callan, Loewen-Colon, Bigtree Boaz, Chaves, Melo Cerqueira, Desir Brackens, Kritkausky, Valle Session #: A115 Session #: B115 Session #: C115 2:00 - 2:50 Faith & Land Justice Roundtable: Repairing the Harms of the Doctrine of Christian Discovery Conference Reflection and Next Steps Contextualizing Domination through Intellectual History Presenters Augustine, Bradley, McCabe, Ufford-Chase Arnold, Boaz Burke, Fitzsimmons, Peters, Smith Session #: A116 3:00 - 4:30 Closing panel The Religious Origins of White Supremacy: Johnson v. M'Intosh and the Doctrine of Christian Discovery. Betty Lyons (c), Oren Lyons, Robert P. Jones, Anthea Butler Location HBC Gifford Session #: A117 4:30-6:00 Māori Performance: Tēnei Te Põ Nau Mai Te Ao: Ancient Māori Puppetry Healing Traumatic Histories Location HBC - Gifford Auditorium Session #: A118 6:00-6:30 Traditional Haudenosaunee Thanksgiving Address Closing Location HBC - Gifford ANY TIME Visit the Art Gallery and Poster Sessions HL 500 Location HL 500 Other Points of Interest Resistance: The Art of Peter B. Jones Detailed Schedule Panel A101 Syracuse University Discovery and Indigenous Peoples Seminar Quinn Pierson, Syracuse University, Chair Joss Willsbrough, Syracuse University, “Word Became Flesh” - The DoCD and Sedimented Trauma in the Settler-Colonial Body Naimi Pankaj Patel, Syracuse University, Epistemicide Shrutika Lakshmi, Syracuse University, Other ways of dwelling: A Dalit Feminist Perspective Philip P. Arnold, Syracuse University, Respondent Panel A102 Confronting Religious Racism Panel Danielle Boaz, UNC Charlotte, Chair Gustavo Mello Cerqueira, International Commission to Combat Religious Racism Charlene Desir, Nova Southeastern University João Chaves, Baylor University Panel A103 Law Panel I: 200 Years of Johnson v. M’Intosh Paula Johnson, Syracuse University College of Law, Chair Joseph J. Heath, Onondaga Nation General Counsel Robert J. Miller, Arizona State University Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law Beverly Jacobs, University of Windsor Nicolas Robinson, Pace University Elisabeth Haub School of Law Panel A104 Bishops Panel Philip P. Arnold, Syracuse University, Chair Rev. Lee M. Miller II Bishop Douglas Lucia Rt. Rev. Dr. DeDe Duncan-Probe Jake Haiwhagai’i Edwards Freida J. Jacques, Whatwehni:neh Panel A105 The impact of the Doctrine in Aotearoa upon wellbeing and Indigenous knowledge Tina Ngata, Chair Pāpā Mark Kopua Diana Kopua James Webster Hinemoa Jones Rikki Solomon Bronwyn Williams Panel A106 Engaged Humanities Network: Engaging the Doctrine of Discovery Beyond the Classroom Brice Nordquist, Director of the Engaged Humanities Network, Chair Heather Law Pezzarossi, Assistant Professor, Anthropology Department, SU Rochele Royster, Assistant Professor, Creative Arts Therapy, SU Scott Manning Stevens, Akwesasne Mohawk, Director, Native American and Indigenous Studies, Syracuse University Jordan Loewen-Colón, Queens University Panel A107 Law Panel II: White Christian Desire for the Indigenous and the Logic of Discovery Paula Johnson, Syracuse University College of Law, Chair Robert J. Miller, Arizona State University Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law Dana Lloyd, Villanova University Elisha Chi, Villanova University Panel A108 Indigenous Peoples and Religious Modes of Othering: A History of Religions Perspective Davíd Carrasco, Harvard University Panel A109 In the Court of the Conqueror George Emilio Sanchez Panel A110 Law Panel III: Federal Anti-Indian Law Paula Johnson, Syracuse University College of Law,Chair Joseph J. Heath, Onondaga Nation General Counsel Steven T. Newcomb, Indigenous Law Institute/Original Free Nations Peter d’Errico, University of Massachusetts Amherst Panel A111 Documenting the Doctrine of Discovery, Mueseums, Libraries & Data Science Part 1 Philip P. Arnold, Syracuse University, Chair Sebastian Modrow, Syracuse University, “Charting the Doctrine in the Colonial Archive: Papal Bulls and the Translation of the ‘Discovery’ Purpose” Sean Cunningham, The National Archives (UK), Archival Evidence of Ideology, Trade and Plunder as Motivations in England’s North American Voyages, C.1480-1503 Panel A112 Recognizing Indigenous Rights Inter-nationally Nicholas Robinson, Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University, Chair & Panelist Chris Sudol, Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University Panel A113 Spirits Unyielding: Sabotaging the Ideologies of white Christian Supremacy from the US South and the Global South SOULFORCE Rev Alba Onofrio, Appalachia, Western NC (Executive Director) Assata de la Cruz, Mobile, Alabama (Director of Community Outreach) Karina Vargas, Costa Rica (Director of the Institute on Spiritual Violence, Healing, and Social Change) Nadia Arellano, Mexico (Associate Director of Soulforce, and Director of Latin American Programming) Panel A114 Documenting the Doctrine of Discovery, Museums, Libraries & Data Science Part 2 Philip P. Arnold, Syracuse University, Chair Maeve Callan, Simpson University, “The Medieval Origins of Religious White Supremacy: The King of Tars, Crusade Defeats, and the Doctrine of Discovery” James Adams, National Museum of the American Indian - Smithsonian, “Pre-History of the “Doctrine of Christian Discovery”; Nicholas V and the English Eruption into the North Atlantic” Jordan Loewen-Colón, Queens University, “Unveiling the Digital Doctrine of Discovery: Lessons from the Taino Encounter for Contemporary Data Society” Sandy Bigtree, Indigenous Values Initiative Panel A115 Faith & Land Justice: Repairing the Harms of the Doctrine of Christian Discovery Pat McCabe, (Diné) Sarah Bradley, Nuns & Nones Land Justice Project Sarah Augustine, (Tewa), Dismantling the Doctrine of Discovery Coalition Rick Ufford-Chase, Center for Jubilee Practice Sarah Bradley, Nuns & Nones Land Justice Project Panel A116 The Religious Origins of White Supremacy: Johnson v. M’Intosh and the Doctrine of Christian Discovery. Betty Lyons, American Indian Law Alliance, Chair Oren Lyons, Onondaga Nation Robert P. Jones,The Public Religion Research Institute Anthea Butler,University of Pennsylvania Panel A117 Māori Performance: Tēnei Te Põ Nau Mai Te Ao: Ancient Māori Puppetry Healing Traumatic Histories Poetry: Tina Ngata, Bronwyn Williams Storytelling: Papa Mark Kopua, Dr. Di Kopua Instrumentalists: James Webster, Hinemoa Jones, Rikki Solomon Karetao Puppetry: James Webster, Hinemoa Jones Panel A118 Traditional Haudenosaunee Thanksgiving Address Closing Panel B101 The Religious Origins of January 6th: Fear, Otherness, and White Supremacy Joel Harrison, Northern Virginia Community College, Chair Students of Northern Virginia Community College Panel B102 Political Theologies of Discovery Naimi Patel, Syracuse University, Chair Cara Peacock, University of Toronto, Settler Colonial Christianity: Unravelling the Political Theologies of Settler Statecraft and Colonial Violence Colin Bossen, First Unitarian Universalist Church of Houston, The Political Theology of Replacement Theory Pranay Somayajula, Hindus for Human Rights, “Hindu Political Theology: Beyond Hindutva’s Political Monotheism” Panel B105 Challenging Christianization and Civilization Narratives Fatma Celik, Syracuse University, Chair Sandra Klein, Université de Liège, “Religion as a Tool for Racist Subjugation and Black Liberation in Robert Jones, Jr.’s The Prophets (2021)” Jason Long Youngstown State University ““Christianized and Civilized”: Protestant Missionaries and American Hegemony in Hawai‘i, 1820-1898” Kenneth Chestek,University of Wyoming, “The Myth of Divine Right and the Doctrine of Discovery” CK Raju, (Honorary Professor) Indian Institute of Education, G. D. Parikh Centre, J. P. Naik Bhavan, University of Mumbai, Kalina Campus, “White supremacy: its religious roots, and what must be done to eradicate it today” Panel B106 International Dimensions of the Doctrine of Discovery Panel I Lars Kirkhusmo Pharo,Nord University, Chair Lars Kirkhusmo Pharo, Nord University, “Intellectual Diversity and Complexity in “Terra Nullius” Methodology of Comparative History of Religions and Ideas” Tove Mentse Ness, Nord University, “‘We tried to take care of her, but it got too exhausting.’ A study of the transition from family carer to employer” Panel B107 Land Panel I: Devestated Landscapes and Eco-Justice Terry Reeder, Syracuse University, Chair Luke Henkel,Laudato Si Movement, “Chi’chil Bildagoteel, the Doctrine of Discovery, and Religious Freedom: Unprecedented Challenges and Opportunities” Renée Barry and Danielle Nagle, The Matilda Joslyn Gage Center and Erie Canal Museum Fellowship, “On “Deconstruction” of the Erie Canal” Franklyn Telles, Northern Arizona University, “Columbine Lake Discovers Dust caused by Colonization” Panel B110 International Dimensions of the Doctrine of Discovery Panel II Sara Shute, Indigenous Values Initiative, Chair S. Lily Mendoza, Oakland University, “An Unholy Wedding: Christianity, Civilizational Supremacy and the In/visibility of “Race” in Post-colonial Philippines” Eglute Trinkauskaite, Maryland Institute College of Art, “Christian Nationalism in the Lithuanian context” Telma Alencar, York University, “Silencing the Doctrine of Discovery in Brazil” Robert J. Miller, Arizona State University Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, “Nazi Germany’s Race Laws, the United States, and American Indians” Panel B111 Land Panel II: Narratives for Collective Survival Jonathan Nahar, Independent Scholar, Chair Sarah Nahar, Syracuse University / SUNY ESF, “Using the Doctrine of Discovery to increase shared language and conceptual frameworks for Black feminist and Indigenous feminist organizing” Sara Jolena Wolcott and Sequoia Samanvaya, “Changing the Origin Story: Discovery, Climate Change, Racism, and Eco-theologies for collective survival” Wendy Felese, Montana State University-Billings, “The Chosen People at Grouse Mountain” Panel B112 New Books in the Study of Domination Adam DJ Brett, Syracuse University, Chair Philip P. Arnold, Syracuse University Danielle Boaz, UNC Charlotte João Chaves, Baylor University Andrea Smith, Lafayette College Tina Ngata, Dana Lloyd, Villanova University Victor Valle, California Polytechnic State University Panel B113 Using the Two Row Wampum Method at the Vatican Philip P.Arnold, Syracuse University, Chair & Panelist Sandra Bigtree, Indigenous Values Initiative Betty Lyons, American Indian Law Alliance Sebastian Modrow, Syracuse University Adam DJ Brett, American Indian Law Alliance / Syracuse University Panel B114 Confronting Religious Racism Workshop Danielle Boaz, UNC Charlotte, Chair Gustavo Melo, Cerqueira, International Commission to Combat Religious Racism Charlene Desir, Nova Southeastern University Danielle Boaz, UNC Charlotte Panel B115 Conference Reflection and Next Steps Philip P. Arnold, Syracuse University Danielle Boaz, UNC Charlotte Panel C101 The Story of the Empty Cradleboard Mandate: Indigenous Delegates to Vatican Discuss Lessons Learned and Next Steps After Repudiation Mommabear, Wakerakats:te Bear Clan Mother, Mohawk Nation Michelle Schenandoah, Kaluhyanu:wes Oneida Nation & Rematriation, Founder Jonel Beauvais, Kaianenhawis Mohawk Nation, Mother & Community Member Chief Gerald Antoine Dene Nation & Assembly of First Nations Regional Chief Leanne Goose, Senior Policy Advisor - Dene Nation/Assembly of First Nationals Northwest Territories. Panel C102 Christian Control of Women and Mother Earth: The Doctrine of Discovery and The Doctrine of Male Dominion Terry Reeder, Syracuse University, Chair Sandy Bigtree, Indigenous Values Initiative Sally Roesch Wagner, Matilda Joslyn Gage Foundation Terry Reeder, Syracuse University Panel C105 Pupils in the professed Lands: Confronting White Supremacy Across the Disciplines Michael Chaness, SUNY Oswego, Chair Roberta Hurtado, SUNY Oswego (English) Celinet Duran-Jimenez, SUNY Oswego (Criminal Justice), Ritu Radhakrishnan, SUNY Oswego (Education), Terrian Garvis (Triandiflou Institute) Panel C106 Catholicism and the Doctrine of Discovery Eglute Trinkauskaite, Maryland Institute College of Art, Chair Jeannine Hill Fletcher, Fordham University, “Partners in Resistance and Repair: Using Brave Heart’s Method to Leverage Resources from Historically White-Serving Catholic Institutions” Tiffany Hunsinger, University of Dayton, “Our Lady of the Sioux: The Role of Mary as Propaganda for Stealing Indigenous Land and Children” Valentin Lopez, Amah Mutsun Tribal Band, “The Doctrine of Discovery’s Genocidal Impact on the California Mission System” Panel C107 International Dimensions of the Doctrine of Discovery Panel III: International Human Rights Shrutika Lakshmi, Syracuse University, Chair Adam DJ Brett, American Indian Law Alliance Betty Lyons, American Indian Law Alliance Eve Reyes Aguirre, Tonatierra Marina Johnson-Zafiris, Cornell University, “Holy Hydro: Sherrill’s application to the Mohawk Land Claim” Panel C110 Contesting White Christian Nationalism Joss Willsbrough, Syracuse University, Chair James (Jim) Perkinson,Ecumenical Theological Seminary,Routing Out Supremacy’s Religious Roots From Skin Color Back Through Bible Code to City-State Coercion Jonathan Nahar, “The DoCD White Christian Nationalism, and Palestine” Mitch Randall, Good Faith Media Panel C113 SUNYESF SUNY ESF Diversity and Knowledge of the Environment Class Students welcome you to take a gallery walk around the room to talk with them about their final class posters, featuring ways the Doctrine of Christian Discovery is still operating, and ways it is being resisted by humans and the more-than-human. Panel C114 Colonial Words Creating Worlds Brianna Svitak, Syracuse University, Chair Randy Kritkausky, ECOLOGIA, “Untangling Ourselves from The Doctrine of Discovery” Jonathan Brackens, University of Massachusetts School of Law, “The Hays Between Scroggs and Smith: A Quantitative Integrative Review of Personal Jurisdiction In Romans 1 Legal Exegesis And Its Racial Implications On Christian Gentile Homonegative Doctrines” Victor Valle, California Polytechnic State University, Toward a Poetics of Chile…in another Mexico Panel C115 Contextualizing Domination through Intellectual History Dillon Sampson, Syracuse University, Chair Xavier Fitzsimmons Cruz, New York University, Bartolomé de las Casas, Theodicy and the ecclesiastical struggle against colonialism in the Americas. Andrea Smith, Lafayette College, “Making White Space: Staking Land Claims through Historical Markers” Katie Peters, University of Connecticut, “The Mutual Construction of Religion, Women’s Rights, and KKK Propaganda: Bishop Alma Bridwell White” Panel D111 Witness to Injustice Program Neighbors of Onondaga Nation (NOON) Speaker Bios if you would like your bio included please email your short bio to info@indigenousvalues.org James Adams James Adams is the Fellowhship Coordinator at the National Museum of the American Indian - Smithsonian. He holds a PhD from Cornell University. His work focuses on the contact period and impact on European political theory, as determinant of subsequent legal and ideological framework for interaction with Native population; Emphasis on 16th century Spanish debate culminating in Valladolid disputation; 17th century English religious and economic exploitation culminating in John Locke; 18th century French narratives culminating in Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Telma Alencar MA Social Anthropology/Ph.D. Social & Political Thought in progress at York University, Canada. Telma’s research focuses on identifying the intersections of the Doctrine of Discovery with the destruction of one of the world’s most important ecosystems - the Amazon forest, through the ongoing violence against indigenous people in Brazil for the exploitation of natural resources for profit. Telma’s research draws on neocolonialism studies as a theoretical framework, also focusing on intersections between Christianity and Global Capitalism, aiming at shedding light on the Doctrine of Discovery’s effects and legacy related to the Global South, specifically to Brazilian Indigenous communities. Chief Gerald Antoine Dene National Chief/AFN NWT Regional Chief Nadia Arellano Soulforce Nadia Arellano Tapia is an intercultural facilitator from Mexico City with a background in human rights and feminist theologies. Nadia accompanies the family members of victims of violence, and also works with feminist women of faith and religious communities open to the LGBTIQA+ community as they mobilize against religious fundamentalisms and spiritual violence. She is passionate about learning, asking questions, reading, and thinking aloud with others. Philip P. Arnold Dr. Philip P. Arnold , Associate Professor in the Department of Religion at Syracuse University. Associate Professor and Chair of Religion Department at Syracuse University as well as core faculty in Native American and Indigenous Studies.  He is the Founding Director of the Skä-noñh—the Great Law of Peace Center (www.skanonhcenter.org).  His books are  Eating Landscape: Aztec and European Occupation of Tlalocan  (1999);  Sacred Landscapes and Cultural Politics: Planting a Tree  (2001);  The Gift of Sports: Indigenous Ceremonial Dimensions of the Games We Love  (2012) and  Urgency of Indigenous Values and the Future of Religion  (University of New Mexico Press, forthcoming).  He is a founding member of Neighbors of the Onondaga Nation (NOON), ( www.peacecouncil.net/NOON/ ) and established the Doctrine of Discovery Study Group ( www.doctrineofdiscovery.org ) He is President of the Indigenous Values Initiative ( www.indigenousvalues.org ), a non-profit organization to support the educational work of the Skä-noñh—Great Law of Peace Center. Sarah Augustine Sarah Augustine, who is a Pueblo (Tewa) descendant, is co- founder and Executive Director of the Coalition to Dismantle the Doctrine of Discovery. She is also the co-founder of  Suriname Indigenous Health Fund  (SIHF), where she has worked in relationship with vulnerable Indigenous Peoples since 2005. She has represented the interests of Indigenous community partners to their own governments, the Inter-American development bank, the United Nations, the Organization of American States Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the World Health Organization, and a host of other international actors including corporate interests. She is a columnist for Anabaptist World, and co-hosts the  Dismantling the Doctrine of Discovery podcast  with Sheri Hostetler. She has taught at Heritage University, Central Washington University, and Goshen College. In Washington State, where she lives, she serves in a leadership role on multiple boards and commissions to enable vulnerable peoples to speak for themselves in advocating for structural change. She and her husband, Dan Peplow, and their son live in the Yakima Valley of Washington. She is author of the book “The Land Is Not Empty: Following Jesus in Dismantling the Doctrine of Discovery” (Herald Press 2021). Renée Barry with the Matilda Joslyn Gage Center, Erie Canal Museum fellowship Jonel Beauvais Kanien’keha:ka (Mohawk), Wolf Clan Sandy Bigtree Sandy Bigtree , ( Mohawk Nation ), Founding Board Member of the Indigenous Values Initiative. www.indigenousvalues.org With Philip Arnold, organized the: “Roots of Peacemaking” educational festivals at Onondaga Lake (2006-2007); the “Doctrine of Discovery Conference” in 2014; Co-edited the Neighbors of the Onondaga Nation (NOON) educational booklet. She was an original Planning Committee member of Skä-noñh—the Great Law of Peace Center and currently sits on the Educational Collaborative committee. 1984-85, she was the Administrative Assistant to the American Indian Law Support Center at NARF in Boulder, CO, where she learned the stark difference between Indigenous Nationhood, “Federal Indian Law.” In 1980-82 performed with Native Americans in the Arts theatre troupe (an affiliate of the American Indian Community House) at LaMama, NYC, and toured the NE. From age 1-30, Sandy performed weekly on radio, TV with her sisters, and fronted her own band through the 1970s. Danielle Boaz Danielle N. Boaz is an Associate Professor of Africana Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, where she offers courses on human rights, social justice, and the law. She has a Ph.D. in history with a specialization in Africa and the African Diaspora; a J.D. with a concentration in International Law; and a LL.M. in Intercultural Human Rights. She is Co-Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Africana Religions. Boaz’s research focuses on the intersection of racism and religious intolerance, with an emphasis on discrimination and violence against devotees of African diaspora religions. Colin Bossen An award winning preacher, scholar and social justice organizer, I serve as the senior minister of the  First Unitarian Universalist Church, Houston, Texas . From February 2022 to January 2023, I was a Community Stories Fellow with the  Crossroads Project , affiliated with Princeton University’s Center for Culture, Society, and Religion. Prior to that, from 2018 to 2020, I was an African American Religious Studies Forum Affiliate with Rice University’s  Center for Engaged Research and Collaborative Learning . My MDiv. is from Meadville Lombard Theological School. I have a PhD in  American Studies  and an AM in History from Harvard University where I wrote a dissertation on the relationship between theology and populism.  Dan McKanan  and  Mayra Rivera Rivera  were my advisors,  Lisa McGirr  was my third reader, and  Sylvester Johnson  served as my outside reader. I completed my undergraduate studies at Denison University. Jonathan Brackens University of Massachusetts School of Law Sarah Bradley (she/her) Co-Founder, Director of Movement-Building, Nuns & Nones A popular educator and community organizer, Sarah focuses on building movement partnerships, internal/external alignment, and strategic direction for the Nuns & Nones Land Justice Project, as well as supporting the design and development of our programs. Sarah was part of the founding team of Nuns & Nones and is a member of that emergent covenantal community. Previously, she co-founded the Open Master’s, an initiative supporting lifelong learners in the emancipatory tradition of popular education, and AltDiv, a 2-year experiment in creating a grassroots alternative to divinity school for artists, activists, and community builders. After a decade+ in the Bay Area, she currently lives on Tewa lands in Albuquerque, New Mexico, where she gets to love and be loved by the Bosque and Rio Grande and is dangerously close to getting a cat. Adam DJ Brett Adam DJ Brett earned his Ph.D. in religion from Syracuse University July 2022. His area of specialization is the religion, media and culture with attention to mass media and the diffuse influence of U.S. Protestant Fundamentalism on media, culture, business, and politics during the early 20th century. He is also interested in the efforts of Indigenous nations and peoples to oppose the Doctrine of Discovery. Both projects allow him to anchor his work within the sub-disciplines of critical theories of religion and American religious history with careful attention to discourses of identity and power. He has worked for the  American Indian Law Alliance (aila.ngo)  since 2016. As a student of religion, he is interested in the impact of the Doctrine of Discovery , religious freedom, and how religion gets understood through law. Additionally, he is the grant & event coordinator for the Doctrine of Discovery Project with Professor Philip P. Arnold who is the Principal Investigator. The project is funded in part by the Henry Luce Grant “200 Years of Johnson v. McIntosh.” Anthea Butler Anthea Butler is Geraldine R. Segal Professor in American Social Thought, and chair of the department of Religious Studies at the University of Pennsylvania. A historian of African American and American religion, Professor Butler’s research and writing spans African American religion and history, race, politics, Evangelicalism, gender and sexuality, media, and popular culture. You can find more of her writing and public engagement at  Antheabutler.com Professor Butler courses include Religion from Civil Rights to Black lives Matter, Religion in the African Diaspora, God and Money, Religion and American Politics, and Ritual and Practice in Religious Studies. She is a member of the graduate group in the History department at Penn.  Butler’s recent book is  White Evangelical Racism: The Politics of Morality in America .  Her first book is   Women in the Church of God in Christ: Making A Sanctified World ,  Both are published by Ferris and Ferris/UNC Press. Her next book project in progress is Reading Race: How Publishing created a lifeline for Black Baptists in Post Reconstruction America. Podcast interview with Dr. Butler Mary Burke Professor of English at University of Connecticut and UConn Irish Literature Concentration Coordinator. Work has placed with NPR, the  Irish Times , RTÉ, and Faber. Former U of Notre Dame Irish Institute NEH Fellow, MLA Irish Literature Committee chair, and a 2022 Trinity College Dublin LHR Fellow. Graduate of TCD and Queen’s University Belfast. Faculty Profile Maeve Callan Maeve Callan is the Simpson College Department Chair of Religion, Co-Director of the Interfaith Fellows Program and Professor of Religion. I am the historian in our department, as well as the main “World Religions” professor. My first book, The Templars, the Witch, and the Wild Irish (2015), published by Cornell University Press and Four Courts Press, explores Ireland’s handful of heresy trials, their role in the colonization of the island by the English, and their relationship to heresy and witchcraft prosecution in Britain and on the Continent. My second, Sacred Sisters (2020), focuses on gender, sanctity, and power in medieval Ireland, and is the first book in Amsterdam University Press’s new “Hagiography Beyond Tradition” series. My current project examines the intersections between religion, ethnic identity, and racism in the British Isles between 1000 and 1500. With Rev. Mara Bailey, I co-direct Simpson’s Interfaith Fellows Program, which helps cultivate greater understanding and constructive engagement with religious diversity as it helps students develop leadership skills and abilities. Davíd Carrasco Davíd Carrasco (Neil L. Rudenstine Professor of the Study of Latin America) is a Mexican American historian of religions with particular interest in Mesoamerican cities as symbols, and the Mexican-American borderlands. His studies with historians of religions at the University of Chicago inspired him to work on the question, “where is your sacred place,” on the challenges of postcolonial ethnography and theory, and on the practices and symbolic nature of ritual violence in comparative perspective. Working with Mexican archaeologists, he has carried out research in the excavations and archives associated with the sites of Teotihuacan and Mexico-Tenochtitlan resulting in  Religions of Mesoamerica ,  City of Sacrifice , and  Quetzalcoatl and the Irony of Empire.  An award-winning teacher, he has participated in spirited debates at Harvard with Cornel West and Samuel Huntington on the topics of race, culture, and religion in the Americas. He also directs the  Moses Mesoamerican Archive and Research Project  at Harvard University. Recent collaborative publications include  Breaking Through Mexico’s Past: Digging the Aztecs With Eduardo Matos Moctezuma  (2007),  Mysteries of the Maya Calendar Museum  (2012) with Laanna Carrasco, and  Cave, City, and Eagle’s Nest: An Interpretive Journey Through the Mapa de Cuauhtinchan No. 2  (2007; gold winner of the 2008 PubWest Book Design Award in the academic book/nontrade category) recently featured in  The New York Review of Books . His work has included a special emphasis on the religious dimensions of Latino experience:  mestizaje , the myth of Aztlan, transculturation, and La Virgen de Guadalupe. He is co-producer of the film  Alambrista: The Director’s Cut , which puts a human face on the life and struggles of undocumented Mexican farm workers in the United States, and he edited  Alambrista and the U.S.-Mexico Border: Film, Music, and Stories of Undocumented Immigrants  (University of New Mexico Press). He is editor-in-chief of the award-winning three-volume  Oxford Encyclopedia of Mesoamerican Cultures . His most recent publication is a new abridgement of Bernal Díaz del Castillo’s memoir of the conquest of Mexico,  History of the Conquest of New Spain  (University of New Mexico Press). Carrasco has received the Mexican Order of the Aztec Eagle, the highest honor the Mexican government gives to a foreign national. He was chosen as the University of Chicago Alumnus of the Year in 2014. Podcast interview with Dr. Carrasco Fatma Celik Syracuse University Gustavo Melo Cerqueira Gustavo Melo Cerqueira, Babalorixá of Ilê Axé Omi Ogun siwajú, Vice Preisdent of the International Commission to Combat Religious Racism. He is a babalorixá of Ilê Axé Omi, an actor, and a performer. He holds a PhD in African and African diaspora studies. Michael E. Chaness Dr. Michael E. Chaness – I am currently a visiting assistant professor at SUNY-Oswego where I teach courses in Anthropology and Native American Studies. Previous to that appointment I earned my Ph.D. in the department of religion at Syracuse University under the tutelage of Dr. Philip Arnold. It was while living in Syracuse that I began to collaborate with onkwehonwe peoples. Throughout my graduate studies I worked simultaneously at the Onondaga Nation School and the relationships I cultivated at ONS lead directly to many years of (ongoing) informal fieldwork. My scholarship explores the intersections between Jewish American and Native American identity creation through the prisms of blood and land, philosophy and theology, gender and genocide, religion and ritual. I see this conference as an opportunity to focus attention on the insidiousness of the doctrine of Christian discovery so that we may uproot, expose, and begin to dismantle the legacies of white supremacy that have become entrenched throughout America’s religious, legal, and political institutions. May this process, as our Haudenosaunee friends say, bring our minds together as one. João Chaves João B. Chaves joined the Department of Religion at Baylor University in the fall semester of 2023. His research focuses on the history of religion in the Américas, the influence of U.S. Protestantism in Latin America, and the development of Latin American/Latinx religious networks in the United States. Dr. Chaves is an award-winning author whose books include  Migrational Religion: Context and Creativity in the Latinx Diaspora  (Baylor University Press, 2021),  The Global Mission of the Jim Crow South: Southern Baptist Missionaries and the Shaping of Latin American Evangelicalism  (Mercer University Press, 2022), and  Remembering Antônia Teixeira: A Story of Missions, Violence, and Institutional Hypocrisy  (Eerdmans, 2023), co-authored with Dr. Mikeal Parsons. Dr. Chaves also co-edited a book with Dr. T. Laine Scales, titled  Baptists and the Kingdom of God: Global Perspectives  (Baylor University Press, 2023). His peer-review articles appear in several academic journals, such as The International Journal of Latin American Religions, The Journal of Reformed Theology, Political Theology, Review and Expositor, Perspectives in Religious Studies, and Baptist History and Heritage. Additionally, Dr. Chaves has written opinion pieces about the history of Christianity in Latin America for periodicals and magazines, including the Washington Post and The Christian Century. He serves on the editorial boards of Perspectives in Religious Studies, the HTI Book Series on Religion and Theology En Conjunto (Baylor University Press), and the Perspectives on Baptist Identities manuscript series (Mercer University Press), for which he serves as coeditor. He is also part of a research team working with award-winning filmmakers on a forthcoming documentary exploring the connections between Christian Nationalisms in Brazil and the United States. Dr. Chaves came to Baylor after holding simultaneous positions as an Associate Director at the Hispanic Theological Initiative at Princeton Theological Seminary (HTI) and an Assistant Professor at Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary. In his role at HTI, Dr. Chaves helped write several grants, being part of the team who raised over $7.4 million in grants and gifts. Kenneth Chestek Kenneth D. Chestek joined the University of Wyoming College of Law faculty in the summer of 2012. He graduated cum laude from University of Pittsburgh School of Law where he was Editor in Chief of the Law Review. He practiced law for 21 years in Pennsylvania in a variety of settings, from solo practice to managing attorney for a branch office of a large law firm. While in practice, he also served for 18 years as Chief Civil Counsel to Erie County, Pennsylvania. From 2010 to 2012 he served as President of the Legal Writing Institute (LWI), an organization of more than 2700 legal writing professionals in the United States and around the world. Previously, he served as a member of the Board of Directors and Treasurer of LWI. From 2005-2008 he co-chaired the ALWD/LWI Annual Survey Committee, and from 2004-2008 he served as a member of the Editorial Board of Legal Writing: The Journal of the Legal Writing Institute, a peer-reviewed academic journal. He has published and given lectures on a wide variety of subjects, including metaphor, persuasion, teaching methods, tax exemption policy, hospitals and the uses of computers in law offices. His current scholarly interest is in the emerging discipline of Applied Legal Storytelling, which examines the role of narrative reasoning and storytelling in how judges decide cases. Professor Chestek is one of three co-authors of a textbook for first-year courses in legal persuasion. All three authors are former Presidents of LWI. The second edition of the book,  Your Client’s Story: Persuasive Legal Writing , was published by Aspen in 2018. Elisha Chi Ph.D. Candidate at Villanova University. My research sits at the intersection of Indigenous Studies, Ethics, and Theology and Religious studies, with a focus on anticolonial critique and decolonial return of Indigenous land. I love teaching, and have enjoyed dipping my toes into the fascinating world of digital scholarship for the humanities. I’m also grateful for my experience as a community mediator - specifically the social-emotional skills inherent in that work - which has helped me to successfully navigate conflicts between students in my classroom, as well as parse underlying assumptions and concerns that arise as questions during research presentations - all of which provides a better learning environment for everyone in the room. Assata de la Cruz Assata de la Cruz is a Black & Indigenous Queer Southern mama of two. In addition to Soulforce, she is the owner of an apothecary and botanica rooted in Yoruba and Chahta ancestral wisdom. Through academia, she studied Journalism and Communications with a minor in Theology. Through her community, she is a forever student of rootwork, curanderismo and yoga. As an Aquarius, she thrives on creativity which she shares with the world through writing, photography and creating online content to amplify marginalized voices particularly against white Christian Supremacy. Sean Cunningham The National Archives UK, Advice and Records Knowledge, Head of Medieval Records Sean has broad experience of 15th- and early 16th-century government history, records and research methodologies. He is especially interested in the interconnecting processes of government and how they functioned through representative agencies, officials and individuals in the period 1399–1558. His research has investigated aspects of political, military, legal, and financial history and records in that period. He is one of the leading historians on the reign of Henry VII (1485–1509), and has published and lectured widely on many aspects of this reign and the key figures who helped to establish Tudor power in England and Wales before the Reformation. Sean is a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society and a member of the council of the Selden Society. As joint organiser and convenor of the Late Medieval Seminar at the Institute of Historical Research, Sean has strong links to medieval research communities across UK, Europe, North America and Australasia. Sean is currently exploring the nature of Tudor kingship and how it was projected, received, resisted and adapted between 1485 and 1530. Resulting from the Tudor Chamber Books project, Sean is currently co-authoring a major study, with Dr James Ross from Winchester University, for Oxford University Press. Peter d’Errico Professor d’Errico retired from the University in August, 2002. A central figure in the development of the Legal Studies Department here at UMass, his research and teaching were focused on the legal issues of Native Americans and indigenous peoples. He has also been active in litigation of indigenous peoples’ issues. He is the author of Federal Anti-Indian Law . Professor d’Errico continues to engage in law-related writing and consulting, primarily on issues of concern to indigenous peoples. He is especially involved with Mashpee Wampanoag and Western Shoshone issues, as well as the work of the  United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues . He is an occasional columnist for  Indian Country Today  and book reviewer. He is also an elected member of the Leverett, MA, Select Board, the local governing body.   Peter also regularly posts academic information book reviews and much more at his Academia.edu page.  For more information, check his  website  and  NativeWeb  (resources for indigenous peoples worldwide). Podcast inteview with Peter d’Errico about his book. Charlene Desir Dr. Charlene Désir is a professor at Nova Southeastern University’s Abraham S. Fischler College of Education and School of Criminal Justice. She received her doctorate from the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Dr. Désir’s academic interest is in the social, psychological, and spiritual adjustment of immigrants, specifically psycho-social trauma, and how psychosocial issues affect social, cognitive, identity, and spiritual development. Dr. Désir has presented various papers on the topic of immigrants and their adjustment to the US. She has also published on the topic of immigrant identity, spirituality, and becoming a reflective researcher. Dr. Désir founded the Empowerment Network (TEN), Global, a non-profit that supports the personal, spiritual, and academic development of women and students in Haiti and the US. She is a member of the Zeta Phi Beta Sorority, Inc. and the vice president of Kosanba, an academic association on the study of PanAfrican Religions. She was the 2012 president of the Haitian Studies Association and a gubernatorial appointee to the Children’s Services Council in Broward County, FL. Dr. Désir has worked as a school psychologist, K-12 school counselor, school administrator, academic advisor, and professor. DeDe Duncan-Probe The  Rt. Rev. Dr. DeDe Duncan-Probe  was consecrated as the 11th Bishop of Central New York on December 3, 2016. Bishop DeDe’s vocation as a priest led her to serve in a wide variety of parish ministry settings, including two years in the Diocese of Massachusetts and nine years in the Diocese of Virginia, where she was the first woman leader. She began her professional life as an educator, teaching in public and private schools, including 2 years working with inner-city at-risk youth in Los Angeles, California. She holds an MA in psychology from Pepperdine University, a Master of Divinity degree from The General Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. in theology from The Graduate Theological Foundation, completed at Oxford University.  Jake Edwards Jake Haiwhagai’i Edwards , Onondaga Eel Clan, lives on the Onondaga Nation Territory. He was appointed by the Grand Council of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy to the Haudenosaunee External Relations Committee to work on political and governmental structures beyond the borders of Haudenosaunee Country. This work includes diplomatic work at the United Nations and other entities outside the Confederacy. He sat on the Onondaga Council of Chiefs for over 25 years. He is a board member of the Seventh Generation Fund for Indigenous Peoples and a board member of the Indigenous Values Initiative. Jake was one of the primary voices leading the 400th anniversary (1613 – 2013) of the Two Row Wampum Campaign, in which people in canoes paddled the waterways from the Onondaga Nation Territory to the United Nations in NYC, teaching people at stops along the way. Xavier Fitzsimmons Cruz MFA Candidate, New York University BA, SUNY Albany, History and English Wendy Felese Assistant Professor, Native American Studies, Montana State University Billings Cristofer Fernández, OFM Conv. Cristofer holds a B.S. in Environmental & Conservation Biology from George Mason University and a M.A. in Theology, Religion, and Culture Studies from the Catholic University of America. He is in his final year of initial formation as a student-friar with the Conventual Franciscans (OFM Conv.), a religious order of the Catholic church. In his religious formation, Brother Cristofer is exploring the intersections between ethics, faith and science; religion, ecology and culture; the institutional church, social action and spirituality. He hopes to pursue a graduate degree in applied integrative ecology in the near future. Over the years, Bro. Cristofer has developed enthusiasm and passion for understanding the interactions in nature, intersections between cultures, societies and the environment, and the role of humanity with respect to these relationships. He is interested in the conservation of ecosystems and preserving their services to local communities. Inspired by the line of instruction put forth in the Vatican teaching document, Laudato Si’, Bro. Cristofer is interested in advancing his knowledge of conservation ecology and issues in the human dimensions of environment, rooting this in Catholic Social Teaching’s framing of integral ecology. He is excited about advancing conversations and religious involvement in community-based conservation, developing cosmographies (applied cosmovisions/sense of place praxis) that learn from Indigenous peoples, environmental conflict mitigation, and addressing the nexus between poverty, environment, and religion. He hopes to accomplish this through immersive learning experiences, involvement in community-based projects, and by educating and empowering youth and communities from all walks of life to undergo an ‘ecological conversion’, to become involved in ecosocial works and to become ecologically literate citizens. Joel Harrison Joel Harrison is Associate Professor of Religion at Northern Virginia Community College in Manassas, VA. He holds a Ph.D. in Religious Studies from Northwestern University. His work is focused on the relationship between theology and social theory at the turn of the 20th century in Germany and theory and method in the early history of religious studies. His dissertation, Between Normativity and History: Ernst Troeltsch’s Mystic Type and the Creative Possibility of Values, reads the “mystic type” in Troeltsch’s theological sociology of the Church as a way of understanding his later work in the philosophy of history, particularly his solution to the problem of history and normativity. The dissertation argues that the “mystic type” can be understood philosophically, rather than historically or sociologically, and that a philosophical account of Troeltsch’s mystic sheds new light on how he understands the development of Christian authority in history, showing how it is possible for norms to maintain authority while in a continual process of change. His current project is an analysis of the underground Christian music scenes of the 90s and early 2000s through the lenses of social theory, political theology, and Troeltschean theology of culture. Tentatively titled Palms of Victory, Crowns of Glory: Evangelical Political Identity and Underground Christian Punk, the project traces the ways the underground Christian music scene, roughly 1994-2005, formed Christians politically and intellectually as American culture transitioned into a post-9/11 age. Of special interest is how leftist punk aesthetics were fully embraced in some circles and, thus, pushed evangelicalism in a progressive direction, and in others, “punk” was repurposed for more conservative political ends. The project connects the Christian punk/ska/emo/post-hardcore scenes all the way back to the Jesus Movement and the conservative political activism of suburban OC evangelicals in the 1960s, but also highlights the important ways it diverged from those movements and produced its own political consciousness. Joel also holds a BA in English Education from California State University, Long Beach, an MA in English from the University of Northern Colorado, an MA in Theology from Fuller Theological Seminary, and an MA in Religious Studies from Northwestern. Areas of specialization: 19th and early 20th century German philosophy, social and critical theory, ecclesiology, theology of culture. Joseph J. Heath Onondaga Nation General Counsel Joe Heath has a long background and extensive experience in civil rights litigation as one of the four lawyers representing a class action against New York State for the 1971 Attica prison assault and brutality, resulting in a $12 million settlement in 2000.  In his 45 years of practice, Joe has also worked in criminal defense; constitutional law and protection of free speech and assembly; protection of abused and neglected children; and fighting domestic AND POLICE violence; and he also an active member of Veterans for Peace. He has served as General Counsel for the Onondaga Nation since 1982, and his work centers on environmental protection, particularly under the Clean Water Act, focusing on Onondaga Lake and Onondaga Creek. Because the Nation is deeply concerned with climate change, the Nation asked Joe to research the issues of fracking and shared his knowledge of the many different environmental dangers created by fracking with community groups for six (6) years. His work for the Nation also focuses on archeological site and unmarked burial site protection; NAGPRA repatriation and litigation; hunting and fishing rights; treaty rights; and excise tax issues.  Additionally, the work for the Nation has included assisting in protecting Nation children, and working with the Indian Child Welfare Act.  One such ICWA case went as far as the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. He also took spend two weeks at Standing Rock in the fall of 2016, where he assisted in the legal tent, and later with the joint defense of 100s of criminal cases arising from the over-reaction of law enforcement to peaceful water protectors and in a joint effort to defeat a federal grand jury which was targeting water protectors. His third law review article is an important work exposing the doctrine and is available at:  Albany Government Law Review . Joe is also a decades long member of Veterans for Peace. Luke Henkel Luke Henkel is an activist, a seeker, a healer, and a writer, among many other things. A recent MS graduate in Climate Justice, his focus has been on Indigenous spirituality and the healing that comes with institutionally dismantling the Doctrine of Discovery. He currently works with Laudato Si Movement as national programs coordinator. Jeannine Hill Fletcher Prof. Jeannine Hill Fletcher grew up in a suburb of Chicago and attended the University of Illinois as an undergraduate, majoring in English. After a year with the Jesuit Volunteer Corps, she attended Harvard Divinity School, earning her MTS in 1996 and ThD in 2001. She joined the Fordham faculty in 2001. Prof. Hill Fletcher teaches at the intersection of Systematic Theology and issues of diversity (religious diversity, Christian cultural diversity, race and gender). Her research and teaching explore the role of theological thinking in shaping public discourse, including both activism and legislation. Prof. Hill Fletcher is a board member of the Northwest Bronx Community and Clergy Coalition, a multi-generational, multi-religious and multi-racial grassroots organization working for social change. She is the author of The Sin of White Supremacy: Christianity, Racism and Religious Diversity in America (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 2017). Honorable mention in category of ‘Faithful Citizenship’ Catholic Press Association Awards, 2018. Leanne Goose Leanne Goose, Dene and Inuvialuit (Inuit), was the Indian Residential Schools Portfolio, AFN Senior Advisor for the Indigenous delegations that traveled to the Vatican to address Pope Francis in 2021, and for the Papal Visit to deliver his Apology to Indigenous Peoples in Canada. Goose is currently the senior policy advisor for the Dene Nation/Assembly of First Nations Northwest Territories. Louise Wakerakats:se Herne Kanien’keha:ka (Mohawk), Bear Clan Mother Tadodaho Sidney (Sid) Hill Tadodaho Sidney (Sid) Hill,  Onondaga Nation , Haudenosaunee Confederacy. Born to Eel Clanmother Phoebe Hill, Sid was raised in the traditional ways of the longhouse. After graduating Lafayette High School, Sid attended Syracuse University for two years. Sid then pursued a career in construction and was member of the Iron Workers union. Always an advocate for human rights and the environment, as a young man Sid traveled in 1973 with a delegation from the Onondaga Nation in support of the Oglala Lakota people on Pine Ridge in protest of corruption involving then Tribal President Richard Wilson and the failure of the United States Government to fulfill treaties. A lifelong lacrosse player, Sid is one of the founding members of the Iroquois National Team, Sid was chosen as the team captain for the Australia games in 1984. In 1996 Sid was chosen to “warm the seat” of the title of Tadodaho and was condoled in 2002. This title is unique as this lifetime position is the only title chosen by the other 49 chiefs of the Haudenosaunee confederacy. Today Sid focuses his attention on the many issues facing the nation and the environment. Sid is working daily on such issues as, International Indigenous issues, the Doctrine of Discovery, hydro fracking and commerce to name a few, together with all of the daily issues facing the Haudenosaunee. One of his most important responsibilities is ensuring we continue our traditional teachings. Sid takes part in the discussions at United Nations concerning the rights of Indigenous Peoples around the world. He has had the honor of opening the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues for over ten years. He takes this responsibility extremely serious and has a deep understanding of how all decisions and actions impact the Haudenosaunee. Tiffany Hunsinger University of Dayton Bachelor of Arts in History and Comparative Literature, Purdue University, May 2018 Master of Arts in Theological Studies, University of Dayton, August 2020 Doctorate in Theology, University of Dayton, in progress Beverley Jacobs Beverley Jacobs, CM, LLB, LLM, PhD is a member of the Bear Clan, Mohawk Nation of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy. She is Associate Dean (Academic) at the Faculty of Law, University of Windsor and she practices law part-time at her home community of Six Nations of the Grand River Territory. Beverley has obtained a Bachelor of Law Degree from the University of Windsor in 1994, a Master of Law Degree from the University of Saskatchewan in 2000 and a PhD from the University of Calgary in 2018. Beverley is also a consultant/researcher/writer/public speaker. Her work centres around ending gendered colonial violence against Indigenous people and restoring Indigenous laws, beliefs, values, and traditions. Freida J. Jacques Freida J. Jacques , Whatwehni:neh is a citizen of the Onondaga Nation. She retired in 2016 from the Onondaga Nation School after serving for 21 years as a Home/School Liaison acting as a bridge between her culture and the many educational institutions in CNY. Peace and Healing are subjects she is passionate about. Freida is a NY Humanities Scholar giving life lessons to organizations, libraries, historical centers throughout New York State all supported by NY Humanities. In her retirement she has helped develop the script for the Skanonh Great Law of Peace Center in Liverpool, New York. The Center helps people understand their dependence on the natural world and that Peace was established here in Haudenosaunee Country, finalized on the shores of Onondaga Lake. Freida has worked with Neighbors of Onondaga Nation (NOON) which is now called “Witness to Injustice”. She has facilitated groups from CNY, Rochester, and Buffalo as well as 11th grade students in the Syracuse City School District. Paula Johnson Paula C. Johnson is a professor of law at Syracuse University College of Law and newly appointed to the Franklin H. Williams Judicial Commission. This commission advises and educates decision makers in the New York Court System on issues surrounding litigants and employees of color, implementing recommendations in addressing these issues to ensure equitable justice in New York State. She earned her B.A. from the University of Maryland, College Park; J.D. from Temple University School of Law; and her LL.M. from Georgetown University Law Center. Professor Johnson and Professor Janis McDonald (emerita), co-founded and direct the Cold Case Justice Initiative (CCJI) at Syracuse University College of Law, which investigates racially-motivated murders committed during the civil rights era and in contemporary times. Professor Johnson has held several distinguished teaching posts, including the Haywood Burns Chair in Civil Rights at CUNY Law School (2005-2006), the Sparks Chair at the University of Alabama School of Law (2008), and the Syracuse University College of Law Bond, Schoeneck and King Distinguished Professorship (2004-2006). She also has taught at law schools at the University of Arizona, University of Baltimore, and Northern Illinois University. Marina Johnson-Zafiris Marina Johnson-Zafiris (Mohawk, Wolf Clan) is second year PhD Student at Cornell University in Information Science, with a minor in American Indian and Indigenous studies. Her research focuses on computational community science and technological interventions for industrial accountability and socio-environmental justice in Haudenosaunee Territory. Hinemoa Jones Hinemoa Jones descends from the wellspring of memories of all her mothers and fathers before her. She is of Māori (Te Arawa, Tainui) and Pākehā descent. She is a writer, an educator, and a facilitator of Māori language and of the traditions of the whare tapere — specifically, Māori games, raranga, and karetao Māori (the Māori puppet). Hinemoa has performed extensively in Aotearoa and internationally with karetao Māori and is excited about the revival of this taonga. Hinemoa lives and works in Coromandel and draws inspiration for her writing from all her whānau unfoldings. Robert P. Jones Robert P. Jones is the president and founder of Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI). He is the author of the New York Times bestseller  The Hidden Roots of White Supremacy and the Path to a Shared American Future  (published September 5, 2023), as well as  White Too Long: The Legacy of White Supremacy in American Christianity , which won a 2021 American Book Award. He is also the author of  The End of White Christian America , which won the 2019 Grawemeyer Award in Religion. Jones writes regularly on politics, culture, and religion for  The Atlantic , TIME, Religion News Service, and other outlets. He is frequently featured in major national media, such as CNN, MSNBC, NPR,  The New York Times, The Washington Post,  and others. Jones writes a weekly newsletter for those dedicated to the work of truth-telling, repair, and healing from the legacy of white supremacy in American Christianity at  www.whitetoolong.net . He holds a Ph.D. in religion from Emory University, an M.Div. from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, and a B.S. in computing science and mathematics from Mississippi College. Jones was selected by Emory University’s Graduate Division of Religion as Distinguished Alumnus of the Year in 2013, and by Mississippi College’s Mathematics Department as Alumnus of the Year in 2016. Jones serves on the national program committee for the  American Academy of Religion  and is a past member of the editorial boards for the  Journal of the American Academy of Religion , and  Politics and Religion , a journal of the American Political Science Association. Jones served as CEO of PRRI from the organization’s inception in 2009 to 2022.  Before founding PRRI, he worked as a consultant and senior research fellow at several think tanks in Washington, D.C., and was an assistant professor of religious studies at Missouri State University. Lars Kirkhusmo Pharo Professor of Religion and Ethics, Nord University Sandra Klein Université de Liège Pāpā Mark Kopua Diana Kopua Randy Kritkausky Randy Kritkausky is an enrolled tribal member of the Citizen Potawatomi Nation. He is a founder of ECOLOGIA, an international environmental organization that works on the planet’s more extreme challenges, and formerly professor at Keystone College, research scholar at Middlebury College, and Erasmus Mundus Scholar at the Central European University in Budapest and Lund University in Sweden. He lives in Vermont. Shrutika Lakshmi I’m a graduate student in the Syracuse University Department of Religion. I’m interested in the study of women in diaspora in South Asia. Heather Law Pezzarossi Heather Law Pezzarossi  is an anthropologically trained archaeologist. She does collaborative work with Indigenous communities in North America, focusing on community-led heritage and archaeological projects that address the past, especially the colonial past, through methods and theories that serve Indigenous communities in the present and for the future.  Faculty Profile . Jordan Loewen-Colón Dr. Jordan Loewen-Colón  is the AI, Ethics, and Data Justice Fellow at Queen’s University’s School of Computing. His expertise is in philosophy and experiential design, where he researches and consults for new reality media projects (Video Games, Artificial Intelligence, and Virtual Reality), involving mysticism, altered states, and psychedelics.  Website here . Dana Lloyd Dana Lloyd is Assistant Professor of Global Interdisciplinary Studies and Affiliated Faculty, Center for Peace and Justice Education at Villanova University. She is the author of Land Is Kin: Sovereignty, Religious Freedom, and Indigenous Sacred Sites (University Press of Kansas, 2023). She holds a PhD in Religion from Syracuse University, and a law degree and an LLM from Tel Aviv University’s Faculty of Law. Faculty Bio Kenneth H. Lokensgard Dr. Kenneth H. Lokensgard is the Assistant Director for the  Center for Native American Research & Collaboration , in the Office of  Native American Programs , at Washington State University. Ken’s research has focused upon the sometimes conflicting ontologies and epistemologies of Indigenous and Non-Indigenous peoples. Specifically, he has worked with  Niitsitapi  (Blackfoot) elders and ceremonialists, in the US and Canada, to highlight the personhood of Blackfoot ceremonial items and the need for their repatriation. He is also interested in traditional protocols of reciprocity practiced by Native Americans and how they inform Indigenous research methodologies. Dr. Lokensgard is committed to promoting the importance of these protocols and methodologies, as means of facilitating collaborative work between Native and Non-Native communities. To this end, he is active in developing Institutional Review Board processes and guidelines that ensure collaboration and recognition of Tribal sovereignty. He is also committed to promoting Native scholarship and scholars within the academy and elsewhere. Jason Long Youngstown State University, History and Political Science Valentin Lopez Valentin Lopez has been the Chairman of the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band since 2003, one of three historic tribes that are recognized as Ohlone. Valentin is Mutsun, Chumash and Yokuts. The Amah Mutsun are comprised of the documented descendants of Missions San Juan Bautista and Santa Cruz. Valentin Lopez is a Native American Advisor to the University o f California, Office of the President on issues related to repatriation. He is also a Native American Advisor to the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) and the Phoebe Hearst Museum of Anthropology. Valentin is actively involved in efforts to restore tribal indigenous knowledge and ensure our history is accurately told. Finally, Valentin is working to restore the Mutsun Language and is a traditional Mutsun singer and dancer. As Chairman, Valentin is a standing member on all Tribal committees and Boards. Douglas Lucia Bishop Douglas Lucia  was born in Plattsburg, NY, and ordained in the  Diocese of Ogdensburg  on May 20, 1989. He holds a  Master of Divinity  degree from Christ the King Seminary. Lucia studied canon law in Rome from 1997 to 1999 at the  Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas .^ [1] ^ Lucia served in the diocese as secretary to the bishop, vice chancellor (and later chancellor) and director of vocations. He loves  hockey , and was involved in coaching youth hockey teams up until his appointment as Bishop of  Syracuse . Gaeñ hia uh/Betty Lyons Gaen hia uh (Small Sky), (Colonized Name:  Betty Lyons ), (Snipe Clan,  Onondaga Nation ), President & Executive Director of the   American Indian Law Alliance (AILA) . She is an Indigenous and environmental activist and citizen of the Onondaga Nation. Growing up Ms. Lyons learned a deep respect for the earth and the responsibility to protect it. Ms. Lyons worked together with the NOON organization (Neighbors of the Onondaga Nation) to educate and teach local communities about the culture of the Onondaga Nation to further a better understanding and to bridge the gap between the communities. Ms. Lyons has participated and organized rallies and demonstrations pushing for a ban on fracking in New York State, until a ban was achieved in December 2014. Betty Lyons has worked for the Onondaga Nation for over nineteen years as a Public Relations Representative, Manager of the Onondaga Nation Arena, and as Executive Assistant to Tadodaho Sidney Hill. She has been an active participant at the annual United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) since the first session in 2001 and has coordinated the opening ceremonies. For over 10 years, Ms. Lyons was the President of Onondaga Minor Athletic Club where she organized and managed over 15 youth sports team programs. Betty Lyons graduated from Cazenovia College ALA (2013), Bryant Stratton College Graduate of Paralegal Program. Betty is sits on the Haudenosaunee External Relations Committee. She is also the hardworking mother of Garrett and Sid Jr. Oren Lyons Oren Lyons, serves as the Onondaga Nation Turtle Clan Faith Keeper and as a member Chief of the Onondaga Council of Chiefs and the Grand Council of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy. Oren holds the title of Professor Emeritus at SUNY Buffalo, has an honorary Doctor of Law Degree from his Alma Mater, Syracuse University where Lyons Hall is named in his honor. Chief Lyons is an All-American Lacrosse Hall of Famer and Honorary Chairman of the Iroquois Nationals Lacrosse Team. He is an accomplished artist, environmentalist, and author. Oren is a leading voice at the UN Permanent Forum on Human Rights for Indigenous Peoples, serves on the Executive Committee of Spiritual and Parliamentary Leaders for Human Survival, serves on the Board for Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development, as Principal of One Bowl Productions, and honorary board member for 4 The Future Foundation. Recipient of several prestigious awards including; The United Nations NGO World Peace Prize, the Ellis Island Congressional Medal of Honor, The Rosa Parks and George Arent Award for environmental and social activism and recently receiving Sweden’s prestigious Friends of the Children Award with his colleague the late Nelson Mandela. Recipient of Green Cross International Environmental Icon Award 2019. Oren Lyons ‘58, H’93 Headlines August Conversations About the Doctrine of Discovery . Pat McCabe (Diné) Pat McCabe (Weyakpa Najin Win, Woman Stands Shining) is a Diné (Navajo) mother, grandmother, activist, artist, writer, ceremonial leader, and international speaker. She is a voice for global peace, and her paintings are created as tools for individual, earth and global healing. She draws upon the Indigenous sciences of Thriving Life to reframe questions about sustainability and balance, and she is devoted to supporting the next generations, Women’s Nation and Men’s Nation, in being functional members of the “Hoop of Life” and upholding the honor of being human. Her primary work at the moment is: The reconciliation between the masculine and feminine, Men’s Nation and Women’s Nation Remembering, recreating or creating anew a narrative for the Sacred Masculine Addressing the Archetypal Wounding that occurred in our misunderstanding and abuse of technology in prayer, ceremony and science Zachary Melton University of Iceland S. Lily Mendoza S. Lily Mendoza is a Kapampangan-born Filipina and currently resides in Waawiyatanong (aka Detroit, Michigan). She is Full Professor of Culture and Communication at Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan and is known for her pathbreaking work on the politics of indigeneity particularly within the Philippine diasporic and homeland context. She is the author of books and essays exploring questions of identity and subjectivity, cultural politics in national, post- and trans- national contexts, discourses on indigenization, ecology, and the cultural logic of modernity and civilization. Among her book publications are Between the Homeland and the Diaspora: The Politics of Theorizing Filipino and Filipino American Identities , Back from the Crocodile’s Belly: Philippine Babaylan Studies and the Struggle for Indigenous Memory,  and, most recently, Decolonizing Ecotheology: Indigenous and Subaltern Challenges . Currently, she serves as the Executive Director of the Center for Babaylan Studies (CfBS), a movement for decolonization and indigenization among diasporic Filipinos. Robert J. Miller Robert J. Miller’s areas of expertise are Federal Indian Law, American Indians and international law, American Indian economic development, Native American natural resources, and Civil Procedure. He is an enrolled citizen of the Eastern Shawnee Tribe, the Interim Chief Justice for the Pascua Yaqui Tribe Court of Appeals and sits as a judge for other tribes. He is the Willard H. Pedrick Distinguished Research Scholar at ASU and the Faculty Director of the Rosette LLP American Indian Economic Development Program at ASU.  In 2014 he was elected to the American Philosophical Society. The APS is the oldest learned society in the United States and was created by Benjamin Franklin in 1743. Thomas Jefferson served as president of the APS for seventeen years overlapping his time as president of the United States. The APS has only elected about 5,600 members in its 280 year history. Before joining ASU in 2013, Professor Miller was on the faculty of Lewis & Clark Law School from 1999-2013. Prior to his career in academia, he practiced Indian law with Hobbs, Straus, Dean & Walker, and practiced litigation with the Stoel Rives law firm. Following graduation from law school, he clerked for Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Professor Miller’s scholarly works include articles, books, and book chapters on a wide array of Federal Indian Law issues and Civil Procedure, and he speaks regularly on Indian Law issues across the U.S. and in other countries. He is the author of “Native America, Discovered and Conquered: Thomas Jefferson, Lewis and Clark, and Manifest Destiny” (Praeger 2006), and “Reservation Capitalism: Economic Development in Indian Country” (Praeger 2012). He co-authored “A Promise Kept: The Muscogee (Creek) Nation and McGirt v. Oklahoma (forthcoming University of Oklahoma Press 2022); ”Creating Private Sector Economies in Native America: Sustainable Development through Entrepreneurship (Cambridge University Press 2019); and “Discovering Indigenous Lands: The Doctrine of Discovery in the English Colonies” (Oxford University Press 2010). Professor Miller has worked as a consultant with the American Philosophical Society since 2006 on tribal language and archival issues. He was elected to the American Law Institute in 2012. Rev. Lee M. Miller II Rev. Lee M. Miller II , is the Lutheran Bishop, Upstate New York Synod and was elected on June 5, 2021 by the Synod Assembly of the Upstate New York Synod to serve as the fifth bishop in the synod’s history.  Bishop Miller served as the Senior Pastor of Holy Trinity Lutheran Church, Buffalo, NY, and the lead pastor of St. John’s Evangelical Lutheran Church in Philadelphia, PA. He holds a Master of Divinity degree from the Lutheran Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, and his Bachelor of Arts degree in English was earned from the State University of New York in Albany. Sebastian Modrow Dr. Sebastian Modrow is an Assistant Professor at Syracuse University’s School of Information Studies. He received a doctorate in Ancient History from the University of Rostock, Germany, an Exam of the State degree (Masters equivalent) in History and Latin from the University of Greifswald, Germany, and a MLIS and a CAS in Cultural Heritage Preservation from Syracuse University. Previous work experiences include Lecturer for Latin at the University of Greifswald, Oldfather Research Fellow at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Teacher for Latin and history, Coordinator of Syracuse University Libraries’ Marcel Breuer Digital Archives project, Assistant Archivist as well Curator of Rare Books and Manuscripts at Syracuse University Libraries’ Special Collections Research Center. Sharon Moran Associate Professor, Environmental Studies, SUNY–ESF Sharon Moran is a geographer from the Department of Environmental Studies at SUNY- Environmental Science and Forestry. Her research explores the connections among people, water, and land in several places across Turtle Island. She’s especially interested how technologies are involved in mediating people’s relationships with water. Classes she offers to SU and ESF students include ‘Sustainable Enterprise’ and ‘Diversity and Knowledge of the Environment.’ Her recent work has explored ways to advance environmental justice, stream restoration, community science, and composting toilets, among other things. Together with Professors Richard Smardon and April Baptiste, she’s a co-author of  Revitalizing Urban Waterways: Streams of Environmental Justice . Tove Synnøve Mentsen Ness Avdelingsleder, Faculty of Education and Arts, Nord University Tina Nagata Tina Ngata (Ngāti Porou) is a mother of two from the East Coast of Te Ika a Maui, Aotearoa New Zealand. She is the author of Kia Mau: Resisting Colonial Fictions, which analyses the application of the Doctrine of Discovery by James Cook, and critiques the New Zealand government Cook anniversary celebrations. Her work involves advocacy for environmental, Indigenous and human rights. This includes local, national and international initiatives that highlight the role of settler colonialism in issues such as climate change and waste pollution, and promote Indigenous conservation as best practice for a globally sustainable future. Danielle Nagle She is the the Matilda Joslyn Gage Foundation Executive Director. Danielle is inspired by Gage’s philosophies on the relationships between women, science, and the earth. Danielle looks forward to pushing the possibilities for public education and social change in the context of historic house museums. Danielle earned a Ph.D. in Environmental Science from the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry in 2021 and is the author of multiple peer-reviewed journal articles. Jonathan Nahar Jonathan is a Palestinian-American Christian and graduate of the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies. He has worked in multiple countries doing Palestine advocacy, human rights monitoring, grassroots organizing, and challenging anti-Arab racism. Jonathan’s work connects the Palestinian decolonial struggle with those of other indigenous peoples, and challenges theologies of domination. Sarah Nahar Sarah Nahar,  M.Div (from Elkhart, Indiana Potawatomi traditional land) is a fourth year PhD student in the Religion department at Syracuse University. Her research focus is on the toilet, both the ritual and receptacle. She is matriculating concurrently at neighboring SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry in the Department of Environmental Studies. Sarah is also a nonviolent action trainer and interspiritual theologian. Previously, Sarah was a 2019  Rotary Peace Fellow  and worked at the  Martin Luther King, Jr. Center  in Atlanta, Georgia. She was a founding member of the ecojustice Carnival de Resistance and has been the Executive Director of  Community Peacemaker Teams . She attended  Spelman College , majoring in Comparative Women’s Studies and International Studies, minoring in Spanish. She has an MDiv from  Anabaptist Mennonite Biblical Seminary  in her hometown. Her hobbies include capoeira, community organizing, and home improvement projects. Brice Nordquist Brice Nordquist is a community-engaged writing and literacy researcher and teacher. He works through ethnographic and participatory research and public arts and humanities projects to study and support students’ movements across contexts of learning and stages of education. He co-founded and co-directs the  Narratio Fellowship , a storytelling and educational pipeline program for resettled refugee youth, and the founder and director of the College of Arts & Sciences’s  Engaged  Humanities Network  , which seeds, supports, and fosters exchanges across publicly-engaged research, teaching, and creative projects in pursuit of more inclusive, interconnected, and just communities and institutions. Hi book,  Literacy & Mobility  (Routledge), received the 2019 Conference on College Composition and Communication  Advancement of Knowledge Award , presented annually for the empirical research publication in the previous two years that most advances writing studies. The book follows first-generation college students from different tracks of English in a public high school through their first years at research universities, community colleges, and full-time jobs to show how they draw upon multiple literacies and linguistic resources to both accommodate and transform conventions of reading and writing.  Faculty Profile Steven T. Newcomb Steven Newcomb (Shawnee/Lenape) co-founded the Indigenous Law Institute in 1992 with Birgil Kill Straight (1940-2019), who was a traditional headman and ceremonial leader of the Oglala Lakota Nation. Newcomb is recognized as one of the world’s foremost authorities on the Doctrine of Discovery as made evident by his law review articles and his book  Pagans in the Promised Land: Decoding the Doctrine of Christian Discovery  (Fulcrum, 2008). He is the co-producer of the documentary movie  The Doctrine of Discovery: Unmasking the Domination Code , directed by Sheldon Wolfchild (Dakota), which is based on  Pagans in the Promised Land . His website is  originalfreenations.com  and he can be contacted at stv4newcomb[at]yahoo[period]com. The documentary can be ordered at  38Plus2Productions.com . Jim O’Connor Jim O’Connor is the producer of Access Audio, a storytelling initiative of the Special Collections Research Center at Syracuse University Libraries, which launched a 12-part podcast series titled, “ The Land You’re On: Acknowledging the Haudenosaunee .” The podcast series features candid conversations with SU Haudenosaunee students, alumni, staff and community members. Its aim is to help listeners learn about the history and the people who were the first residents of the area. Rev Alba Onofrio Rev Alba Onofrio (aka Reverend Sex) is a Southern Appalachian First-Gen Latinx Queer Evangelical Femme Resister who lives and loves in la Lucha with QTPOC folks as a Spiritual Healer and Bruja Troublemaker to subvert systems of domination, combat spiritual terrorism, reclaim the Divine and the erotic, and eradicate shame and fear wherever they are found. They hold a Masters of Divinity degree from Vanderbilt Divinity School, where their studies focused on the theologies of sex, embodiment of the Divine in the queer colonized body, and sexual ethics based in queer desire. Alba has also worked in the immigrants rights movement for over a decade, previously serving as the Executive Director of El Centro Hispano, the then-largest non-religiously affiliated grassroots community center in North Carolina. As the former spiritual strategist for Soulforce and co-founder of the Sexual Liberation Collective, Reverend Sex continues to work for Queer Liberation all over the place, but most fondly in the US South and in solidarity with the Global South. Naimi Pankaj Patel Began Ph.D. program at Syracuse University in religion 2022; MTS in South Asian Religions, Harvard Divinity School 2021; BA in Religion, Philosophy, and Journalism and Media Studies, Rutgers University 2018; Research Interests: Hindu Religious Traditions; love, affect, and performance; digital religiosity; comparative religion, global religious movements, South Asian diaspora; identity, community, and belonging. Cara Peacock Univeristy of Toronto Ph.D. student in Political Science Nehiyaw and Anishinaabe. Political philosophy and decolonial feminisms. James (Jim) Perkinson Ecumenical Theological Seminary, Theology and Ethics, Faculty Member. Jim Perkinson is a long-time activist and educator from inner city Detroit, where he has a history of involvement in various community development initiatives and low-income housing projects. He holds a PhD in theology/history of religions from the University of Chicago, is the author of White Theology: Outing Supremacy in Modernity and Shamanism, Racism, and Hip-Hop Culture: Essays on White Supremacy and Black Subversion, and has written extensively in both academic and popular journals on questions of race, class and colonialism in connection with religion and urban culture. He is in demand as a speaker on a wide variety of topics related to his interests and a recognized artist on the spoken-word poetry scene in the inner city. Jim is interested in using a broad array of interdisciplinary tools to investigate the way socio-economic position, racial presupposition, and gender perspective already inform our values and orientation to life long before we begin to grapple with questions of identity, ministry or spirituality. He is particularly concerned to understand the way white supremacy, as an effect of colonial Christian practices, continues to be reproduced in mainstream Western cultures. In addition, he explores how the creative forms of cultural resistance developed by marginalized groups can critically challenge Christianity today. These concerns figure in both his academic writing and the performance poetry that he produce as a necessary adjunct to teaching. Becoming at least bi-cultural in communication skills and poly-rhythmic in spiritual practice is fast emerging as a requisite capacity for Christian leadership in a transnational world. And the need for a pedagogy adequate to such a demand is his consuming passion. Katie Peters ​I am an ABD doctoral student in Philosophy at the University of Connecticut, under the supervision of Heather Battaly and Tracy Llanera. My dissertation explores the intersection of extremism and gender—specifically, the role and presence of women in the American far-right. Women’s roles in the far-right have often been dismissed, ignored, or counted as ‘feminist’ wins despite the regressive content of their beliefs. My dissertation focuses on the ways in which we exculpate these women in discussions of moral responsibility, and proposes an alternative understanding of both backward- and forward-looking moral responsibility based in intersectional feminist theory. Aside from my dissertation, I work on projects in the field of virtue and vice epistemology. Quinn Pierson Syracuse University CK Raju (Honorary Professor) Indian Institute of Education, G. D. Parikh Centre, J. P. Naik Bhavan, University of Mumbai, Kalina Campus,  Santacruz (E), Mumbai 400 098 Mitch Randall Mitch is the executive officer of Good Faith Media. Before joining GFM, he was the executive director of the Baptist Center for Ethics. In addition, he pastored churches in Kansas, Texas and Oklahoma for over 20 years, and he holds a Master’s of Divinity with Biblical Languages from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and a Doctor of Ministry degree from George W. Truett Theological Seminary. Mitch is a citizen of the Muscogee Creek Nation with his ancestors reaching back to the McIntosh and Childers clans. He is married to Missy Randall and they reside in Norman, Oklahoma. They have two adult sons. Nicholas Robinson Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University Professor Nicholas A. Robinson has developed environmental law since 1969, when he was named to the Legal Advisory Committee of the President’s Council on Environmental Quality. He has practiced environmental law in law firms for municipalities and as general counsel of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. He drafted New York’s wetlands and wild bird laws and was inaugurated as the first chairman of both the statutory Freshwater Wetlands Appeals Board and Greenway Heritage Conservancy for the Hudson River Valley. Professor Robinson has served as legal advisor and chairman of the Commission on Environmental Law of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, engaged in drafting treaties and counseling different countries on the preparation of their environmental laws. He founded Pace’s environmental law programs, edited the proceedings of the 1992 United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, and is author of several books and numerous articles. He teaches a number of environmental law courses. He is a member of the editorial boards of the Asia Pacific Journal of Environmental Law (University of Sydney, since 1998), the Macquarie Journal of International and Comparative Environmental Law (since 2004), and the journal of the Global Pandemic Network (since 2021). He is also an advisor of the Pace Environmental Law Review (since 1978), in addition to being on the Editorial Advisory Board, and Consulting Editor, Environmental Law, Oceana Publications (1996-2004). Professor Robinson served as James D. Hopkins Professor of Law during the 1991–1993 academic years. He established the Doctor of Juridical Sciences (SJD) program at Haub Law, along with the Masters of Laws degree (LLM) in Environmental Law, Feldschuh LL.M. Fellowship, and the JD Certificate in Environmental Law. On March 2009, the Pace University Board of Trustees conferred the position of University Professor for the Environment on Nicholas A. Robinson for his significant contribution to scholarship in the field of environmental law, both in the USA and abroad. Eve Reyes-Aguirre Eve Reyes-Aguirre, an Izkaloteka Azteca Indigenous woman, has been a community organizer at Tonatierra, An Embassy for Indigenous Peoples, for more than 22 years. In that time, Eve has been at the forefront in advocating for human rights, women’s rights, Indigenous Peoples rights and environmental rights on the local, national, and international level. Eve has worked tirelessly to bring awareness to the political, social, economic and environmental challenges affecting Indigenous Peoples globally. She also organizes at the grassroots level regionally and locally to strengthen traditional identity, equality and well-being of Indigenous Women, Indigenous Peoples, and the protection of water and the environment.  Eve has represented her community annually at the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. Eve has also served the Global Indigenous Women’s Caucus as Co-chair and/or Rapporteur since 2009. In April of 2013, Eve was a co-organizer of the 1st International Conference on Dismantling the Doctrine of Discovery held in Phoenix Arizona, with over 430 indigenous participants from all over the globe. Sally Roesch Wagner DR. SALLY ROESCH WAGNER . Awarded one of the first doctorates in the country for work in women’s studies (UC Santa Cruz) and a founder of one the first college-level women’s studies programs in the United States (CSU Sacramento), Dr. Wagner has taught women’s studies courses for 51 years. The Founder/Director of the Matilda Joslyn Gage Foundation, she teaches in Syracuse University’s Honors Program and California State University, Sacramento’s Women and Gender Studies department. A major historian of the suffrage movement, Dr. Wagner is active on the national scene. She appeared on the CNN Special Report:  Women Represented  and CNN’s  Quest’s World of Wonder . She has been quoted in the  New York Times, Washington Post, Smithsonian, Nation  and  Time Magazine,  among others. Her recent articles appeared in the  New York Daily News, Ms. Magazine , the National Women’s History Alliance newsletter and National Suffrage Centennial Commission blog. In March 2021, the Smithsonian Museum of the American Indian featured the film,  Without a Whisper  which traces Dr. Wagner’s research demonstrating the Haudenosaunee influence on the suffrage movement through her friendship with Wakerakats:te, the Mohawk Bear Clan Mother. She appeared in and wrote the faculty guide for the Ken Burns’ documentary, “Not for Ourselves Alone.” A prolific author, Dr. Wagner’s anthology  The Women’s Suffrage Movement ,  with a Forward by Gloria Steinem (Penguin Classics, 2019), unfolds a new intersectional look at the 19th century woman’s rights movement.   Sisters in Spirit: Haudenosaunee   (Iroquois) Influence on Early American Feminists  (Native Voices, 2001) documents the surprisingly unrecognized authority of Native women, who inspired the suffrage movement. It was followed by her young reader’s book,  We Want Equal Rights: How Suffragists Were Influenced by Native American Women  (Native Voices, 2020). Among her awards, Dr. Wagner was selected as a 2020 New York State Senate Woman of Distinction, one of “21 Leaders for the 21st Century” by Women’s E-News in 2015 and she received the Katherine Coffey Award for outstanding service to museology from the Mid-Atlantic Association of Museums in 2012. Rochele Royster Rochele Royster, Ph.D, ATR-BC is an assistant professor of art therapy in the Department of Creative Arts Therapy. Royster has worked for the last 20 years integrating art therapy into the educational setting and has worked with youth, adolescents, and young adults with various learning differences such as autism, traumatic brain disorders, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Using a trans-disciplinary approach, she is interested in community and school-based art therapy; race, power and policy in education; multi-sensory methods in reading and literacy; trauma-informed classrooms; environmental justice; black disability; and special education as it relates to decolonization of pedagogy and practice in institutional and public settings. Royster’s dissertation developed as a grassroots approach to arts-based social change and addresses gun violence, death, and grief through memorials of resistance. She assisted in creating transformative art-based social justice curriculum for Cities of Peace/Jane Addams Hull House, the Teacher Institute/ Museum of Contemporary Art, and the Office of Arts and Education at CPS and has conducted workshop series for Chicago Park District teaching artists. She has also worked with sexual, domestic violence, and human trafficking survivors and Cambodian youth refugees. In 2017, Royster completed a Ph.D. in community psychology at National Louis University in Chicago and also holds master’s degrees in special education (2000) from Virginia State University and art therapy (2002) from the School of the Art Institute of Chicago as well as a B.F.A. in studio arts (1998) from Virginia State University. Royster serves on the steering committee of Psychologists for Social Responsibility and is a board director for the American Art Therapy Association. Dillon Sampson Syracuse University George Emilio Sanchez George Emilio Sanchez is a writer, performance artist and social justice activist. He was born in Los Angeles, raised in Orange County, California, and became a New York transplant in 1978. He began making original pieces in 1992 and has continued making performance work and social justice projects to this day. He is currently in the process of crafting a new performance series titled “Performing the Constitution.” The first installment of the series, titled XIV , will premiere at Dixon Place in June 2019. This work melds autobiography and history in a performance that gives narrative to the injustices racialized communities face as they fight for “equal protection of the laws.” The second performance in the series is titled In the Court of the Conqueror and confronts the over 200 year-old history of U.S. Supreme Court rulings that have diluted the Tribal Sovereignty of Native Nations. This second installment will premiere at Abrons Arts Center in fall of 2020, where George is the 2019–20 PATHS Social Practice Artist in Residence. As the Abrons Social Practice AIR he works with youth groups on the Lower East Side to use the arts as a restorative tool while addressing the reality and trauma of gun violence. For the past two years, he organized and facilitated BANG BANG GUN AMOK , a 24-hour performance filibuster on gun culture. George has been the Performance Director of Emergenyc under the umbrella of the Hemispheric Institute of Performance and Politics since 2008. This three-month program works with cohorts of 16-20 national and international participants to explore the intersection of arts and activism. He also teaches performance and arts education at the College of Staten Island/City University of New York. He is a Professor in the Performing and Creative Arts Department where he served as the chairperson for 12 years. George’s work has been presented by theaters and museums in over 25 states and has received support from National Performance Network, the Fulbright Program (Peru), New York Foundation for the Arts, the Jerome Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation. George has been an artist-in-residence at Brooklyn Arts Exchange, Abrons Arts Center, Dixon Place, Dance Theater Workshop, Pergones Theater, The MacDowell Colony, Tigertail Productions (Miami), Dance Umbrella (Austin), Centro Cultural de la Raza (San Diego), and Guadalupe Cultural Arts Center (San Antonio). George resides in Fort Greene, Brooklyn and has three daughters. Michelle Schenandoah Kaluhyanu:wes “She is Fond of the Sky” Michelle D. Schenandoah is a traditional member of the Onʌyota’:aka Oneida Nation of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy. She was raised on Oneida territories within the traditional teachings of the Haudenosaunee Longhouse and a family of traditional leaders. Michelle is a mother of four and a new grandmother; she lives in her people’s homelands in Syracuse, NY with her family. Sarah Shute Indigenous Values Initiative Rikki Solomon Pranay Somayajula Hindus for Human Rights Christopher Sudol Christopher is a 2023 J.D. Candidate and Haub Scholar in the Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University Andrea Smith A. Lynn Smith is a historical anthropologist whose research explores settler colonialism, collective and public memory, and place-loss. Memory Wars: Settlers and Natives Remember Washington’s Sullivan Expedition of 1779 (2023) critically examines the public memory of the Sullivan Expedition against the Haudenosaunee, and contrasts settler accounts with the depiction found at Haudenosaunee cultural centers. Previous books include Colonial Memory and Postcolonial Europe: Maltese Settlers in Algeria and France (2006), on settler memory of Algeria; Europe’s Invisible Migrants (2005); and Rebuilding Shattered Worlds: Creating Community by Voicing the Past (2016). She is currently working on a book on the public memory of the Walking Purchase “treaty” in eastern Pennsylvania. Scott Manning Stevens Scott Manning Stevens  is a citizen of the Akwesasne Mohawk Nation and earned his PhD in English from Harvard University. Dr. Stevens was the former Director of the D’Arcy McNickle Center for American Indian and Indigenous Studies at the Newberry Library in Chicago. He is currently the Director of the Native American Indigenous Studies Program at Syracuse University. There he also teaches courses in the departments of English and Art History. During the academic year 2021-2022, he was a fellow at the Harvard Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study. Stevens is the co-author of two books on Native American history and visual culture,  Home Front: Daily Life in the Civil War North  (U Chicago 2013) and  Art of the American West  (Yale UP, 2014).  Dr. Stevens is also a co-editor and contributor to the 2015 collection of essays  Why You Can’t Teach United States History without American Indians . His recent book chapters and articles include: “From ‘Iroquois Cruelty’ to the Mohawk Warrior Society: Stereotyping and the Strategic Uses of a Reputation for Violence,”  Violence and Indigenous Communities: Confronting the Past, Engaging the Present , (Northwestern UP, 2021) and”On Native American Erasure in the Classroom,”  Teaching Race in Perilous Times , (SUNY Press, 2021). Stevens also serves or has served on advisory committees at the National Museum of the American Indian, the Smithsonian American Art Museum, and the New York Historical Society. In the past he has held fellowships from the Mellon Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the National Endowment of the Humanities. Franklyn Telles Northern Arizona University, Ph.D. Candidate in Earth Sciences and Environmental Sustainability. Experienced instructor with a demonstrated history of working in the higher education industry. Skilled in Arcgis Products, Lecturing, Instructional Design, Environmental Awareness, Culturally-Relevant Sustaining Education, and languages: Russian and Spanish. A strong education professional graduated from the University of California, Los Angeles, California State University, Northridge, and the Richard Gilder Graduate School (American Museum of Natural History). Eglute Trinkauskaite Eglute Trinkauskaite is a full time faculty in Humanistic Studies department at Maryland Institute College of Art.   She holds her PhD, MPhil, and MA in Religion from Syracuse University and her BA in Religion from Hunter College, City University of New York. Her teaching and research interests focus on indigenous and ethnic traditions, the natural environment, and globalization. Her latest writing explores complex layers of culture and religion in post-Soviet Lithuania. Her current book project, The Swarming Dead, focuses on the continued vitality of indigenous religion and its imprint on modern Lithuania and its diaspora. Eglute has taught at Syracuse University, Hamilton College, and Nazareth College of Rochester, New York. She is an active member of American Academy of Religion and Association for the Advancement of Baltic Studies. Terry Reeder Terry Hawley Reeder, PhD, Visiting Assistant Professor of Religious Studies, College of Wooster Indigenous values inform all of my work. My teaching and research have three strands: one is investigating howpatriarchal Christianities misuse natural law in the American public sphere to provoke animus against queer people and women. Second, I identify how religions, primarily Christianities and Indigenous sacred practices, promote liberation or oppression, including teaching about the Doctrine of Discovery. Last, I work with Harriet Jacob’s  Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl  as a text for the study of religions. Brianna Rose Svitak Syracuse University Rick Ufford-Chase Center for Jubilee Practice Karina Vargas Karina Vargas Espinoza is Costa Rican, and an educator, feminist theologian, linguist, and psychologist. She holds a Master’s Degree in Global Leadership from Fuller Seminary in Pasadena, California, and a Master’s Degree in Studies of Social and Family Violence from Universidad Estatal a Distancia located in San José, Costa Rica. She currently serves as Director for the Institute on Spiritual Violence, Healing and Social Change, a project of Soulforce. She is also a professor of Liberation Theologies at the Center for World Education and Experience at the University of Augsburg in Minnesota. Among her main research focuses are the power dynamics involved in spiritual-religious violence and therapeutic processes to support survivors of these forms of violence. James Webster Bronwyn Williams Sara Jolena Wolcott Sequoia Samanvaya Descendent of some of Founding Fathers of the United States of America, Sara Jolena Wolcott, M.Div, is now building people’s capacity to collectively reMember our ecological familial, national and global origin stories to enable more harmonious futures. An ecotheologian and unconventional minister, she is the founder of Sequoia Samanvaya, a healer, a ceremonialist, and a Legacy Advisor with Innovation 4.4. She is primarily interested in the work of ReMembering and ReEnchanting our world. She is known for her laughter and the (sometimes wild) power of her presence. Born and raised on the historical Ohlone lands in the California Bay Area into a Quaker family, her quest to understand how we might navigate through the current social and ecological crises took her on a global odyssey. Her wide and wild range of experience, all of which brings depth to her ministry, includes : co-leading the 33-country multi-disciplinary ReImagining Development Program at the Institute of Development Studies (IDS), consulting for the World Bank, living as a traveling singer in India, serving as a community minister at Judson Memorial Church in New York City, working as a prison chaplain on Rikers Island Correctional Facility in NYC and working as a Fellow in Spirituality and Climate Change at the Institute of the Advancement of Science and Society in Germany. She also has nearly 20 years of experience as a healer and ceremonialist. Her formal education includes a CMT from the McKinnon Institute of Massage Therapy in Oakland, CA; a BA from Haverford College in Anthropology, an MA in international development from the Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex, UK; and a Masters of Divinity (M.Div.) at Union Theological Seminary. Her international speaking engagements have brought her to 10 countries and she has spoken in over 16 U.S. states. She currently lives on the historical homeland of the Mohigan/Mahican people in the Hudson Valley. She enjoys painting dragons, sitting around fires, and moonlit walks. Joss Willsbrough Syracuse University Victor Valle California Polytechnic State University Victor Valle’s translations of Latin American poetry and prose earned him an NEA fellowship in 1980 and the cronista gaze he brought to the Los Angeles Times , where he won a Pulitzer Prize in 1984 for his contributions to a multi-part series on Southern California’s Latino community. He next wrote Recipe of Memory: Five Generations of Mexican Cuisine (1995) , a crónica of the female elders who curated a Mexican family’s recipes since the mid-19th century. The book garnered literary nominations from the Julia Child Cookbook Award and the James Beard Foundation Awards, an Italian-language edition, and a chapter in American Food Writing: A Literary Anthology . In one chapter of Latino Metropolis (2000) Valle explored gastronomy’s role in city-building and urban placemaking, while his next books (C ity of Industry: Genealogies of Southern California Power in 2009, and LatinX Writing Los Angeles: Nonfiction Dispatches From A Decolonial Rebellion in 2018) delved deeper into the contested genealogies of L.A.’s urban places. His next book, The Poetics of Fire: Metaphors of Chile Eating in the Borderlands (University of New Mexico Press, 2023) attempts a non-essentialist eco-aesthetic of culinary art based in Native relational cosmologies, an effort whose indigenizing implications extend to ChicanX, LatinX, and Non-Native performing and literary arts, including poetry, and the culinary arts generally. Special Thanks Special thanks to Dr. Adam DJ Brett, Deborah Pratt, Alex Snow, and our volunteers.",
    "tags": [
      "event",
      "Conference",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Website Note The printed conference schedeule will have panel locations. The printed schedule is canonical. Land Acknowledgement We acknowledge with respect the Onondaga Nation, firekeepers of the Haudenosaunee, the Indigenous peoples on whose ancestral lands Syracuse University now stands. Description December 8-10, 2023, Syracuse University Sponsors The Henry Luce Foundation Syracuse University - Religion Department - Biology Department Indigenous Values Initiative American Indian Law Alliance American Indian Community House Good Faith Media (GFM) Neighbors of Onondaga Nation (NOON) Syracuse Peace Council Syracuse Cultural Workers Tonatierra Toward Our Common Public Life Unitarian Universalist Association Register Register Now{: .btn .btn--info .btn--x-large} Conference Hotel Sheraton Syracuse University Hotel & Conference Center 801 University Avenue, Syracuse, New York, USA, 13210 Tel: +1 315-475-3000 Book your group rate for Indigenous Values Initiative Room Block{: .btn .btn--success .btn--x-large} Parking Friday, December 8th: Parking available in Hillside, College Place, Carnegie lots and Irving garage Saturday, December 9th and Sunday, December 10th events: - Comstock Avenue Garage, and the following open lots: - University Ave. North, University Ave. South and Harrison. Campus WiFi 1. You need a text-capable mobile phone to complete the process. 2. Connect to the AirOrangeGuest wireless network and wait for the Network Guest Service Portal to open on your device. If it doesn’t open on its own, open your browser to the guest portal. 3. Follow the instructions. Meals Friday dinner is provided at the Skä-noñh Center Saturday and Sunday lunch is provided Book Display Many of our conference attendees have new or recent books on topics related to the conference. We encourage you to stop by the Syracuse University bookstore display on the first floor of the Hall of Languages. Some of these books will only be easily available at this conference. Questions Find event staff wearing the event lanyard and ask. Ask at the info table on the first floor of the Hall of Languages Classroom technology options In the Hall of Languages here is what is available technology wise Navigation For a detailed campus map visit maps.syracuse.edu In the Court of the Conqueror \"In the Court of the Conqueror\" written and performed by george emilio sanchez and in collaboration with visual artist Patty Ortiz. Techical Assistance Lights: Jorgen Skjaervold Video projections: Patty Ortiz Acknowledgements for the program: Thanks We especially would like to acknowledge and thank: Lauren Parrish-Tech Director for In the Court of the Conqueror Andre Bouchard and Indigenous Performance Productions The University of Oklahoma's Indigenous Peoples Law Masters of Legal Studies program Annotated Bibliography In the Court of the Conqueror Annotated Bibliography by george emilio sanchez Tenative Conference Schedule Speaker Bios if you would like your bio included please email your short bio to info@indigenousvalues.org Special Thanks Special thanks to Dr. Adam DJ Brett, Deborah Pratt, Alex Snow, and our volunteers."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/continuacion-dominacion/",
    "title": "Continuación de la dominación de la Cristiandad: una respuesta a la declaración de repudio del Vaticano a la Doctrina del Descubrimiento - Español",
    "publishedAt": "2023-04-13T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "por Betty Lyons, Sandra Bigtree y Philip Arnold English Español Cuando el Vaticano finalmente se dé cuenta de que está sumido en el lodo genocida de siglos de explotación racista de los Pueblos Indígenas de todo el mundo, será bienvenido un paso hacia el reconocimiento de la necesidad de la reconciliación.",
    "tags": [
      "law",
      "religion",
      "Christianity",
      "Catholic",
      "Vatican",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "por Betty Lyons, Sandra Bigtree y Philip Arnold English{: .btn .btn--primary .btn--x-large} Español Cuando el Vaticano finalmente se dé cuenta de que está sumido en el lodo genocida de siglos de explotación racista de los Pueblos Indígenas de todo el mundo, será bienvenido un paso hacia el reconocimiento de la necesidad de la reconciliación. La declaración del Vaticano que repudia la Doctrina del Descubrimiento, emitida el 30 de marzo, es importante y representa décadas de trabajo de activistas indígenas y no indígenas que han librado una batalla a menudo solitaria en todo el mundo para llamar la atención sobre los fundamentos racistas que todavía definen gran parte de los mecanismos legales utilizados para negar a los pueblos indígenas su posición legítima entre las naciones del mundo. La serie de bulas papales seculares iniciadas en el siglo XV, que aportaron la ficción teológica y jurídica para justificar la colonización y conquista cristiana, les decía a los exploradores europeos que llegaron primero a África y luego al llamado Nuevo Mundo, que podían considerar esas tierras terra nullis, o vacíos, si no estuvieran ocupados por cristianos y apoderarse de ellos en nombre de su soberano. No se nos escapa que este primer paso, por limitado que fuera, llegó bajo el Papa Francisco, el primer líder del Vaticano de ese llamado Nuevo Mundo, quien durante una visita a Bolivia en 2015 se pidió disculpa por las atrocidades cometidas contra los Pueblos Indígenas en la conquista europea. Pero aunque acogemos con beneplácito este primer paso hacia la reconciliación, sabemos que no alcanza el tipo de rendición de cuentas total necesaria para curar las heridas aún supurantes. Al comparar la \"Declaración conjunta\" proveniente del Vaticano con otras declaraciones de repudio cristiano (como las de los Episcopales, el Consejo Mundial de Iglesias y las Declaraciones Católicas Romanas), la declaración del Vaticano palidece en comparación. Estas otras declaraciones reconocen traumas históricos, confiesan complicidades y algunas incluso esbozan soluciones. La declaración del Vaticano debe seguir estos otros modelos y ser autorreflexiva, comprometida con el trauma histórico de su propia creación, y ser específica en los próximos pasos hacia la curación. Es necesario notar con citas específicas que ayudarían a aclarar afirmaciones como: \"La investigación histórica demuestra claramente que los documentos papales en cuestión. . . nunca han sido consideradas expresiones de la Fe Católica.\"\\ El registro está lejos de ser claro. El Requerimiento (1513), Johnson v. M'Intosh (1823) e incluso la juez Ruth Bader Ginsburg en Sherrill v. Oneida (2005) son solo algunos ejemplos de documentos que citan explícitamente la justificación teológica y legal de la esclavitud, la explotación y la extracción de la iglesia para proporcionar una carta blanca para el maltrato a las Naciones y Pueblos Indígenas. Las bulas papales que sustentan la Doctrina del Descubrimiento todavía sirven como raíz al legado continuo del genocidio. La fundadora del American Indian Law Alliance, Tonya Gonella Frichner (Onondaga Nation, Snipe Clan), en su informe de Relatora Especial de 2010 para las Naciones Unidas (E/C.19/2010/13), destaca no solo la complicidad de la Iglesia Católica Romana pero también cristianos Protestantes. Su informe pidió un estudio más profundo de la Doctrina que aún debe completarse. La reciente declaración del Vaticano se lee en parte como un intento de control de daños. Tina Ngata (maorí) y Steven T. Newcomb (Shawnee/Lenape) han abordado el enfoque de Sublimus Deus (1537) como absolviendo al Vaticano de su complicidad con el colonialismo. Lo que enfatizan Ngata y Newcomb es que, en el mejor de los casos, Sublimis Deus era una medida a medias. Claro, reconoce la humanidad y los derechos de propiedad de los Pueblos Indígenas, independientemente de su relación con el cristianismo. Sin embargo, Sublimis Deus no hizo nada para frenar la esclavitud, la explotación y la extracción que tenían lugar en todo el mundo en nombre de la iglesia y la corona. Pastorale Officium brinda algunas amenazas de castigo a los abusadores, pero incluso esas fueron ignoradas en su mayoría, especialmente por hombres como Hernán Cortés. En 1538, el Papa Pablo III emitió Non-Indecens Videtur, que efectivamente anuló Pastorale Officium y Sublimis Deus. La cita del documento más reciente del Vaticano de Sublimis Deus es un intento de esconderse detrás de un muro de ofuscación papal. Al igual que en la escena del Mago de Oz, no prestes atención al hombre detrás de la cortina. Solo que aquí, no presta atención a preservar una teología tóxica de la dominación y la deshumanización. La declaración del Vaticano debe abordar los elementos complejos y matizados del legado histórico y contemporáneo de la doctrina. Philip P. Arnold y Sandy Bigtree (Mohawk Nation) destacan diez dimensiones religiosas de esta Doctrina, y Steven T. Newcomb (Shawnee/Lenape) resume todo esto en una sola palabra: dominación. En el centro de la Doctrina del Descubrimiento está la dominación de la cristiandad. A pesar de la elisión de la dominación en la declaración conjunta en inglés, la dominación impregna la liturgia y la teología de la iglesia. Es un proyecto de dominación de convertir a la gente de una tradición religiosa a otra por la creencia en la superioridad de la tradición cristiana. Por ejemplo, el leccionario de la Conferencia de Obispos de los Estados Unidos, lectura 161, publicado en 2018, titulado \"La Solemnidad de Nuestro Señor Jesucristo, Rey del Universo\" cita pasajes de Daniel 7:13-14 que declaran: \"Su [Hijo del hombre] dominio es un dominio eterno que nunca será quitado, su realeza no será destruida.\" Destaca la lógica de dominación que sigue siendo parte de la teología católica. La teología tóxica de la dominación otorga dominio sobre la tierra y un sentido inherente de superioridad porque se encuentran entre los salvos. Actualmente, las iglesias católicas romanas, las escuelas, los observatorios y más se asientan en tierras indígenas robadas en violación de los derechos humanos y los tratados internacionales. El Papa Francisco ha llamado y reconocido el legado genocida de los internados católicos romanos, cuya misión, como dijo el fundador de la Escuela Industrial Carlisle de Pensilvania, era \"Matar al indio, salvar al hombre\", pero, sin embargo, algunas de las escuelas siguen funcionando. La dominación cristiana está codificada en la ley colonial de colonos a través de la ley de propiedad de los EE. UU., la ley india federal, las regulaciones del impuesto sobre la renta (las religiones deben parecerse a las iglesias), la separación de la iglesia y el estado, el poder plenario, la divinización del estado y el nacionalismo religioso. Túpac Enrique Acosta (Izkaloteka Mexica Azteca) nos recuerda la poderosa e importante labor de la Comisión Continental de Abya Yala. La comisión nos recuerda que: \"La pregunta ya no es si la Doctrina del Descubrimiento, tal como todavía se perpetúa en la política y la práctica en todo el hemisferio, es válida. Esa pregunta ha sido respondida, definitiva y finalmente. No hay presentación moral, legal o cultural que pueda argumentar legítimamente que la teoría del Derecho Divino de los Reyes, que engendró la Doctrina del Descubrimiento por parte de la cristiandad, puede tener alguna validez en una sociedad democrática postulando el 'Derecho Divino de los Estados.' Lo que está en cuestión ahora es de qué lado de la historia nos situaremos cada uno de nosotros como individuos, como familias, como comunidades, como naciones y como seres humanos.\" Si bien damos la bienvenida a este primer paso del Vaticano reconociendo la opresión en curso, nosotros levantamos nuestra voz por Nuestra Madre Tierra y en solidaridad con todos los seres vivos del planeta. ¿Y Ustedes ? El tiempo es ahora."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/craft-fair/",
    "title": "Indigenous Craft Fair",
    "publishedAt": "2024-03-26T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "We invite everyone to visit the Indigenous Peoples Craft Fair on 17 April 2024 from 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM on the Eighth Floor of the Church Center of the United Nations (CCUN) located at 777 United Nations Plaza, New York, NY 10017. For Indigenous peoples wishing to serve as vendors, setup is done on a first-come, first-serve basis. Being a vendor in the craft fair is reserved for Indigenous peoples participating in the UNPFII. The craft fair is cash only. If you have questions, email aila@aila.ngo",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "UN",
      "UNPFII",
      "WeAreIndigenous",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "We invite everyone to visit the Indigenous Peoples Craft Fair on 17 April 2024 from 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM on the Eighth Floor of the Church Center of the United Nations (CCUN) located at 777 United Nations Plaza, New York, NY 10017. For Indigenous peoples wishing to serve as vendors, setup is done on a first-come, first-serve basis. Being a vendor in the craft fair is reserved for Indigenous peoples participating in the UNPFII. The craft fair is cash only. If you have questions, email aila@aila.ngo",
    "externalUrl": "https://aila.ngo/2024-craft-fair/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/crfp-doctrine-discovery/",
    "title": "CRFP: Indigenous Peoples express hope and concern at Vatican’s repudiation of Doctrine of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2023-05-10T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Philip P Arnold, a professor of religious studies at Syracuse University and the founding director of Skä·noñh — Great Law of Peace Center, was interviewed on the Emancipation Support Committee’s radio show Indaba, on Wednesday 12 April, along with his wife Sandy Bigtree. Their position is that: “the Vatican’s statement reads in part like an attempt at damage control” and that it, “falls short of the kind of full accountability required to heal past wounds”. Additionally, they argue that it does not compare favourably with other Christian repudiations: the Episcopalians 2009, the World Council of Churches 2012, and myriad other Roman Catholic bodies throughout the 2000’s.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "news",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Philip P Arnold, a professor of religious studies at Syracuse University and the founding director of Skä·noñh — Great Law of Peace Center, was interviewed on the Emancipation Support Committee’s radio show Indaba, on Wednesday 12 April, along with his wife Sandy Bigtree. Their position is that: “the Vatican’s statement reads in part like an attempt at damage control” and that it, “falls short of the kind of full accountability required to heal past wounds”. Additionally, they argue that it does not compare favourably with other Christian repudiations: the Episcopalians 2009, the World Council of Churches 2012, and myriad other Roman Catholic bodies throughout the 2000’s.",
    "externalUrl": "https://wired868.com/2023/04/27/crfp-indigenous-people-express-hope-and-concern-at-vaticans-repudiation-of-doctrine-of-discovery/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/decolonization-discovery-sovereignity-neocolonialism/",
    "title": "Decolonization, Discovery, Sovereignty, and Neocolonialism",
    "publishedAt": "2020-06-20T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Featured speaker: Tupac Enrique Acosta, Tonatierra This foundational decolonization webinar addresses the Doctrine of Discovery, the intersection between indigenous and environmental struggles, facing the challenges of neocolonialism (i.e., the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA)) and the forced disappearance of the 43 Ayotzinapa students that remains in impunity. Organized by the NLG Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Committee and the NLG Environmental Human Rights Committee",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "Decolonization",
      "Discovery",
      "Sovereignity",
      "neoclonilaism",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Featured speaker: Tupac Enrique Acosta, Tonatierra This foundational decolonization webinar addresses the Doctrine of Discovery, the intersection between indigenous and environmental struggles, facing the challenges of neocolonialism (i.e., the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA)) and the forced disappearance of the 43 Ayotzinapa students that remains in impunity. Organized by the NLG Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Committee and the NLG Environmental Human Rights Committee",
    "externalUrl": "https://youtu.be/ZUM6R5rMbss?si=V8qUeb-RtM0u9A-y"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/dicaprio-revenant/",
    "title": "DiCaprio and 'The Revenant:' Indigenous Wisdom and Human Survival",
    "publishedAt": "2016-02-05T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "As we head into the Academy Awards this weekend, we should visit Leonardo DiCaprio’s acceptance speech at the Golden Globe Awards on 10 January, which concluded with his honoring Indigenous Peoples. He said, “It is time that we recognize your history and that we protect your indigenous lands from corporate interests and people that are out there to exploit them. It is time that we heard your voice and protected this planet for future generations.” This powerful statement calls forth the combined protection of Indigenous Peoples’ lands, traditions, languages and ceremonial practices–or what Indigenous Peoples around the world have come to call “de-colonization.” As human survival has now become the face of climate change, it raises a profoundly important question for our age. Is Indigenous wisdom, or “religion”– their way of being in the world–directly related to our current state that is jeopardizing the material survival of human beings? This seems to be graphically depicted in DiCaprio’s recent film “The Revenant.” The central theme of the film deals with incredible loss, hinged on the only element of hope of a future through Hawk, the half Native son of fur trapper Hugh Glass. That vision is thwarted when Hawk is violently killed as Glass lay wounded and forced to watch. But this only mirrors the grief from loss and revenge that is endemic on the frontier. Native Americans and White “Settlers” are thrown into opposition, where hunting and killing becomes the impetus behind the commodification of the landscape. Grief grows exponentially. The entire economy of this part of world is based on the fur trade, which involves the mass slaughter of animals, and the cultural genocide of the people who live in balance with the natural world. The commodification of the “frontier,” also justifies the military invasion of Indigenous Peoples and lands. “America” was built on a landscape of grief. Depredations of globalization so feared in the 21 st century began for Indigenous Peoples in the 15th with the European “discoveries” in the so-called New World. Going back an additional thousand years, the Haudenosaunee (called “Iroquois” by Jesuit missionaries) also tell of a period when clans and nations were embroiled in revenge killings. The people kept moving deeper and deeper into unresolved grief. Before this destructive violence extended further into the natural world, a Peacemaker arrived to deliver a message called the Great Law of Peace. This instruction would restore balance through a protocol of Condolence, followed by a protocol of Thanksgiving, which effectively united Five Nations into the Haudenosaunee Confederacy. This event occurred at Onondaga Lake (near Syracuse, NY) in the homeland of the Onondaga Nation. Today, the Haudenosaunee Confederacy continues this ancient protocol of Peace when they convene at Onondaga. American is in deep grief–a grief that has permeated the landscape. How do we console the land? A dream sequence in the Revenant takes place in the ruins of a church, where Glass and the ghost of Hawk encounter one another–we notice a bell swinging silently. There is no consoling message coming from the Church–it stands in ruin. As a professor of indigenous/colonial religions, this scene references the Doctrine of Christian Discovery, which is based in a series of 15th century Papal Bulls (letters from the Pope) that justified the conquest, seizure, and exploitation of non-Christian lands by Christian explorers. It justified the trans-Atlantic slave trade and fueled the Age of Discovery. Extractive economic activity took hold throughout the Americas, first for gold, silver, coal, oil, and the enslavement of people. Later, extending to the commodified ‘gifts’ of Indigenous Peoples, like, beaver pelts, corn, tobacco, potatoes, tomatoes, peanut butter, sugar, etc. Today, the Doctrine of Discovery remains a fundamental feature of U.S. property law. In 1823–the very date in which The Revenant is set–US Supreme Court Justice John Marshall, ruled in Johnson v. M’Intosh, that Indigenous title to land is dissolved when Christian discoverers enter Indigenous territories. First year law students cover this in their introductory property law classes. As recently as 2005, in the landmark case, Oneida v. Sherrill, Justice Ginsburg cited the Doctrine of Discovery to emphasize that no remedy exists for the theft of Indigenous Peoples’ lands under federal law. The ancient Indigenous knowledge of living in healthy relationships with the natural world is vitally needed in the world today. The grief of a continuously colonizing worldview that is wholly dependent on an extractive economy, stands in the way of immigrant-settler people ever hearing this urgent message. The Revenant reminds us of the violent foundational past that set us on a course of destruction. Besides the obvious regret of missed opportunities, is there time to change course–time to heal?",
    "tags": [
      "film",
      "Indigenous",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "As we head into the Academy Awards this weekend, we should visit Leonardo DiCaprio's acceptance speech at the Golden Globe Awards on 10 January, which concluded with his honoring Indigenous Peoples. He said, \"It is time that we recognize your history and that we protect your indigenous lands from corporate interests and people that are out there to exploit them. It is time that we heard your voice and protected this planet for future generations.\" This powerful statement calls forth the combined protection of Indigenous Peoples' lands, traditions, languages and ceremonial practices--or what Indigenous Peoples around the world have come to call \"de-colonization.\" As human survival has now become the face of climate change, it raises a profoundly important question for our age. Is Indigenous wisdom, or \"religion\"-- their way of being in the world--directly related to our current state that is jeopardizing the material survival of human beings? This seems to be graphically depicted in DiCaprio's recent film \"The Revenant.\" The central theme of the film deals with incredible loss, hinged on the only element of hope of a future through Hawk, the half Native son of fur trapper Hugh Glass. That vision is thwarted when Hawk is violently killed as Glass lay wounded and forced to watch. But this only mirrors the grief from loss and revenge that is endemic on the frontier. Native Americans and White \"Settlers\" are thrown into opposition, where hunting and killing becomes the impetus behind the commodification of the landscape. Grief grows exponentially. The entire economy of this part of world is based on the fur trade, which involves the mass slaughter of animals, and the cultural genocide of the people who live in balance with the natural world. The commodification of the \"frontier,\" also justifies the military invasion of Indigenous Peoples and lands. \"America\" was built on a landscape of grief. Depredations of globalization so feared in the 21 st century began for Indigenous Peoples in the 15th with the European \"discoveries\" in the so-called New World. Going back an additional thousand years, the Haudenosaunee (called \"Iroquois\" by Jesuit missionaries) also tell of a period when clans and nations were embroiled in revenge killings. The people kept moving deeper and deeper into unresolved grief. Before this destructive violence extended further into the natural world, a Peacemaker arrived to deliver a message called the Great Law of Peace. This instruction would restore balance through a protocol of Condolence, followed by a protocol of Thanksgiving, which effectively united Five Nations into the Haudenosaunee Confederacy. This event occurred at Onondaga Lake (near Syracuse, NY) in the homeland of the Onondaga Nation. Today, the Haudenosaunee Confederacy continues this ancient protocol of Peace when they convene at Onondaga. American is in deep grief--a grief that has permeated the landscape. How do we console the land? A dream sequence in the Revenant takes place in the ruins of a church, where Glass and the ghost of Hawk encounter one another--we notice a bell swinging silently. There is no consoling message coming from the Church--it stands in ruin. As a professor of indigenous/colonial religions, this scene references the Doctrine of Christian Discovery, which is based in a series of 15th century Papal Bulls (letters from the Pope) that justified the conquest, seizure, and exploitation of non-Christian lands by Christian explorers. It justified the trans-Atlantic slave trade and fueled the Age of Discovery. Extractive economic activity took hold throughout the Americas, first for gold, silver, coal, oil, and the enslavement of people. Later, extending to the commodified 'gifts' of Indigenous Peoples, like, beaver pelts, corn, tobacco, potatoes, tomatoes, peanut butter, sugar, etc. Today, the Doctrine of Discovery remains a fundamental feature of U.S. property law. In 1823--the very date in which The Revenant is set--US Supreme Court Justice John Marshall, ruled in Johnson v. M'Intosh, that Indigenous title to land is dissolved when Christian discoverers enter Indigenous territories. First year law students cover this in their introductory property law classes. As recently as 2005, in the landmark case, Oneida v. Sherrill, Justice Ginsburg cited the Doctrine of Discovery to emphasize that no remedy exists for the theft of Indigenous Peoples' lands under federal law. The ancient Indigenous knowledge of living in healthy relationships with the natural world is vitally needed in the world today. The grief of a continuously colonizing worldview that is wholly dependent on an extractive economy, stands in the way of immigrant-settler people ever hearing this urgent message. The Revenant reminds us of the violent foundational past that set us on a course of destruction. Besides the obvious regret of missed opportunities, is there time to change course--time to heal?"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/disavowing-doctrine-discovery/",
    "title": "Disavowing the Doctrine of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2024-07-01T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Anti-Micronesian bias and colonialism are harming efforts to protect and manage waters surrounding U.S. overseas territories in the Pacific Islands. The Biden administration’s proposal to designate a national marine sanctuary in the Pacific Remote Islands Area (PRIA) would potentially create the largest noncontiguous protected area on the planet. However, the proposal is problematic because it has failed to meaningfully include the Indigenous people who live closest to the region and who have the strongest historical and cultural ties to the islands—Micronesians and Samoans. The article reviews the history and context of the PRIA, who bears the costs and receives the benefits of conservation there, and analyzes the perspectives and concerns of the political and community leaders in the U.S. Pacific territories, who have expressed near-universal opposition to the plan. The article concludes with some recommendations for improving the equity and justice of the proposal, such as engaging in meaningful dialog, respecting the rights and interests of the Indigenous people, and ensuring their input and consultation in the decision-making process and management of the PRIA.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "colonialism",
      "doctrine-of-discovery",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Anti-Micronesian bias and colonialism are harming efforts to protect and manage waters surrounding U.S. overseas territories in the Pacific Islands. The Biden administration’s proposal to designate a national marine sanctuary in the Pacific Remote Islands Area (PRIA) would potentially create the largest noncontiguous protected area on the planet. However, the proposal is problematic because it has failed to meaningfully include the Indigenous people who live closest to the region and who have the strongest historical and cultural ties to the islands—Micronesians and Samoans. The article reviews the history and context of the PRIA, who bears the costs and receives the benefits of conservation there, and analyzes the perspectives and concerns of the political and community leaders in the U.S. Pacific territories, who have expressed near-universal opposition to the plan. The article concludes with some recommendations for improving the equity and justice of the proposal, such as engaging in meaningful dialog, respecting the rights and interests of the Indigenous people, and ensuring their input and consultation in the decision-making process and management of the PRIA.",
    "externalUrl": "https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/env.2023.0048"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/disposession-haudenosaunee-chronology-map/",
    "title": "Mapping the Dispossession of the Haudenosaunee: a chronology",
    "publishedAt": "2024-03-28T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Beginning in 2014, University Chancellor Kent Syverud initiated several measures honoring the Haudenosaunee. One of the measures is the University’s policy of opening public events acknowledging our connection to and respect for the Onondaga and the Haudenosaunee people. The Haudenosaunee, the People of the Longhouse, are the original inhabitants of the land we stand on. Despite the often dramatic cultural clashes between European and native peoples, Haudenosaunee culture helped to shape our government, our national symbols, and even the Women’s Rights Movement. Yet, relations between the United States and the Six Nations have been fraught with war, broken treaties, racism, and a long history of illegal land grabs that can be documented in maps and historical records. This chronology illustrates the history of that relationship with maps that tell the story in a way difficult to imagine from published histories.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "maps",
      "Haudenosaunee",
      "Sullivan-Clinton",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Beginning in 2014, University Chancellor Kent Syverud initiated several measures honoring the Haudenosaunee. One of the measures is the University’s policy of opening public events acknowledging our connection to and respect for the Onondaga and the Haudenosaunee people. The Haudenosaunee, the People of the Longhouse, are the original inhabitants of the land we stand on. Despite the often dramatic cultural clashes between European and native peoples, Haudenosaunee culture helped to shape our government, our national symbols, and even the Women's Rights Movement. Yet, relations between the United States and the Six Nations have been fraught with war, broken treaties, racism, and a long history of illegal land grabs that can be documented in maps and historical records. This chronology illustrates the history of that relationship with maps that tell the story in a way difficult to imagine from published histories.",
    "externalUrl": "https://storymaps.arcgis.com/collections/bbc9a5686f5d467fbbf214fa5c696910"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/divine-right/",
    "title": "The Myth of Divine Right and the Doctrine of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2023-04-27T07:54:46Z",
    "description": "Conventional wisdom holds that the Doctrine of Discovery originated with a series of papal bulls issued by several 15th-Century popes. But it is unlikely that the doctrine sprang, fully-formed, from the head of Pope Alexander VI in 1493. Rather, the doctrine can be traced all the way back to the Book of Genesis.",
    "tags": [
      "law",
      "religion",
      "Christianity",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. Genesis 1:26-28 (King James Version) Conventional wisdom holds that the Doctrine of Discovery originated with a series of papal bulls issued by several 15 th -Century popes. But it is unlikely that the doctrine sprang, fully-formed, from the head of Pope Alexander VI in 1493. Rather, the doctrine can be traced all the way back to the Book of Genesis. The Doctrine of Discovery isn't just some religious concept gone awry, either. It is quite literally the foundation of all property law in the United States. Beginning with the infamous case Johnson v. M'Intosh (1823) and continuing even into the 21 st century in City of Sherill v. Oneida Nation (2005), the United States Supreme Court has unerringly applied the Doctrine of Discovery as though it were settled law, binding upon all persons (indigenous or not) in the United States. It is time to rethink that concept. Any effort to dislodge the Doctrine of Discovery through the courts, however, must expose the fallacy that it is based upon (and which entered the American legal system beginning with Johnson v. M'Intosh). That fallacy is a concept I am calling the Myth of Divine Right. Stated simply, the Myth of Divine Right posits that God favors one society over all others, giving that society the right, or maybe even the sacred duty, to spread their society and their values over all other societies, by any means necessary (including extreme physical violence). The Doctrine of Discovery is merely one way in which that Myth lives on in the American legal system. I. Our Relationship to the Earth Indigenous people from Turtle Island and European immigrants to North America have a fundamentally different, even irreconcilable, difference in how their cultures relate to the Earth. To the Euro-American, the Earth is a dead thing, to be divided up, \"owned,\" and exploited. Euro-Americans measure their \"wealth\" in terms of how much stuff they have accumulated, or how much land they \"own.\" Indigenous societies, however, view the Earth as a living thing. Depending on their tradition, the Earth is their mother or their grandmother. It is where they came from, and where they will return once their time among the living is concluded. The Earth must be revered and cared for, not used and despoiled. It is this essential difference that led directly to the conflict between the indigenous population and the European immigrants when they first encountered each other on this continent. The Europeans wanted to use the land to accumulate wealth, and they did not understand or appreciate the very different relationship that the Indigenous people had with the Earth. The Europeans could not understand why the Indigenous people were satisfied with simply taking from the Earth what they needed to subsist, and why they weren't trying to achieve greater wealth through commerce and exploitation of the earth's \"natural resources.\" The Doctrine of Discovery is also based on this fundamental disagreement about how humans should relate to the land. The papal bulls of the 15 th Century, most importantly Pope Alexander VI's bulls of confiscation in 1493, were nothing more than after-the-fact rationalization for the actions of Christopher Columbus in subjugating the indigenous people of Hispaniola and stealing whatever gold he could get his hands on. But those bulls were based on the Biblical view that the Earth was created by God solely to serve the needs of humans, and that humankind therefore had every right to exploit the earth and take from her whatever they desired. II. The Biblical origins of the Doctrine of Discovery Pope Alexander VI's bull Inter Caetera purported to be the will of God (expressed through his appointed representative on Earth, the pope). The bull granted to King Ferdinand and Queen Isabel full authority of every kind over the islands \"discovered\" by Christopher Columbus. (A \"papal bull\" is nothing more than an edict issued by a Pope, purporting to pronounce the law as given to the Pope by God himself, binding upon all souls on Earth.) While the bull claims that the purpose of the declaration is to spread the Catholic faith and instruct the population of the inhabitants of those islands \"in good morals,\" the bull notes that \"\\[i\\]n the islands and countries already discovered are found gold, spices, and very many other precious things of divers kinds and qualities.\" The acquisition of possessions pleasing to the Europeans was clearly near the top of the Pope's mind when he granted to the European king and queen \"all rights, jurisdictions, and appurtenances, all islands and mainlands found and to be found, discovered and to be discovered.\"[^1] The notion that the Earth is a thing to be conquered, possessed and exploited is clearly derived from the Bible. The Genesis quotation above is the most explicit, but not the only, passage that purports to give humans \"dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.\" The passage even explicitly gives humans not just the right, but the duty, to \"subdue\" the Earth. But there is more. Genesis 2:15 (KJV) says that \"the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.\" In Deuteronomy 8:7-9, Earth is declared to be a blessing for humans: God gives to humans \"a good land, a land of brooks of water, of fountains and depths that spring out of valleys and hills; a land of wheat, and barley, and vines, and fig trees, and pomegranates; a land of oil olive, and honey;\" a land where humans shall not lack anything. All humans had to do to live in such a paradise was to follow God's commands. What a deal! God created humans, and a paradise for them to live in. Was it too much to ask that the humans obey a few rules? Or, in legal terms, adhere to this contract with God? Some may object that this synopsis presents a skewed or even unfair portrait of Christianity. That may be. But it is also true that there is some subset of believers who maintain that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and that every word of the Bible is literally true. But even more importantly, it is very hard to deny this basic truth: European culture, which historically has been tightly interwoven with Christianity, does tend to place much more value on property and things than does any Indigenous culture. Correlation may not equal causation, but at least it creates probable cause to investigate further. III. The Exodus story and Manifest Destiny Any doubt about how the Doctrine of Discovery originates in the Bible may be dispelled by comparing the \"settlement\" of the American West with the Exodus story. In Genesis, God promises Canaan (modern-day Israel) to Abraham, despite the fact that it was then occupied by the Canaanites. But rather than take possession of Canaan immediately, Abraham led his people into Egypt for a while. There, Abraham and his family fulfilled God's command to \"be fruitful and multiply,\" but eventually found themselves enslaved by the Egyptians. God then nominated Moses to lead his people out of Egypt and to reclaim Canaan. After escaping Egypt through the miracle of parting the seas, Moses then turned over leadership to Joshua, who was instructed by God to retake Canaan. The only problem was, Canaan was full of people who didn't want to give up their land. God instructed Joshua to \"drive out\" the Canaanites from the land. And thus began the battle for the Promised Land in which the Israelites waged war against the Canaanites, seeking to take the land for themselves. While some Canaanites were sent into exile, according to the Bible many others (including children and non-combatants) were killed by the Israelites. How does God justify the killing of innocent people so that his favored people can take their land? Simple: he demonizes them. Several books in the Bible portray the Canaanites as evil, from worshiping the wrong God, deviant sexual practices, even human sacrifices. God tells the Israelites: It is not for your righteousness or for the uprightness of your heart that you are going to possess their land, but it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord your God is driving them out before you, in order to confirm the oath which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. --Deuteronomy 9:5 In other words, God favors the Israelites as his chosen people, and he desires that they live in the land known as Canaan. He tells the Israelites that their religion and their views are morally superior to the current occupants of the land, and that therefore they have not only the right, but the moral imperative to force the indigenous people off of their land, and to occupy it against their wishes. Sound familiar? The Doctrine of Manifest Destiny, which is derived directly from the Doctrine of Discovery, uses different words, but has the exact same intention and effect: the European immigrants decided that God wanted them to have the North American continent, because they were morally superior to the indigenous population. The clearest expression of Manifest Destiny is attributed to the newspaper editor John L. O'Sullivan, who wrote an editorial in his newspaper the United States Magazine and Democratic Review in July, 1845: To state the truth at once in its neglected simplicity, our claim [to Oregon] is by the right of our manifest destiny to overspread and possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federated self-government entrusted to us.[^2] The \"right ... which Providence has given us\" to \"overspread and possess the whole continent.\" If \"Providence\" (God) gave the continent to \"us,\" isn't O'Sullivan just claiming that the American West is \"the Promised Land?\" Weren't the European settlers therefore just re-enacting the Exodus story? In this analogy, the Europeans play the role of the Israelites and the indigenous peoples were the Canaanites. IV. The Myth of Divine Right Why does the Doctrine of Discovery still have such potency, more than 500 years after its most explicit declaration in the bulls of Pope Alexander VI? Haven't we outgrown such an antiquated and manifestly flawed doctrine? Part of the reason for this is the revered judicial principle of stare decisis: the concept of precedent. Courts have long prided themselves on creating a stable body of law that is predictable and \"neutral.\" Judges strive to create rules that appear to be based on prior decisions, and do not go off in new directions unpredictably, lest they be accused of being \"judicial activists.\" They study what has happened before and then apply those rules to new cases, only making small, incremental changes in the rules to suit the situation that is presented in the new case. All too often, however, the courts do not engage in an objective evaluation of whether the prior law was working well, or even whether it was based on sound logic or good public policy. The doctrine of precedent has an ossifying power: what happened previously shall always be, and the longer ago the precedent occurred, the more rigid it becomes. Thus does a precedent like Johnson v. M'Intosh, decided by men with little understanding of the harm that the Doctrine of Discovery had wrought on the indigenous population, become as hard as granite. Worse still, the courts are reluctant to revisit Johnson v. M'Intosh because its holding just appears to be common sense to modern jurists. Everybody owns private property; it is not just normal, but in the minds of many people of European descent, it is the entire basis for modern society. \"Private property rights\" are just taken for granted. Those rights are often deified as natural, God-given rights. To many they form the backbone for ordered liberty in the modern world. Any judge that questioned that baseline principle would be seen as a heretic, untrustworthy, possibly even open to impeachment or recall for holding such a radical, \"un-American\" view. As I noted above, I believe the Doctrine of Discovery is based on the fallacy I'm calling the Myth of Divine Right. I use the term \"myth\" very intentionally and very precisely here. Myths are commonly misunderstood as mere falsehoods, like an old wives' tale that people like to pass harmlessly around. If that were true, however, myths could be easily defeated: just replace the lie with the truth, and presto! Problem solved. But myths are far more persistent than that. They resist all efforts to dispel them. They are impervious to facts and truth-telling. That's because a myth, properly understood, represents something far more significant (and powerful!) than a mere lie. Many scholars have attempted to define what a \"myth\" is. I have distilled some of that scholarship into my own working definition of \"myth:\" A myth is an often-repeated story that attempts to explain some moral value or to explain something beyond the comprehension of humans. Although the story is not grounded in historical or scientific fact, it is regarded by a social group as a true statement of the group's moral or other values.[^3] Many scholars focus on the concept of \"significance,\" something that my working definition gets to only indirectly. Myths, these scholars hold, are adhered to because they represent something \"significant\" to the group that believes in the myth.[^4] (This is what I refer to in my definition as \"some moral value\" or \"something beyond the comprehension of humans.\") It is this significance that makes myth so resistant to truth or facts. Myths validate some core belief or value deep within one's psyche. To let go of that belief or value is to change who you fundamentally are as a person. The \"significance\" of the Myth of Divine Right is simply this: God wants us to be happy. Therefore, he gave us the Earth, or the Promised Land, as our reward for worshipping him. And if we can rid the world of those troublesome Others who do not worship our God, then he will be happy and allow us to enjoy the rewards he has put before us. We therefore have the right, given to us by our God, to take what we want from those Others, to prove that we are worthy and they are not. The Myth of Divine Right is the root of the problem. It explains how European immigrants justified the conquest of the inhabitants of Turtle Island, but it is much more than that. It explains American Exceptionalism. It explains, at least in part, racism and white supremacy (or at least how some people try to justify those beliefs in religious terms). V. What would a post-Doctrine of Discovery world look like? It is not possible, in this brief essay, to explore all of the ramifications of discarding the Doctrine of Discovery from our legal system. But a few broad propositions can be stated: 1. Discarding the Doctrine of Discovery means, at base, rejecting the Myth of Divine Right The problem with the Doctrine of Discovery is that it is a symptom of a deeper and more harmful problem: the Myth of Divine Right. Pope Alexander VI's bulls of confiscation are explicitly based upon that myth. The Pope claimed to be God's spokesman on Earth, claiming that Christianity was the only true path to salvation. Therefore, in his view, Christians were superior to all others, and therefore were the true objects of God's bounty. This is the central tenet of the Myth. Rejecting that myth requires Western culture to give up its superiority complex, and truly accept that other cultures are equal. 2. Western culture does not need to subordinate itself to other cultures The corollary to the previous point is that, while Western culture is not superior to other cultures, neither is it inferior. Core aspects of how Westerners relate to each other need not change: private property rights, capitalism, and sovereignty (i.e. the social contract that empowers governments to make rules for members of that society) can remain intact, as between members of that culture. The concepts of private property are too deeply entrenched, and too central to modern society, to be discarded. They serve the interests of Western society well enough, as between members of that society. 3. There is no need (or reason) to impose Western culture upon members of indigenous societies But even if Western concepts of property, capitalism and sovereignty work reasonably well for members of that society, forcing Indian cultures to abide by those concepts is destructive to those cultures. The Myth of Divine Right (and its derivative the Doctrine of Discovery) is the tool by which Indians continue to be subjugated by Western law. What would America look like today if, instead of living by the Myth of Divine Right, Indian culture was accepted by Westerners as equal? What if Westerners stopped trying to impose their values and legal systems upon Indian nations, and recognized those nations as true, and equal, sovereigns (as the indigenous nations understand \"sovereignty\")? Truly embracing an \"equal sovereigns\" regime would take some effort, surely. Since Western culture and Indian cultures inhabit the same ecosphere, often in close proximity to each other, certain accommodations would need to be reached around issues such as environmental protection, hunting rights, and similar things. And some long-held Western beliefs about Indian nations, such as the concept of Indians as members of \"domestic dependent nations\" (Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 1831) would need to be abandoned. The rules of commerce between the \"equal sovereign\" nations would have to be negotiated too, but we already have many examples of how that can be done smoothly and fairly. None of this will be easy, but pursuit of this ideal could go a long way toward true, peaceful co-existence of these two very different cultures. Footnotes [^1]: [^2]: Quoted in Will Bagley, So Rugged and Mountainous: Blazing the Trails to Oregon and California, 1812-1848 (University of Oklahoma Press 2010), at 290. [^3]: Kenneth Chestek, The Myth of Divine Right (unpublished manuscript on file with the author), Chapter 2. [^4]: See, e.g., Hans Hans Blumenberg, Work on Myth (MIT Press 1988) (Robert M. Wallace, trans.), at 67; Chiara Bottici, A Philosophy of Political Myth (Cambridge U. Press 2007), at 123."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/doctrine-christian-discovery-podcast-library/",
    "title": "The Doctrine of Christian Discovery Podcast Zotero Library",
    "publishedAt": "2024-08-07T16:27:30Z",
    "description": "The Doctrine of Christian Discovery Podcast Zotero Library",
    "updatedAt": "2024-08-16T16:27:30Z",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "colonialism",
      "doctrine-of-discovery",
      "citations",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "The Doctrine of Christian Discovery Podcast Zotero Library",
    "externalUrl": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/5628453/doctrine_of_christian_discovery_podcast"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/doctrine-christian-discovery-podcast-press-release/",
    "title": "New Good Faith Media Podcast Highlights ‘Doctrine of Christian Discovery’",
    "publishedAt": "2024-02-20T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "The “Doctrine of Christian Discovery”  podcast —produced in collaboration with  Syracuse University  and  Indigenous Values Initiative —explores how a 15th-century Christian doctrine encouraged conquest and colonization of non-Christians. The podcast also unpacks how its legacies still affect various lands and peoples, including the United States. “The Doctrines of Christian Discovery (DoCD) originate with 15th century Papal Bulls that were issued by the Vatican and implemented by Monarchies, sanctioning the brutal Conquest and Colonization of non-Christians who were deemed ‘enemies of Christ’ in Africa and the Americas,” reads the Doctrine of Discovery  website , administered by the Indigenous Values Initiative. “These Papal Bulls were a continuation of what had been going on since at least the 8th century from Charlemagne, through the Crusades, the Inquisition, the war on witches, to the Reconquista of the Iberian Peninsula,” the site says.  The podcast was produced at the “Religious Origins of White Supremacy” conference in December 2023 at Syracuse University in New York. The conference was organized by Professor Philip P. Arnold of Syracuse, Sandy Bigtree (Mohawk Nation,) and Adam DJ Brett. “This podcast represents the first of many educational resources that will be coming out of this conference,” said the conference organizers, “which will hopefully be useful not only for challenging the legacy of  Johnson v. M’Intosh  but also dismantling the Doctrine of Christian Discovery, and further challenging white supremacy through understanding its longer history.” Johnson v. M’Intosh was an 1823 U.S. Supreme Court case that gave legal legs to the doctrine. The eight-episode podcast is pitched to students and others beginning their exploration of the Doctrine of Christian Discovery. It is hosted by Tanner Randall, a recent graduate of Dartmouth College and son of Mitch Randall, GFM’s CEO and member of the Muscogee Creek Nation. “We were excited to have Tanner, a recent graduate from Dartmouth’s Native Studies program, as the host because we envision this podcast as a teaching resource for undergraduate courses,” the conference organizers said. “Our hope is that having a recent undergraduate as the host will help make the podcast more engaging and useful to an undergraduate and other audiences new to the conversation. We are so excited to hear how people are able to use this podcast in their teaching and organizing.” The eight episodes are as follows: Episode 1 – Betty Lyons: Understanding the Doctrine Episode 2 – Robert P. Jones: White Supremacy’s Roots Episode 3 – Robert J. Miller: Property & Sovereignty Episode 4 – Gustavo Melo Cerqueira & Danielle N. Boaz: Religious Racism Episode 5 – Steven Newcomb & JoDe Goudy: U.S. Law Episode 6 – Eve Reyes-Aguirre: Environment & Creation Episode 7 – João Chaves: Influence in the Americas Episode 8 – Mitch Randall: Countering Conversion Each episode begins with acknowledging “the Onondaga Nation, firekeepers of the Haudenosaunee, the Indigenous people on whose ancestral lands Syracuse University now stands.”  “May the information you glean from this podcast motivate you to uphold Indigenous values, protect Mother Earth and Honor Indigenous Treaties,” the acknowledgment continues. “The Doctrine of Christian Discovery podcast was an important project for me professionally and personally,” said Randall, GFM’s CEO. “Professionally, the doctrine of discovery is the foundation for the Christian conquest of Indigenous peoples and their cultures. It has been unjustly used as the primary reason for the genocide of Indigenous people.” “Personally,” he continued, “my Muskogee (Creek) ancestors were victims of the actions of those advocating for the doctrine. I hope this podcast will shed light on the dangers of the doctrine and that its consequences still have ramifications today.” Podcast sponsors include: The Henry Luce Foundation, Syracuse University, Indigenous Values Initiative, American Indian Law Alliance, American Indian Community House, Good Faith Media, Tonatierra and Toward Our Common Public Life.  The podcast’s executive producers are Mitch Randall of Good Faith Media, Philip P. Arnold and Sandy Bigtree of Indigenous Values Initiative and Adam DJ Brett of Syracuse University and American Indian Law Alliance. It was produced by Cliff Vaughn and edited by David Pang. The American Indian Law Alliance provided production assistance. Listen to the podcast on  Megaphone ,  Spotify  or  Apple .  Learn more at  DoctrineOfDiscovery.org Listen to the podcast on  Megaphone ,  Spotify  or  Apple .",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "press-release",
      "podcast",
      "doctrine",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "The \"Doctrine of Christian Discovery\" podcast---produced in collaboration with Syracuse University and Indigenous Values Initiative---explores how a 15th-century Christian doctrine encouraged conquest and colonization of non-Christians. The podcast also unpacks how its legacies still affect various lands and peoples, including the United States. \"The Doctrines of Christian Discovery (DoCD) originate with 15th century Papal Bulls that were issued by the Vatican and implemented by Monarchies, sanctioning the brutal Conquest and Colonization of non-Christians who were deemed 'enemies of Christ' in Africa and the Americas,\" reads the Doctrine of Discovery website, administered by the Indigenous Values Initiative. \"These Papal Bulls were a continuation of what had been going on since at least the 8th century from Charlemagne, through the Crusades, the Inquisition, the war on witches, to the Reconquista of the Iberian Peninsula,\" the site says.  The podcast was produced at the \"Religious Origins of White Supremacy\" conference in December 2023 at Syracuse University in New York. The conference was organized by Professor Philip P. Arnold of Syracuse, Sandy Bigtree (Mohawk Nation,) and Adam DJ Brett. \"This podcast represents the first of many educational resources that will be coming out of this conference,\" said the conference organizers, \"which will hopefully be useful not only for challenging the legacy of Johnson v. M'Intosh but also dismantling the Doctrine of Christian Discovery, and further challenging white supremacy through understanding its longer history.\" Johnson v. M'Intosh was an 1823 U.S. Supreme Court case that gave legal legs to the doctrine. The eight-episode podcast is pitched to students and others beginning their exploration of the Doctrine of Christian Discovery. It is hosted by Tanner Randall, a recent graduate of Dartmouth College and son of Mitch Randall, GFM's CEO and member of the Muscogee Creek Nation. \"We were excited to have Tanner, a recent graduate from Dartmouth's Native Studies program, as the host because we envision this podcast as a teaching resource for undergraduate courses,\" the conference organizers said. \"Our hope is that having a recent undergraduate as the host will help make the podcast more engaging and useful to an undergraduate and other audiences new to the conversation. We are so excited to hear how people are able to use this podcast in their teaching and organizing.\" The eight episodes are as follows: Episode 1 -- Betty Lyons: Understanding the Doctrine Episode 2 -- Robert P. Jones: White Supremacy's Roots Episode 3 -- Robert J. Miller: Property & Sovereignty Episode 4 -- Gustavo Melo Cerqueira & Danielle N. Boaz: Religious Racism Episode 5 -- Steven Newcomb & JoDe Goudy: U.S. Law Episode 6 -- Eve Reyes-Aguirre: Environment & Creation Episode 7 -- João Chaves: Influence in the Americas Episode 8 -- Mitch Randall: Countering Conversion Each episode begins with acknowledging \"the Onondaga Nation, firekeepers of the Haudenosaunee, the Indigenous people on whose ancestral lands Syracuse University now stands.\"  \"May the information you glean from this podcast motivate you to uphold Indigenous values, protect Mother Earth and Honor Indigenous Treaties,\" the acknowledgment continues. \"The Doctrine of Christian Discovery podcast was an important project for me professionally and personally,\" said Randall, GFM's CEO. \"Professionally, the doctrine of discovery is the foundation for the Christian conquest of Indigenous peoples and their cultures. It has been unjustly used as the primary reason for the genocide of Indigenous people.\" \"Personally,\" he continued, \"my Muskogee (Creek) ancestors were victims of the actions of those advocating for the doctrine. I hope this podcast will shed light on the dangers of the doctrine and that its consequences still have ramifications today.\" Podcast sponsors include: The Henry Luce Foundation, Syracuse University, Indigenous Values Initiative, American Indian Law Alliance, American Indian Community House, Good Faith Media, Tonatierra and Toward Our Common Public Life.  The podcast's executive producers are Mitch Randall of Good Faith Media, Philip P. Arnold and Sandy Bigtree of Indigenous Values Initiative and Adam DJ Brett of Syracuse University and American Indian Law Alliance. It was produced by Cliff Vaughn and edited by David Pang. The American Indian Law Alliance provided production assistance. Listen to the podcast on Megaphone, Spotify or Apple.  Learn more at DoctrineOfDiscovery.org Listen to the podcast on Megaphone, Spotify or Apple.",
    "externalUrl": "https://goodfaithmedia.org/new-good-faith-media-podcast-highlights-doctrine-of-christian-discovery/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/doctrine-discovery-australia/",
    "title": "Unraveling the International Law of Colonialism: Lessons From Australia and the United States",
    "publishedAt": "2023-12-20T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "In the 1823 decision of  Johnson v. M’Intosh , Chief Justice John Marshall formulated the international law of colonialism. Known as the Doctrine of Discovery, Marshall’s opinion drew on the practices of European nations during the Age of Exploration to legitimize European acquisition of territory owned and occupied by Indigenous peoples. Two centuries later,  Johnson —and the international law of colonialism—remains good law throughout the world. In this Article we examine how the Doctrine of Discovery was adapted and applied in Australia and the United States. As Indigenous peoples continue to press for a re-examination of their relationships with governments, we also consider whether and how the international law of colonialism has been mitigated or unraveled in these two countries. While we find that the Doctrine lingers, close examination provides several important lessons for all Indigenous nations and governments burdened by colonization. Robert J. Miller & Harry Hobbs,  Unraveling the International Law of Colonialism: Lessons From Australia and the United States , 28 Mich. J. Race & L. 271 (2023). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjrl/vol28/iss2/3",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "Australia",
      "law",
      "international",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "In the 1823 decision of Johnson v. M'Intosh, Chief Justice John Marshall formulated the international law of colonialism. Known as the Doctrine of Discovery, Marshall's opinion drew on the practices of European nations during the Age of Exploration to legitimize European acquisition of territory owned and occupied by Indigenous peoples. Two centuries later, Johnson---and the international law of colonialism---remains good law throughout the world. In this Article we examine how the Doctrine of Discovery was adapted and applied in Australia and the United States. As Indigenous peoples continue to press for a re-examination of their relationships with governments, we also consider whether and how the international law of colonialism has been mitigated or unraveled in these two countries. While we find that the Doctrine lingers, close examination provides several important lessons for all Indigenous nations and governments burdened by colonization. Robert J. Miller & Harry Hobbs, Unraveling the International Law of Colonialism: Lessons From Australia and the United States, 28 Mich. J. Race & L. 271 (2023). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjrl/vol28/iss2/3",
    "externalUrl": "https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjrl/vol28/iss2/3/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/doctrine-discovery-canadian-human-rights/",
    "title": "The Doctrine of Discovery: A 500-year-old colonial idea that still affects Canada’s treatment of Indigenous peoples",
    "publishedAt": "2024-06-26T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Why is it important? The Doctrine of Discovery is still an important legal concept in Canada today even though it was written hundreds of years ago. Both French and English colonial powers in what would later be known as Canada used the Doctrine of Discovery to claim Indigenous lands and force their cultural and religious beliefs on Indigenous peoples. Once Canada was created, the Doctrine of Discovery influenced the imposition of national, colonial laws on Indigenous peoples. This is because it denies the validity of longstanding systems of Indigenous governance and sovereignty. The Doctrine of Discovery and human rights In the Canadian context, the Doctrine of Discovery has led to the seizure of Indigenous lands and the displacement of Indigenous peoples. As colonial settlement spread over the territory that became Canada, many Indigenous peoples entered treaty relationships defining how they would share the land with the newcomers. Influenced by the absolute claims to power and authority expressed by the Doctrine, Canadian law interpreted these agreements as surrendering title and control, despite these concepts being largely alien to Indigenous cultures. The Canadian government has also claimed title and control over unceded Indigenous lands. This was demonstrated in the 2014 Supreme Court of Canada ruling in Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia. ^3^ The ruling found that the Tsilhqot'in had indeed demonstrated their Aboriginal title to their land. This meant that they had \"an exclusive right to use or occupy the land for the nation's collective benefit.\"^4^ However, the ruling also said that Aboriginal title could be defied by the Crown (either the provincial or federal governments) if it could justify such action. The racist assumption of superiority and dominance embodied in the Doctrine of Discovery underpins many aspects of Canada's colonial history, including the Indian Act , the reserve system, the Indian residential school tragedy, and the Sixties Scoop.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "colonialism",
      "doctrine-of-discovery",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Why is it important? The Doctrine of Discovery is still an important legal concept in Canada today even though it was written hundreds of years ago. Both French and English colonial powers in what would later be known as Canada used the Doctrine of Discovery to claim Indigenous lands and force their cultural and religious beliefs on Indigenous peoples. Once Canada was created, the Doctrine of Discovery influenced the imposition of national, colonial laws on Indigenous peoples. This is because it denies the validity of longstanding systems of Indigenous governance and sovereignty. The Doctrine of Discovery and human rights In the Canadian context, the Doctrine of Discovery has led to the seizure of Indigenous lands and the displacement of Indigenous peoples. As colonial settlement spread over the territory that became Canada, many Indigenous peoples entered treaty relationships defining how they would share the land with the newcomers. Influenced by the absolute claims to power and authority expressed by the Doctrine, Canadian law interpreted these agreements as surrendering title and control, despite these concepts being largely alien to Indigenous cultures. The Canadian government has also claimed title and control over unceded Indigenous lands. This was demonstrated in the 2014 Supreme Court of Canada ruling in Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia. ^3^ The ruling found that the Tsilhqot'in had indeed demonstrated their Aboriginal title to their land. This meant that they had \"an exclusive right to use or occupy the land for the nation's collective benefit.\"^4^ However, the ruling also said that Aboriginal title could be defied by the Crown (either the provincial or federal governments) if it could justify such action. The racist assumption of superiority and dominance embodied in the Doctrine of Discovery underpins many aspects of Canada's colonial history, including the Indian Act , the reserve system, the Indian residential school tragedy, and the Sixties Scoop.",
    "externalUrl": "https://humanrights.ca/story/doctrine-discovery"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/doctrine-discovery-christian-century/",
    "title": "When the doctrine of discovery became law: A review of Arguments over Genocide",
    "publishedAt": "2024-10-29T04:00:00Z",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "genocide",
      "doctrineofdiscovery",
      "blog"
    ],
    "externalUrl": "https://www.christiancentury.org/books/when-doctrine-discovery-became-law"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/doctrine-discovery-environmental-justice/",
    "title": "What Fifteenth-Century Papal Bulls Can Teach Us About Indigenous Identity",
    "publishedAt": "2020-12-13T14:54:46Z",
    "description": "To really understand the American landscape, you need to know about the Doctrine of Discovery. As a set of principles used to justify European colonization, it grew over hundreds of years to become a pillar of international law, and it set the stage for centuries of imperialism worldwide.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "doctrine-discovery",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "To really understand the American landscape, you need to know about the Doctrine of Discovery. As a set of principles used to justify European colonization, it grew over hundreds of years to become a pillar of international law, and it set the stage for centuries of imperialism worldwide.",
    "externalUrl": "https://thefield.asla.org/2020/01/30/what-does-the-doctrine-of-discovery-have-to-do-with-environmental-justice/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/doctrine-discovery-maya-commentary/",
    "title": "How we met the Doctrine of Discovery. A Maya commentary",
    "publishedAt": "2023-02-02T07:54:46Z",
    "description": "It was an ordinary evening on October 9, 2018 when, scrolling down my mouse wheel randomly looking at posts on Facebook something suddenly caught my attention: A post launched an invitation from the Mennonite Coalition for the Dismantling of the Doctrine of Discovery to join a Christian lament in the United States. The post invited lamenting of the Doctrine of Discovery (DD) and encouraged reflection on its consequences for the lives of Indigenous Peoples today.",
    "tags": [
      "law",
      "Christianity",
      "Maya",
      "Mexico",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "It was an ordinary evening on October 9, 2018 when, scrolling down my mouse wheel randomly looking at posts on Facebook something suddenly caught my attention: A post launched an invitation from the Mennonite Coalition for the Dismantling of the Doctrine of Discovery to join a Christian lament in the United States. The post invited lamenting of the Doctrine of Discovery \\(DD\\) and encouraged reflection on its consequences for the lives of Indigenous Peoples today. I am a believer in symbolic numerology and the cycles of time thanks to my Maya heritage. That is why I believe it was more than a coincidence that I came across this post on the 9th of October, just three days before the celebrations of the 12th of October, the mythical date of the so-called \"Discovery of America\" or the beginning of the colonization of Yóokol K'ab, the Maya world in my mother tongue. The timing and numbers around the Lament's post on social media definitely touched me: 3, 9 and 12 are strong numbers in the Mayan calendar. For example, number three bears a profound significance related to K'oben, the three stones in the kitchen fire meaning the heart of our home, family and community. Somehow I felt moved to contact the Mennonite Coalition. At the same time we began to reflect on the meaning of this Lament for Mayan communities in Ka' Kuxtal Much Meyaj, a Mayan organisation based in Hopelchen, Campeche, Mexico. Ka Kuxtal's assembly devoted its collective work to learn more and to confront together the legacy of DD in our territories. This is how we start unveiling the colonial legacy behind this doctrine in the Mayan communities. Thus, we decided to walk together the path of joyful rebellion as our Zapatista sisters say. This is how we consensually met, confront and reject the Doctrine of Discovery. Today, after four years of co-labour with the Mennonite Coalition, we wish to report on some of this collective learning. Due to space constraints, I will only focus on the connections between DD and the Mayan heritage, i.e. sacred sites. Mexico's Colonial Legacy As we are aware, the colonial ideologies that served the purposes of colonization in the Americas such as the DD did not vanish with independence and the formation of modern States, but rather laid the foundations for the strong asymmetrical dependencies and power relations that remain in place[^1] between States and Indigenous Peoples. Under the principle that the Indigenous territories were 'empty'[^2] (terra nullius) and that by virtue of their 'discovery' the colonial powers hold territorial sovereignty on top of the ancestral occupation of Indigenous Peoples: \"Discovery [is] the original foundation of titles to land on the American continent as between the different European nations by whom conquests and settlements were made here.\"[^3] Consequently,it is taken for granted that land ownership is handed over from the colonial powers to the States by virtue of their independence: \"...fee title [ownership] to the lands occupied by Indians when the colonists arrived became vested in the sovereign--first the discovering European nation and later the original States and the United States...\"[^4] Such is the case in Mexico, where the sovereignty of the State was imposed upon the Maya peoples in a manner similar to how the sovereignty of the Crown was imposed in the past. For the Mexican State, the territories dominated by the Spanish Crown become the property of the Nation by virtue of its political independence.[^5] Article 27 of the Mexican Constitution states: \"The ownership of the lands and waters included within the limits of the national territory corresponds originally to the Nation, which has had and has the right to transmit the domain of them to private individuals, constituting private property\" (My translation, Cámara de Diputados 2001). From emblematic court cases in North America and Australia, it has become clear that the DD and terra nullius continue to underpin state legal frameworks. Its impacts include the continued usurpation of Indigenous Peoples' lands, territories and resources, the destruction of their political and legal institutions, and the discriminatory practices aiming to destroy Indigenous cultures, among others (see John 2014). As this is the case in Mexico due to a narrow interpretation of Article 27 of the Constitution, this has translated into the dispossession of the Maya Peoples of their Sacred Sites, an integral part of their ancestral territories. Therefore, it is also taken for granted that the archaeological sites (e.g. Uxmal, Chichen Itza, Calakmul), namely the Sacred Sites and cultural heritage of the Maya, allegedly become the property of the Mexican State and must solely be managed by State institutions, leaving the Indigenous institutions out in the cold. Such an interpretation is reaffirmed by the Mexican Monuments Law (MML): \"Movable and immovable archaeological monuments are property of the Nation, inalienable and imprescriptible\" (Cámara de Diputados 2018: Art. 27, my translation). MML goes further: \"Archaeological monuments are the movable and immovable goods, product of cultures prior to the establishment of the Hispanic culture in the national territory, as well as the human remains, flora and fauna, related to those cultures\" (Op. Cit.: Art. 28, my translation). As we can see, it is not only the narrow interpretation of Article 27, but the impacts of DD and terra nullius in juridical principles that leads the Mexican State to self-legitimize as administrator, owner, and the ultimate decision-making authority over Indigenous territories and heritage. The Doctrine of Discovery, terra nullius and the Other in motion. The extent to which the DD impacts heritage practice and policy-making in Mexico require more scrutiny since DD's linkage with other doctrines-ideologies is not obvious at first glance. The historical criticism below helps to uncover the links that set in motion a racist and supremacist ideological machinery that ends up impacting the Maya heritage management. As we know, based on the assumed racial, cultural and religious superiority of the colonial powers, the Doctrine of Discovery was legitimized by the Roman Catholic church by means of the papal bulls Dum diversas (1452), Romanus Pontifex (1455), and two Inter caetera (1493 and 1494). By virtue of their Roman ecclesiastical legitimacy, they justified the confiscation of territories in possession of the Indigenous Peoples of the Americas and their subsequent domination during the so-called \"Age of Discovery\" (Robertson 2005). The second Inter caetera,[^6] issued by Alexander VI on May 4, 1494, follows the ideological tradition of Dum diversas and Romanus Pontifex in defining non-Christian nations as enemies, \"heathens\", \"pagans\", \"gentiles\", \"infidels\", \"barbarians\" and \"savages\": \"...that the barbarian nations be subdued and reduced to the Christian faith\". This bull also refers to terra nullius meaning \"undiscovered\" lands: \"...remote and unknown islands and firm lands, hitherto undiscovered by anyone, ...\". On the basis of the dehumanization of the native peoples, the Roman church thus granted the ownership of the \"discovered\" lands to the Catholic kings Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile. However, the juridical concept of nullius (or nullus) applied not only to the territories but also to the people(s) who had occupied for millennia the allegedly discovered lands. Nullus Persona, meaning non-Christian, pagan, infidel or unbaptized inhabitants, is a necessary premise for the Doctrine of Discovery. Otherwise, the \"discovery\" would be questionable if native people were legally recognised at first glance by the Spanish Crown. Burke Aaron Hinsdale (1837-1900) states it as follows: \"If it is conceded that res nullius is the property of the one who finds it, that an infidel is nullius [non-existent]; that the wild American [Indigenous] is an infidel [nullius or non-existent], then the reasoning is complete\" (Gonnella Frichner 2010). In Mesoamerica the idea of Nullus Persona is underpinned by paganism-barbarism attributed by the Spaniards to native peoples. The construction of a barbarian 'Other' is fueled by allegations of cannibalism and human sacrifice by Hernan Cortés and friars, such as Diego de Landa, from the early stages of colonization.[^7] As such, the Doctrine of Discovery, terra nullius and Nullus Persona (a juridical \"disabled\" Indigenous 'Other': barbarian and infidel) had been set in motion for the colonial project in the Americas aiming at legitimizing a constructed status of moral and racial superiority for European Christians and their authorities. Figure 1. The ideological assemblage of the Doctrine of Discovery, terra nullius and paganism-barbarism The Doctrine of Discovery in colonial Yucatan As mentioned above, Diego de Landa's Relacion[^8] draws a \"barbarian\" image of the Mayas of the Yucatan Peninsula by alluding to human sacrifice and cannibalism. In Chapter III, the friar cites the Spanish shipwrecked sailors Aguilar and Guerrero, who arrived in the Maya region before him: \"That these poor people came into the hands of a bad cacique, who sacrificed Valdivia and four others to their idols and then made banquets (with the meat) of them to the people, and that he left Aguilar and Guerrero and five or six others to fatten up, who broke the prison and fled through some mountains...\" (Landa 2005, C. III., my translation). Landa's Relacion makes the connection between barbarism and paganism in Chapter XLIII, where human sacrifice is described, as an inherent Mayan religious practice guided by evil: \"...After killing in their towns, they had those two decomulgated sanctuaries of Chichen Itzá and Cuzmil where an infinite number of poor people were sent to sacrifice or take down the one, and to take out the hearts of the other; ...\" (Op. cit., my translation). In several cases the description matches to rituals, ceremonies and self-sacrifice (blood-letting). Yet, it is often confused with human sacrifice, in its most negative sense. It is to be expected that the friar would attempt to win the favor of his audience through his narrative. Let us remind that his targeted audience was made up of ecclesiastical and administrative authorities, namely the Council of the Indies that requested the bishop to justify his inquisitorial activities in New Spain including torture (Tedlock 1993) and the burning of sacred codices in Mani, Yucatan, which Landa himself details in his Relacion.[^9] The sacrifice, as a ritual act, that Landa attributes to the Maya is linked with evil and the devil and sets in motion paganism and barbarism in a single narrative. The constant repetition of keywords such as sacrifice[^10], evil, demon, idolatry, etc., is delivered in his Relacion in such a way that even today induces a psychological predisposition of rejection of the othered Maya. Noteworthy, its impact is still far-reaching in the XXI Century (Abbott 2020). Landa's account does not allude to terra nullius, even though it is an essential link to the Doctrine of Discovery because his case before the Council of the Indies was about the abuses committed in his inquisitorial enterprise rather than land disputes. While terra nullius does not play an important role in Landa's argument, it did for both the Spanish crown at the beginning of colonization and for the 'encomenderos' who settled in Maya lands over the next three centuries, as we will see below. The Doctrine of Discovery and Maya heritage in the 17th - 19th centuries Figure 2. Palacio del Gobernador at Uxmal by Catherwood (Stephens 1843: Frontspiece Vol. 1) via Wikipedia . Colonial testimonies in Yucatan show allegations of paganism-barbarism in the context of land concessions, claims or disputes, in such a way that these testimonies can be instrumental to legitimize the occupation of so called idle lands (tierras ociosas). Indigenous territories, however, housed pre-colonial cities, buildings and temples where rituals were continuously performed in spite of the Inquisition. The testimony of explorer and lawyer John Lloyd Stephens - about his visit to the Yucatan Peninsula between 1839 and 1842 - illustrates how the idea of paganism was invoked in a land litigation process in the 17^th^ Century. Stephens alludes to historical documents with which Captain Lorenzo de Evia petitioned the Spanish king to grant the land around Uxmal.[^11] This procedure apparently begins on May 12, 1673, according to Stephens' testimony. In these times, more than a century after Inter caetera, the land ownership situation was much more complex in the Maya region and a good number of Indigenous people owning property titles could already be counted (Bracamonte y Sosa 2003: 151-189).[^12] However, in order to mobilize the land concession in his favor, de Evia used paganism in his argument: [It could result in a] \"...very great service to God our Lord, because with that establishment it would prevent the Indians in those places from worshipping the devil in the ancient buildings which are there, having in them their idols, to which they burn copal, and performing other detestable sacrifices, as they are doing every day notoriously and publicly\" (Stephens 1843: 323). It should be remembered that in the 17th century the Inquisition was still in force in the Maya region[^13] and that the persecution of idolatry (paganism) mobilized the ecclesiastical juridical system, which could nullify the juridical personhood of the charged (thus becoming Nullus Persona) if they were found guilty (as lawyer Stephens himself outlined, op. Cit. 1843:28). Fear of Inquisition could have been a decisive factor for the Maya communities to waive any property claim.[^14] Despite this, a local inhabitant, Juan Can, claims his right to these lands based on various documents and his Maya ancestry (Stephens Op. Cit.: 323-324). We know little about Juan Can. We can deduce, however, that his socio-political position within the colonial regime would not allow for egalitarian litigation. Although the Spanish Crown since 1560 had ordered to protect Indigenous communities' access to land (see footnote 24 in Carrera Quezada 2015), a large majority lived in slavery conditions and of strong asymmetric dependence on \"hacendados\" and clerics (Farris 2012; Bracamonte y Sosa 2001). In contemporary Mexico a legalized and institutionalized dispossession of Maya heritage exists and it is based on the Doctrine of Discovery's principles. At present, Sacred Sites such as Uxmal, Chichen Itza, Calakmul, etc., are banned to the Maya. The Mayas have to pay a fee to access these sites just like any national tourist. In 2018 Ka' Kuxtal had to ask for permission from INAH, the state heritage institution, to be able to perform a ritual at the Sacred Site of Dzibilnocac (Dzibil Noh Ak), in Hopelchen. In terms of Self-Determination, this means that Maya peoples do not enjoy the right to self-manage our heritage. The State, self-legitimized as owner, dispossesses us of it with its laws and policies, which in turn, perpetuate the notion of nullius persona by legally disabling contemporary Maya from (our own) heritage managenment. Closing words No celebration in 21st century Mexico better reflects the legacy of the DD than the celebrations of 12 October. According to the official narrative, it commemorates the \"encounter\" that \"gave rise to a fusion of cultures and the birth of a Hispano-American civilization\".[^15] Although Mexico recognizes that other countries in the Americas have chosen to vindicate the position of Indigenous Peoples and commemorate the \"Day of Indigenous Resistance\" on 12 October, in its official discourse it finds a greater affinity with a romantic narrative around the \"meeting of two worlds\". Although the word \"discovery\" is disappearing from the official vocabulary, heritage policies in particular are still permeated by the DD as we have discussed in this article. We are still far from triggering a collective lament from educational and Christian institutions in Mexico. The future, however, looks hopeful, as we continue walking the path of joyful rebellion initiated by Ka' Kuxtal in alliance with the Mennonite Coalition to confront and dismantle the Doctrine of Discovery. Bibliography Abbott, J. (2020) 'Outrage as Guatemalan Maya spiritual guide is tortured and burned alive', the Guardian, 10 June. Available at: (Accessed: 3 September 2021). Arens, William (1979) The Man-Eating Myth: Anthropology and Anthropophagy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Augustine, Sarah (2021). The Land Is Not Empty: Following Jesus in Dismantling the Doctrine of Discovery. MennoMedia. Bonfil Batalla, Guillermo (1987) México profundo: Una civilización negada. México: SEP-CIESAS. Bracamonte y Sosa, Pedro (2001) 'Apuntes sobre la tenencia patrimonial de la tierra entre los mayas yucatecos y sus implicaciones en el análisis de la organizaciónn social', in Escobar Ohmstede, A. and Rojas Rabiela, T. (eds) Estructuras y formas agrarias en México: del pasado y del presente. Mexico: CIESAS, pp. 45--68. , (2003) Los Mayas y la tierra: la propiedad indígena en el Yucatán colonial. México: Miguel Angel Porrúa. Cámara de Diputados, H.C.D.L.U. (2001[1917]) 'Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos \\[CPEUM\\]'. Secretaría General. , (2018[1972]) 'Ley Federal sobre Monumentos y Zonas Arqueologicos, Artisticos e  Historicos (LFMZAAH). México'. Secretaría General. Carrera Quezada, Sergio, (2015) 'Las composiciones de tierras en los pueblos de indios en dos jurisdicciones coloniales de la Huasteca, 1692-1720', Estudios de Historia Novohispana, 52, pp. 29--50. Casanova González, Pablo, (1991) La democracia en México. Segunda. México, D.F.: Ediciones Era. . (2006) 'Colonialismo interno [una redefinición]', in Boron, A. A., Amadeo, J., and González, S. (eds) La teoría marxista hoy. Problemas y perspectivas. Buenos Aires: CLACSO, pp. 409--434. . (2017) Explotación, colonialismo y lucha por la democracia en América Latina. México, D.F.: Ediciones AKAL. Chuchiak, John F. (2002) 'Toward a Regional Definition of Idolatry: Reexamining Idolatry Trials in the \"Relaciónes De Méritos\" and Their Role in Defining the Concept of \"Idolatria\" in Colonial Yucatán, 1570-1780', Journal of Early Modern History, 6(2), pp. 140--167. Farriss, Nancy M.(2012) La sociedad maya bajo el dominio colonial: la empresa colectiva de la supervivencia. Primera. Translated by María Palomar. México: CONACULTA. Gonnella Frichner, Tonya (2010) Preliminary study of the impact on indigenous peoples of the international legal construct known as the Doctrine of Discovery. Report by the Special Rapporteur E/C.19/2010/13. New York: United Nations, p. 22. Jansen, M. E. R. G. N. and Pérez Jiménez, G. A. (2019) 'Deconstructing the Aztec Human Sacrifice', Incidental paper. Center for Indigenous America Studies. John, Edwards, (2014) Study on the impacts of the Doctrine of Discovery on indigenous peoples, including mechanisms, processes and instruments of redress. Outcome of the study submitted to the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues at its thirteenth session. E/C.19/2014/3. New York, USA: United Nations, p. 11. Landa, Diego de, (2005) Relación de las Cosas de Yucatán. Primera Reimpresión. México, D.F.: Monclem Ediciones. Restall, Mathew and Chuchiak, John F. (2002) 'A Reevaluation of the Authenticity of Fray Diego de Landa's Relacion de las cosas de Yucatan', Ethnohistory, 49(3), pp. 651--669. Robertson, Lindsay G. (2005) Conquest by Law: How the Discovery of America Dispossessed Indigenous Peoples of Their Lands. New York: Oxford University Press. Schüren, Ute, (2017) 'Pueblos indígenas y migración en la península de Yucatán durante la época colonial', INDIANA, 34(2), pp. 55--84. Stavenhagen, Rodolfo, (1963) 'Clases, colonialismo y aculturación: ensayo sobre un sistema de relaciones interétnicas en Mesoamérica', América Latina. Revista del Centro Latinoamericano de Investigaciones en Ciencias Sociales, año 3(4). Stephens, John L. (1843) Incidents of travel in Yucatan. New York, USA: Harper & Brothers. Available at: (Accessed: 25 April 2012). Tedlock, D. (1993). Torture in the Archives: Mayans Meet Europeans. American Anthropologist, 95(1), 139--152. Footnotes [^1]: On colonialism, internal colonialism, global colonialism and the complex social, cultural, political, military and economic dependencies in independent Mexico see Bonfil Batalla 1987; Casanova 1991, 2006 and 2017; and Stavenhagen 1963. [^2]: This commentary is inspired by Augustine 2021. [^3]: Case Johnson & Graham's Lessee v. McIntosh in 1823, in the United States. See a summary and comments of the legal case at [^4]: Sherrill v. Oneida case. See footnote 1 of this case review at . Notice that the concept of Original States refers to Independent States including the United States of America. [^5]: The territories properties of the Nation are, however, those whose legal dominion was obtained by alluding to the Doctrine of Discovery and terra nullius. [^6]: A digital version of the original document is available at the database of Archivo General de Indias: . I am relying on the Spanish translation at [^7]: Cannibalism and, more recently, human sacrifice as an inherent practice of the religiosity of native peoples has been contested on the basis of the overwhelming scarcity of first-hand witnesses (Arens 1979, Jansen & Pérez Jiménez 2019). [^8]: It is worth noting that Restall & Chuchiak (2002) have questioned the order of the chapters and the authenticity -or Landa's authorship- of some passages of the text. [^9]: The bishop was sent to Spain in 1563. During his stay in the Iberian Peninsula, he apparently wrote a number of manuscripts later arranged in his Relacion (Restall & Chuchiak 2002). [^10]: \"Sacrifice\" is used 36 times, and in 6 of the 52 chapters appears in heading. [^11]: A ceremonial site now included in the UNESCO's World Heritage List [^12]: Bracamonte y Sosa (Op. Cit.:152) mentions at least five mechanisms of land alienation that functioned until the middle of the 19th century. Interestingly, Bracamonte y Sosa (2001) illustrates with some examples that property transmission among Maya families took place with less gender restrictions. That is, it was inherited from mothers to daughters as well. For an extended description of the socio-political situation in the Yucatan Peninsula in colonial times see Bracamonte y Sosa 2003 and Farris 2012: 51-86. [^13]: In 1686, only 100 km away Uxmal, the local priest of Yaxcabá denounced a case of \"idolatry\" (see Chuchiak 2002). [^14]: It could also be the case that they were inhabitants of nearby communities who, despite the relocations, ordered by the Crown in 1568 (see footnote 26 in Carrera Quezada 2015), made pilgrimages to Uxmal to perform rituals. Colonial mobility-migration in the Yucatan Peninsula was complex as we see in Farris 2012: 269-300 and Schüren 2017. [^15]:"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/doctrine-discovery-renouced-yet-still-pervasive/",
    "title": "Renounced by the Vatican, Yet the Repressive Force of 15th Century Persists",
    "publishedAt": "2024-04-19T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "By William D. Sunderlin, Ph.D., and Robert J. Miller, J.D. ALBANY, New York | PHOENIX, Arizona | 16 April 2024 (IDN) &emdash; It seems ridiculous that a repudiated Catholic doctrine dating back to the 15th century should have legal standing anywhere in the world today. Yet the Onondaga, an Indigenous nation located in Central New York,  have to argue for their land rights  in front of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights because of centuries of United States case law that relies on the Doctrine of Discovery, renounced by Pope Francis one year ago. Indigenous communities traditionally hold and use approximately one-half of the world’s land. Indigenous and community land rights are not recognized for much of this land—in 49 countries with detailed statistics,  at least 21.1%  of all land should be recognized as theirs but isn’t. And that is where the Doctrine of Discovery comes into play. The Doctrine is a 15th-century edict that helped lay the foundation for European imperialism, colonization, and seizure of the lands and resources of Indigenous communities around the globe. The Doctrine, issued as a series of papal bulls by the Catholic Church, declared that Christian explorers had the right to lay claim to lands they “ discovered ,” even if Indigenous Peoples already populated them. Such lands were to be considered “ empty ” and therefore available for appropriation if inhabited by “heathens, pagans, and infidels.” These principles became embedded in the ideological, political, cultural, and legal frameworks not just of the European colonizing countries but also of the new countries that were formed centuries later. The attempt to right past wrongs To its credit, on March 30, 2023,  the Vatican renounced the Doctrine . The attempt to right past wrongs is justified not just for moral reasons, but also because it bears heavily on efforts to avert the worst impacts of climate change. Indigenous land rights have been recognized by the  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change  and in  numerous scientific studies  as a bulwark against tropical deforestation and biodiversity extinction. Pope Francis’s courage in annulling the Doctrine of Discovery should be applauded and celebrated; it is a breakthrough as we contend with the damage wrought by these papal bulls and the colonial legacies across the centuries. Nevertheless, bold as this decision might have been, the principles promoted by the Doctrine are still embedded in national laws and court decisions, and those laws and cases pose formidable barriers to righting the wrongs of the past. For example, the first Congress of the United States implemented the Doctrine of Discovery on July 22, 1790, to enact a law, still in effect to this day, that claimed U.S. ownership rights over the lands of Native American Nations. The U.S. Supreme Court completely adopted this international legal principle of colonialism in  Johnson v. McIntosh  in 1823. The Doctrine has served as a legal justification not only for seizing Native American lands, but also for blocking subsequent Native Nations’ efforts to reclaim their lands. In 2005, in a Supreme Court decision authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg,  the Doctrine was invoked  as a justification for denying the efforts of the Oneida Nation and its people to reclaim a portion of their sovereignty and lands, and in 2010 a federal judge relied on the Oneida ruling to dismiss the Onondaga Nation’s land rights action. The repressive force of the 15th-century doctrine The Doctrine continues to wield its repressive force worldwide, in the laws of ex-colonies such as  Australia, Canada, New Zealand ,  Chile , Mexico, Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda in  East Africa . In Brazil, the issue of the return of lands to Indigenous communities is every bit as troubling, relevant, and urgent as in other countries. While there have been notable advancements in formalization of Indigenous land rights in recent decades under Brazil’s 1988 Constitution, these gains have been fragile and insecure.  Brazil’s constitution incorporates  many of the hallmark elements of the Doctrine of Discovery that the Onondaga Nation confronts in the U.S. One critical legacy of the Doctrine of Discovery in Brazilian law precludes sub-soil ownership, meaning the state can grant exploration and mining rights on Indigenous lands. Brazil’s current President Lula Da Silva has moved aggressively to  affirm Indigenous land rights  and resume a long-stalled process of  demarcation of Indigenous lands  as he attempts to repair the damages wrought by his predecessor Jair Bolsonaro. If the principles of the Doctrine were not embedded in Brazilian law, jurisprudence, and culture, Indigenous land rights in Brazil would surely rest on a more stable and durable foundation. Although the Doctrine of Discovery has been officially repealed at its source, it will continue to block justice for Indigenous Peoples unless all its legal manifestations are eradicated. On the anniversary of the March 2023 decision, Pope Francis and the Vatican should follow up with letters directed at national leaders around the world requesting that they purge their laws, regulations, and policies of all influences of the Doctrine. National governments should undertake these steps in full consultation with Indigenous communities. At the same time, national legal structures should be reviewed to ensure they comply with the provisions of the  2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Lastly, Pope Francis should continue his efforts to eradicate the Doctrine, incorporating this work into his efforts on climate change, one of his top priorities.  In 2015, Pope Francis issued  Laudato Si , his encyclical on the urgent need to address our global ecological crisis. It is impossible to fulfill the goals of  Laudato Si  without following up on last year’s renunciation with the next step: complete eradication of the principles related to the Doctrine from national laws. Authors Robert J. Miller, co-author of “ Discovering Indigenous Lands: The Doctrine of Discovery in the English Colonies ,” is a professor and the Willard H. Pedrick Distinguished Research Scholar at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University. William D. Sunderlin, Ph.D., author of “ Ideology Social Theory and the Environment ,”is a Fellow with the Rights and Resources Initiative and a Senior Associate with the Center for International Forestry Research and World Agroforestry (CIFOR-ICRAF).  [IDN-InDepthNews] Credits Photo: The indigenous Shipibo community of Santa Clara de Uchunya, in the Peruvian Amazon, is facing invasion of its ancestral lands by corporate oil palm plantations and land traffickers. 7,000 hectares of forest have been destroyed. Credit: Diego Pérez/Oxfam IDN is the flagship agency of the  Non-profit International Press Syndicate . Publication Notice This article is originally published on In Depth News",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "law",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "By William D. Sunderlin, Ph.D., and Robert J. Miller, J.D. ALBANY, New York \\| PHOENIX, Arizona \\| 16 April 2024 (IDN) &emdash; It seems ridiculous that a repudiated Catholic doctrine dating back to the 15th century should have legal standing anywhere in the world today. Yet the Onondaga, an Indigenous nation located in Central New York, have to argue for their land rights in front of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights because of centuries of United States case law that relies on the Doctrine of Discovery, renounced by Pope Francis one year ago. Indigenous communities traditionally hold and use approximately one-half of the world's land. Indigenous and community land rights are not recognized for much of this land---in 49 countries with detailed statistics, at least 21.1% of all land should be recognized as theirs but isn't. And that is where the Doctrine of Discovery comes into play. The Doctrine is a 15th-century edict that helped lay the foundation for European imperialism, colonization, and seizure of the lands and resources of Indigenous communities around the globe. The Doctrine, issued as a series of papal bulls by the Catholic Church, declared that Christian explorers had the right to lay claim to lands they \"discovered,\" even if Indigenous Peoples already populated them. Such lands were to be considered \"empty\" and therefore available for appropriation if inhabited by \"heathens, pagans, and infidels.\" These principles became embedded in the ideological, political, cultural, and legal frameworks not just of the European colonizing countries but also of the new countries that were formed centuries later. The attempt to right past wrongs To its credit, on March 30, 2023, the Vatican renounced the Doctrine. The attempt to right past wrongs is justified not just for moral reasons, but also because it bears heavily on efforts to avert the worst impacts of climate change. Indigenous land rights have been recognized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and in numerous scientific studies as a bulwark against tropical deforestation and biodiversity extinction. Pope Francis's courage in annulling the Doctrine of Discovery should be applauded and celebrated; it is a breakthrough as we contend with the damage wrought by these papal bulls and the colonial legacies across the centuries. Nevertheless, bold as this decision might have been, the principles promoted by the Doctrine are still embedded in national laws and court decisions, and those laws and cases pose formidable barriers to righting the wrongs of the past. For example, the first Congress of the United States implemented the Doctrine of Discovery on July 22, 1790, to enact a law, still in effect to this day, that claimed U.S. ownership rights over the lands of Native American Nations. The U.S. Supreme Court completely adopted this international legal principle of colonialism in Johnson v. McIntosh in 1823. The Doctrine has served as a legal justification not only for seizing Native American lands, but also for blocking subsequent Native Nations' efforts to reclaim their lands. In 2005, in a Supreme Court decision authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Doctrine was invoked as a justification for denying the efforts of the Oneida Nation and its people to reclaim a portion of their sovereignty and lands, and in 2010 a federal judge relied on the Oneida ruling to dismiss the Onondaga Nation's land rights action. The repressive force of the 15th-century doctrine The Doctrine continues to wield its repressive force worldwide, in the laws of ex-colonies such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Chile, Mexico, Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda in East Africa. In Brazil, the issue of the return of lands to Indigenous communities is every bit as troubling, relevant, and urgent as in other countries. While there have been notable advancements in formalization of Indigenous land rights in recent decades under Brazil's 1988 Constitution, these gains have been fragile and insecure. Brazil's constitution incorporates many of the hallmark elements of the Doctrine of Discovery that the Onondaga Nation confronts in the U.S. One critical legacy of the Doctrine of Discovery in Brazilian law precludes sub-soil ownership, meaning the state can grant exploration and mining rights on Indigenous lands. Brazil's current President Lula Da Silva has moved aggressively to affirm Indigenous land rights and resume a long-stalled process of demarcation of Indigenous lands as he attempts to repair the damages wrought by his predecessor Jair Bolsonaro. If the principles of the Doctrine were not embedded in Brazilian law, jurisprudence, and culture, Indigenous land rights in Brazil would surely rest on a more stable and durable foundation. Although the Doctrine of Discovery has been officially repealed at its source, it will continue to block justice for Indigenous Peoples unless all its legal manifestations are eradicated. On the anniversary of the March 2023 decision, Pope Francis and the Vatican should follow up with letters directed at national leaders around the world requesting that they purge their laws, regulations, and policies of all influences of the Doctrine. National governments should undertake these steps in full consultation with Indigenous communities. At the same time, national legal structures should be reviewed to ensure they comply with the provisions of the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Lastly, Pope Francis should continue his efforts to eradicate the Doctrine, incorporating this work into his efforts on climate change, one of his top priorities.  In 2015, Pope Francis issued Laudato Si, his encyclical on the urgent need to address our global ecological crisis. It is impossible to fulfill the goals of Laudato Si without following up on last year's renunciation with the next step: complete eradication of the principles related to the Doctrine from national laws. Authors Robert J. Miller, co-author of \"Discovering Indigenous Lands: The Doctrine of Discovery in the English Colonies,\" is a professor and the Willard H. Pedrick Distinguished Research Scholar at the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State University. William D. Sunderlin, Ph.D., author of \"Ideology Social Theory and the Environment,\"is a Fellow with the Rights and Resources Initiative and a Senior Associate with the Center for International Forestry Research and World Agroforestry (CIFOR-ICRAF). [IDN-InDepthNews] Credits Photo: The indigenous Shipibo community of Santa Clara de Uchunya, in the Peruvian Amazon, is facing invasion of its ancestral lands by corporate oil palm plantations and land traffickers. 7,000 hectares of forest have been destroyed. Credit: Diego Pérez/Oxfam IDN is the flagship agency of the Non-profit International Press Syndicate. Publication Notice This article is originally published on In Depth News",
    "externalUrl": "https://indepthnews.net/renounced-by-the-vatican-yet-the-repressive-force-of-15th-century-persists/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/doctrine-of-discovery-moana-jackson/",
    "title": "The Doctrine of Discovery by Moana Jackson",
    "publishedAt": "2024-11-19T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "As our people march upon government to call for the honouring of our treaty, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the words of Moana Jackson are more poignant, and powerful, than ever. Here, he reflects on how the ultimate liberation from the clutches of the Doctrine of Discovery can only happen when we have our full political authority returned. He would have been so proud of our people today xx Others on this panel who are far more expert than I have already covered much of the history and the basic unjust illogicality of the Doctrine of Discovery. I would like to focus briefly on one part of the doctrine that is perhaps often overlooked, and then devote most of my time to what may be called an Indigenous re-discovery of our own rights, law and sovereign authority. As I am sure many of your will know, the original meaning of the word to “discover” is “to open up to the gaze of others”. What I would like to suggest in most of this presentation is the need for Indigenous peoples not just to require that colonizing states and their agents reject the doctrine and its application, but that as indigenous peoples we re-open the ancient discourses of our ancestors and explore again how we might redefine and reclaim what our rights and authority mean. First of all though, I would like to urge us all to remember that while the Doctrine of Discovery was always promoted in the first instance as an authority to claim the land of Indigenous peoples, there were much broader assumptions implicit in the doctrine. For to open up an indigenous land to the gaze of the colonising “other”, there is also in their view an opening up of everything that was in and of the land being claimed. Others on this panel who are far more expert than I have already covered much of the history and the basic unjust illogicality of the Doctrine of Discovery. I would like to focus briefly on one part of the doctrine that is perhaps often overlooked, and then devote most of my time to what may be called an Indigenous re-discovery of our own rights, law and sovereign authority. As I am sure many of your will know, the original meaning of the word to \"discover\" is \"to open up to the gaze of others\". What I would like to suggest in most of this presentation is the need for Indigenous peoples not just to require that colonizing states and their agents reject the doctrine and its application, but that as indigenous peoples we re-open the ancient discourses of our ancestors and explore again how we might redefine and reclaim what our rights and authority mean. First of all though, I would like to urge us all to remember that while the Doctrine of Discovery was always promoted in the first instance as an authority to claim the land of Indigenous peoples, there were much broader assumptions implicit in the doctrine. For to open up an indigenous land to the gaze of the colonising \"other\", there is also in their view an opening up of everything that was in and of the land being claimed. Thus, if the Doctrine of Discovery suggested a right to take control of another nation's land, it necessarily also implied a right to take over the lives and authority of the people to whom the land belonged. It was in that sense, and remains to this day, a piece of genocidal legal magic that could, with the waving of a flag or the reciting of a proclamation, assert that the land allegedly being discovered henceforth belonged to someone else, and that the people of that land were necessarily subordinate to the colonisers. Rather like the doctrine of terra nullius or indeed the very notion in British colonising law of aboriginal title, the Doctrine of Discovery opened up the bodies and souls of indigenous peoples to a colonising gaze which only saw them as inferior, subordinate, and in fact less human than them. At its most base, it expresses the fundamental and violent racism which has led to the oppression of millions of Indigenous peoples over the last several hundred years. It was thus more than a mere doctrine with unfortunate consequences: it was in fact, and remains to this day, a crime against humanity. And like any crime, it has had, and continues to have, many different manifestations as states continue to exercise the power to dominate which they believe the doctrine has given to them. Sometimes it is manifest in the large and overtly violent actions of an individual state against an indigenous peoples. At other times it can be the dismissive and often petty bureaucratisation of their power. In my view, it will therefore not be sufficient for states or churches or others who have profited from the doctrine to merely reject it in the 21st century as an unfortunate product of another time. Neither will it be sufficient for states or churches to simply apologise for its invention and use (important though that is), but rather to actively seek to undo its consequences in practical and meaningful ways. In effect, any colonising rejection of the doctrine, any apology, will be meaningless unless wit, wisdom, and compassion is applied to a practical and proper recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples as defined by the indigenous peoples themselves. The aim should be not just to recompense for the past actions but to accept that a better and more just future for Indigenous peoples will ultimately require a restoration of the political and constitutional authority which the colonising states have so consistently sought to suppress. Most indigenous peoples have of course long waged a struggle to deal with the costs of the purported right of discovery, and more recently have tried to protect our communities and nations from the genocide which it justified and the ongoing dispossession which it has enabled. Many other indigenous peoples, particularly in recent times, have pointed out the lack of logic in its thesis and the injustice inherent in its application. Still others have sought remedy in international forums or in domestic courts. However, what I would like to respectfully suggest today, is that we aim for something more. For if we are to have the Doctrine of Discovery revoked by those who invented it we must also be as brave and imaginative as our ancestors and rediscover and revalidate the law and full sovereign authority which they exercised. If we able to do that, we will be discovering for ourselves once again that we have the inherent right and power to take back that which was allegedly discovered and stolen from us. Indeed I would hope that while our states may at last find the honour and good conscience to reject the doctrine, we as indigenous peoples will also seek to rebuild the damage it has caused in ways that reflect the power and the beauty of who we are. I do not underestimate the difficulties of that task, because the pressures of what may be called the culture of colonisation remain so intense whether it be through the continued rape and pollution of the mother Earth, or the many forces of violence still being directed at Indigenous peoples. When contemplating how we might chart our future beyond the Doctrine of Discovery, I am also aware that the process will be difficult if only because of the warning given many years ago by the African American philosopher\\ Frederick Douglass when he said: \"Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will.\" However, I firmly believe that we have power too, and that while the Doctrine of Discovery may have led to a practical destruction of the institutions of that power and the law which sanctioned it in all indigenous societies, the spirit and hope of that power has never died. Perhaps this seemingly narrow debate about a doctrine spawned out of hatred and greed in a place far from most of our homes, may also give us as Indigenous peoples the confidence to restate and give life to that power. If we embark on that journey, which is rather like the liberation that Franz Fanon once described as \"the ultimate decolonisation\", each Indigenous nation will no doubt find its own way of reaching that goal. We will each find our own unique way of rediscovering and reopening our pasts to the gaze of our generations yet to come, and in their sight we will give substance once more to the spirit of our power. At the same time, I am sure that we will also share some of the common values which have underpinned the many indigenous concepts of power. I am sure that we will all want, for example, to find 21st century ways of giving effect to the ancestors' obligations to protect the mother Earth. I am confident too that we will all find ways of nurturing the relationships of interdependence, and mutual responsibilities that bind all indigenous nations together. We may give expression to those shared values in different political and Constitutional ways. But if we do so based on the justice of our own rules and the heritage of our own understandings of how we might live with a law rather than under it, then we will rediscover truths that will benefit all of the world. We will replace a crime against humanity with a new sense of responsibility which cherishes all that humanity can be. In Aotearoa, New Zealand, Māori people are currently striving to reach towards that new kind of political understanding. In a small way we are attempting to move into a post-discovery world, and embark upon the ultimate decolonisation. In doing so we are focussing on less on what the New Zealand Government or courts might do about the Doctrine of Discovery, and concentrating more on what we might do to re-open to our gaze the power and wonder that existed before the doctrine was dumped on our shores in 1769. If I may, I would like to briefly share with you part of that process in the hope that it might illustrate some of the themes that I have tried to place before you today. In our language at home, our nations are called \"iwi\" or \"hāpu\", and at a major gathering in 2009 our people decided that we should independently begin to formulate a new constitution for our land based on our own laws and values. It was also decided that part of the design of this new constitution should be based on a document that we call \"He Whakaputanga\" or the 1835 Declaration of Independence, and \"Te Tiriti o Waitangi\" or the Treaty we signed with the British Government in 1840. Download the PDF This month, we began the first of a series of gatherings with our people which will continue for the next 12 months as we seek to gain from them both the philosophies and the knowledge of the institutions which once allowed us to govern our own land. For although the English word \"constitution\" is often seen to be a complicated and complex term, it simply means 'the values and processes which a people choose to determine their own destiny'. In our view it is fundamental to the proper exercise of the right of self-determination which in itself is a denial of the Doctrine of Discovery. We also undertake the work, convinced that a constitution for our land must come from our land. We believe that the imposed colonising constitution from Britain grew from that place, and that we must find something which breathes from the stories in our own land. We further undertake the work confident that the notion of democracy and indeed the very concept of political power itself are not unique to Britain or Western Europe, but have roots deeply grounded in our own history and traditions. Finally, we undertake the work convinced that even if the New Zealand Government was to apologise or resile from the Doctrine of Discovery without a fundamental shift in the way governing decisions are made, then we would remain trapped within the clutches of all that the Doctrine of Discovery presupposed. For us, then, part of the journey beyond the doctrine is necessarily the rediscovering of how we once cared for ourselves in our own land. We are not naive enough to think that the colonising power will immediately accept the work that we do, or that the demands we make through constitutional change will be enough of a demand in itself for them to give of their power. However, we are hopeful that by re-beginning such a dialogue, we will truly rediscover who we once were and who we might once again be, and that in itself will be our rejection of the Doctrine of Discovery.\"",
    "tags": [
      "featured",
      "land-theft",
      "doctrineofdiscovery",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "As our people march upon government to call for the honouring of our treaty, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the words of Moana Jackson are more poignant, and powerful, than ever. Here, he reflects on how the ultimate liberation from the clutches of the Doctrine of Discovery can only happen when we have our full political authority returned. He would have been so proud of our people today xx Others on this panel who are far more expert than I have already covered much of the history and the basic unjust illogicality of the Doctrine of Discovery. I would like to focus briefly on one part of the doctrine that is perhaps often overlooked, and then devote most of my time to what may be called an Indigenous re-discovery of our own rights, law and sovereign authority. As I am sure many of your will know, the original meaning of the word to “discover” is “to open up to the gaze of others”. What I would like to suggest in most of this presentation is the need for Indigenous peoples not just to require that colonizing states and their agents reject the doctrine and its application, but that as indigenous peoples we re-open the ancient discourses of our ancestors and explore again how we might redefine and reclaim what our rights and authority mean. First of all though, I would like to urge us all to remember that while the Doctrine of Discovery was always promoted in the first instance as an authority to claim the land of Indigenous peoples, there were much broader assumptions implicit in the doctrine. For to open up an indigenous land to the gaze of the colonising “other”, there is also in their view an opening up of everything that was in and of the land being claimed. Others on this panel who are far more expert than I have already covered much of the history and the basic unjust illogicality of the Doctrine of Discovery. I would like to focus briefly on one part of the doctrine that is perhaps often overlooked, and then devote most of my time to what may be called an Indigenous re-discovery of our own rights, law and sovereign authority. As I am sure many of your will know, the original meaning of the word to \"discover\" is \"to open up to the gaze of others\". What I would like to suggest in most of this presentation is the need for Indigenous peoples not just to require that colonizing states and their agents reject the doctrine and its application, but that as indigenous peoples we re-open the ancient discourses of our ancestors and explore again how we might redefine and reclaim what our rights and authority mean. First of all though, I would like to urge us all to remember that while the Doctrine of Discovery was always promoted in the first instance as an authority to claim the land of Indigenous peoples, there were much broader assumptions implicit in the doctrine. For to open up an indigenous land to the gaze of the colonising \"other\", there is also in their view an opening up of everything that was in and of the land being claimed. Thus, if the Doctrine of Discovery suggested a right to take control of another nation's land, it necessarily also implied a right to take over the lives and authority of the people to whom the land belonged. It was in that sense, and remains to this day, a piece of genocidal legal magic that could, with the waving of a flag or the reciting of a proclamation, assert that the land allegedly being discovered henceforth belonged to someone else, and that the people of that land were necessarily subordinate to the colonisers. Rather like the doctrine of terra nullius or indeed the very notion in British colonising law of aboriginal title, the Doctrine of Discovery opened up the bodies and souls of indigenous peoples to a colonising gaze which only saw them as inferior, subordinate, and in fact less human than them. At its most base, it expresses the fundamental and violent racism which has led to the oppression of millions of Indigenous peoples over the last several hundred years. It was thus more than a mere doctrine with unfortunate consequences: it was in fact, and remains to this day, a crime against humanity. And like any crime, it has had, and continues to have, many different manifestations as states continue to exercise the power to dominate which they believe the doctrine has given to them. Sometimes it is manifest in the large and overtly violent actions of an individual state against an indigenous peoples. At other times it can be the dismissive and often petty bureaucratisation of their power. In my view, it will therefore not be sufficient for states or churches or others who have profited from the doctrine to merely reject it in the 21st century as an unfortunate product of another time. Neither will it be sufficient for states or churches to simply apologise for its invention and use (important though that is), but rather to actively seek to undo its consequences in practical and meaningful ways. In effect, any colonising rejection of the doctrine, any apology, will be meaningless unless wit, wisdom, and compassion is applied to a practical and proper recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples as defined by the indigenous peoples themselves. The aim should be not just to recompense for the past actions but to accept that a better and more just future for Indigenous peoples will ultimately require a restoration of the political and constitutional authority which the colonising states have so consistently sought to suppress. Most indigenous peoples have of course long waged a struggle to deal with the costs of the purported right of discovery, and more recently have tried to protect our communities and nations from the genocide which it justified and the ongoing dispossession which it has enabled. Many other indigenous peoples, particularly in recent times, have pointed out the lack of logic in its thesis and the injustice inherent in its application. Still others have sought remedy in international forums or in domestic courts. However, what I would like to respectfully suggest today, is that we aim for something more. For if we are to have the Doctrine of Discovery revoked by those who invented it we must also be as brave and imaginative as our ancestors and rediscover and revalidate the law and full sovereign authority which they exercised. If we able to do that, we will be discovering for ourselves once again that we have the inherent right and power to take back that which was allegedly discovered and stolen from us. Indeed I would hope that while our states may at last find the honour and good conscience to reject the doctrine, we as indigenous peoples will also seek to rebuild the damage it has caused in ways that reflect the power and the beauty of who we are. I do not underestimate the difficulties of that task, because the pressures of what may be called the culture of colonisation remain so intense whether it be through the continued rape and pollution of the mother Earth, or the many forces of violence still being directed at Indigenous peoples. When contemplating how we might chart our future beyond the Doctrine of Discovery, I am also aware that the process will be difficult if only because of the warning given many years ago by the African American philosopher\\ Frederick Douglass when he said: \"Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will.\" However, I firmly believe that we have power too, and that while the Doctrine of Discovery may have led to a practical destruction of the institutions of that power and the law which sanctioned it in all indigenous societies, the spirit and hope of that power has never died. Perhaps this seemingly narrow debate about a doctrine spawned out of hatred and greed in a place far from most of our homes, may also give us as Indigenous peoples the confidence to restate and give life to that power. If we embark on that journey, which is rather like the liberation that Franz Fanon once described as \"the ultimate decolonisation\", each Indigenous nation will no doubt find its own way of reaching that goal. We will each find our own unique way of rediscovering and reopening our pasts to the gaze of our generations yet to come, and in their sight we will give substance once more to the spirit of our power. At the same time, I am sure that we will also share some of the common values which have underpinned the many indigenous concepts of power. I am sure that we will all want, for example, to find 21st century ways of giving effect to the ancestors' obligations to protect the mother Earth. I am confident too that we will all find ways of nurturing the relationships of interdependence, and mutual responsibilities that bind all indigenous nations together. We may give expression to those shared values in different political and Constitutional ways. But if we do so based on the justice of our own rules and the heritage of our own understandings of how we might live with a law rather than under it, then we will rediscover truths that will benefit all of the world. We will replace a crime against humanity with a new sense of responsibility which cherishes all that humanity can be. In Aotearoa, New Zealand, Māori people are currently striving to reach towards that new kind of political understanding. In a small way we are attempting to move into a post-discovery world, and embark upon the ultimate decolonisation. In doing so we are focussing on less on what the New Zealand Government or courts might do about the Doctrine of Discovery, and concentrating more on what we might do to re-open to our gaze the power and wonder that existed before the doctrine was dumped on our shores in 1769. If I may, I would like to briefly share with you part of that process in the hope that it might illustrate some of the themes that I have tried to place before you today. In our language at home, our nations are called \"iwi\" or \"hāpu\", and at a major gathering in 2009 our people decided that we should independently begin to formulate a new constitution for our land based on our own laws and values. It was also decided that part of the design of this new constitution should be based on a document that we call \"He Whakaputanga\" or the 1835 Declaration of Independence, and \"Te Tiriti o Waitangi\" or the Treaty we signed with the British Government in 1840. Download the PDF This month, we began the first of a series of gatherings with our people which will continue for the next 12 months as we seek to gain from them both the philosophies and the knowledge of the institutions which once allowed us to govern our own land. For although the English word \"constitution\" is often seen to be a complicated and complex term, it simply means 'the values and processes which a people choose to determine their own destiny'. In our view it is fundamental to the proper exercise of the right of self-determination which in itself is a denial of the Doctrine of Discovery. We also undertake the work, convinced that a constitution for our land must come from our land. We believe that the imposed colonising constitution from Britain grew from that place, and that we must find something which breathes from the stories in our own land. We further undertake the work confident that the notion of democracy and indeed the very concept of political power itself are not unique to Britain or Western Europe, but have roots deeply grounded in our own history and traditions. Finally, we undertake the work convinced that even if the New Zealand Government was to apologise or resile from the Doctrine of Discovery without a fundamental shift in the way governing decisions are made, then we would remain trapped within the clutches of all that the Doctrine of Discovery presupposed. For us, then, part of the journey beyond the doctrine is necessarily the rediscovering of how we once cared for ourselves in our own land. We are not naive enough to think that the colonising power will immediately accept the work that we do, or that the demands we make through constitutional change will be enough of a demand in itself for them to give of their power. However, we are hopeful that by re-beginning such a dialogue, we will truly rediscover who we once were and who we might once again be, and that in itself will be our rejection of the Doctrine of Discovery.\"",
    "externalUrl": "https://tinangata.com/2024/11/19/the-doctrine-of-discovery-moana-jackson-2012/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/doctrine-of-discovery-syllabus/",
    "title": "REL 500/600: The Religious Origins of White Supremacy: Johnson v. M'Intosh and the Doctrine of Christian Discovery Syllabus",
    "publishedAt": "2024-08-08T16:27:30Z",
    "description": "Thank you so much to everyone who contributed to our podcast, blog, and conference. As part of the Doctrine of Discovery Project we wanted to do a syllabus showcasing all of the amazing open-access work that is being done on the Doctrine of Christian Discovery. This is a proposed or imagined course to be taught as a combined undergraduate and graduate course hopefully sometime soon at Syracuse University. May this syllabus encourage, support, and give you ideas for your own course. View and Download Syllabus View on HCommons",
    "updatedAt": "2024-08-16T17:27:30Z",
    "tags": [
      "syllabus",
      "doctrine-of-discovery",
      "religion",
      "indigenous-studies",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Thank you so much to everyone who contributed to our podcast, blog, and conference. As part of the Doctrine of Discovery Project we wanted to do a syllabus showcasing all of the amazing open-access work that is being done on the Doctrine of Christian Discovery. This is a proposed or imagined course to be taught as a combined undergraduate and graduate course hopefully sometime soon at Syracuse University. May this syllabus encourage, support, and give you ideas for your own course. View and Download Syllabus{: .btn .btn--danger} View on HCommons{: .btn .btn--success}"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/domination-chronicles/",
    "title": "Domination Chronicles",
    "publishedAt": "2024-10-31T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Greetings Friends and Relatives, I’m excited to announce the roll out of paid subscriptions, which I declined to do for our first year. However, many of you have encouraged me to turn on the “paid subscriptions” option, so I have. These funds will go directly to support my ongoing research and writing. This will also enable me to post more frequently. If there’s one thing I’m not lacking it’s content! Thank you in advance for your generous support of this work.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "video",
      "featured",
      "doctrineofdiscovery",
      "podcast",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Greetings Friends and Relatives, I’m excited to announce the roll out of paid subscriptions, which I declined to do for our first year. However, many of you have encouraged me to turn on the “paid subscriptions” option, so I have. These funds will go directly to support my ongoing research and writing. This will also enable me to post more frequently. If there’s one thing I’m not lacking it’s content! Thank you in advance for your generous support of this work.",
    "externalUrl": "https://stevennewcomb.substack.com/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/domination/domination-translator-series-introduction/",
    "title": "The Domination Translator Series: An Extended Essay on Various U.S. Supreme Court Rulings and Other Topics - Part 1",
    "publishedAt": "2026-01-01T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "How did the U.S. justify 'ultimate dominion' over Native nations and lands? This series examines the Doctrine of Discovery in Supreme Court rulings.",
    "tags": [
      "law",
      "religion",
      "Christianity",
      "domination",
      "domination-translator",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Introduction and Setting the Context for The Domination Translator Series: An Extended Essay on Various U.S. Supreme Court Rulings and Other Topics As scholars, we face a central challenge in our efforts to understand and explain the ideas and arguments that the United States government has applied to the original Native nations and peoples of this Turtle Island continent (\"North America\"). Part of that challenge consists of attempting to accurately interpret how representatives of the U.S. government have thought and written about the political identity of our Native nations, and about the relationship between our nations and the political system named The United States of America. As a starting point, we are well advised to begin by setting the context within which to engage in our efforts. A good place to begin is by acknowledging the free and independent existence of the Native nations of this continent prior to the arrival of ships traveling westward across the Atlantic Ocean from a faraway geographical place called Western Christendom (Western Europe). Next, we need to reflect upon the contrast between the free way of life of our Native nations and the Christian Europeans' mental world and system of domination that was transported by ship from Western Europe and imposed on everyone and everything here on Turtle Island and throughout this hemisphere that is located to the west of Western Europe. With those two perspectives in mind, we must add two more. The first is the imagined viewpoint of our free Native ancestors standing on the shore looking at the colonizing ships sailing toward them. The second perspective is that of the colonizing people standing on the deck of any of those ships, looking toward our Native ancestors, with the intention of mentally and linguistically imposing their words, ideas, arguments, and behaviors on our Native ancestors and on their traditional lands, waters, and ecological systems. A Brief Lexicon of Domination There are specific words that serve as carriers of the paradigm of domination. They all tacitly (in a hidden manner) presume a right of domination. The terms include: 1) \"Civilization\" (not as a noun but, as a gerund or operating process) (i.e. \"the forcing of a cultural pattern on a population to which it is foreign,\" says Webster's Third New International Dictionary); 2) \"State,\" \"a relation of men dominating men,\" says Max Weber in his 1919 essay \"Politics As A Vocation.[^1] \"if the state is to exist,\" he continues, \"the dominated must obey the authority claimed by the powers that be,\" says Max Weber.[^2] 3) \"Sovereignty,\" \"an unjust form of political domination that limits human freedom,\" writes Jonathon Havercroft in Captives of Sovereignty.[^3] 4) \"Ascendancy,\" (\"controlling influence, governing power, domination,\" says Websters Dictionary; 5) \"Dominion\" (is traced back to the Latin term \"dominium,\" which means domination says William Brandon in New Worlds for Old);[^4] 6) \"Property,\" \"despotic dominion,\" says William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Common Law; 7) \"Empire,\" \"an imperium---a dominion \\[domination\\], state \\[domination\\], or sovereignty \\[domination\\] that would expand in population and territory and increase in strength and power,\" writes Richard Van Alstyne);[^5] 8) \"Government,\" \"rule, sway.\" The term \"ment\" = \"a state or condition of\" + \"to go\" + \"over\" are embedded in the word \"go-over-n-ment\" (The Carnegie Institution editors of European Treaties Bearing on the History of the United States, Vol I, translated the Latin word \"dominationes\" (dominations) into the English word \"governments,\" thereby drawing a connection between the two terms). Each of the above words is a synonym for and carrier of the paradigm of domination. The average person was never taught to understand these words as having anything to do with domination. As soon as the seafaring colonizers from Christian Europe (Christendom) made landfall here on this continent centuries ago, they began using those and other words to create and maintain a system and coercive process of domination throughout the geographical space that they as foreign voyagers had newly identified and over which they were determined to exert their will and absolute control. Newcomb's Domination Translator The vast tapestry of information in the background of particular words and terminologies typically remains out of focus. Newcomb's Domination Translator, already applied to number 7 above, is one technique for bringing into the foreground of our awareness that background dimension of meaning. If we know, for example, that the eight words in our Lexicon are examples of domination, there is a simple method for bringing this connection to the attention of the reader while bringing an awareness of the background dimension into the foreground. The following are two examples of this technique: \"civilization \\[domination\\],\" and, \"the state \\[of domination\\].\" This technique will be used frequently throughout this essay. The American Empire \\[Domination\\] The U.S. Supreme Court has on two occasions declared the United States to be the American empire. First time in Loughborough v. Blake (1820) and again in Downes v. Bidwell (1901). The documents, history, and U.S. Supreme Court decisions we will be summarizing in this essay ought to be read with the understanding that what is typically termed \"The United States of America\" is also accurately understood as \"the American system of domination.\"  The men who are typically known as \"the Founders\" of the United States were conscious of the fact that they were founding an empire. They were breaking away from the British Empire in order to found their own American Empire. In his book The Rising American Empire, historian Richard Van Alstyne examines in passing some ideas of Benjamin Franklin: \"Benjamin Franklin, who learned at least some of his Roman history from Machiavelli's Discourses, regarded first the British Empire, and then the American, as Roman in conception, and he used the word 'national' and 'imperial' interchangeably. His \\[Franklin's\\] imperium was Augustan \\[i.e. referencing the Roman Emperor Augustus\\], but even more he stressed an expanding empire \\[domination\\] in territory and population.\" (p. 2). The American founders were men who understood the need for linguistic subtlety. Van Alstyne quotes Julius W. Pratt as stating, \"in reality, the extension of American rule \\[domination\\] over Indian tribes and their lands was imperialism---not recognized as such only because the Indians were so few in number as the be virtually swallowed.\" Van Alstyne continues by noting: \"Here it might be pointed out that American foreign policy has a vocabulary all its own, consciously---even ostentatiously---sidestepping the use of terms that would even hint at aggression or imperial domination, and taking refuge in abstract formulae, stereotypical phrases, and idealistic clichés that really explain nothing.\" (p. 7) Van Alstyne expands upon this point as follows: \"Phrases like 'Monroe Doctrine', 'no entangling alliances', 'freedom of the seas', 'open door', 'good neighbour policy', 'Truman doctrine', Eisenhower doctrine', strew the pages of American foreign policy.\" American foreign policy masterfully hides the claim of a right of imperial domination behind neutral, even positive sounding terms. As Van Alstyne puts it: \"Parrot-like repetition of these abstractions and other generalities produces an emotional reflex which assumes that American diplomacy is 'different', purer, morally better than the diplomacy of other powers.\" He adds: Consider, for instance, the implication behind the well-worn stereotype, 'The United States enforces the Monroe Doctrine'. My dictionary tells me that a doctrine is a teaching—its derivation is the Latin verb doceo, 'I teach' . But actually as American diplomacy manipulates this phrase, the Monroe Doctrine has long since assumed the characteristics of positive law which the United States, the lord \\[dominator\\] of the western hemisphere, applies from time to time as it sees fit. The particular application may or may not be benevolent—that depends on how it is interpreted; but there is no doubt that it is arbitrary. Furthermore, it is an interesting point, I think, that American diplomacy shows a preference for a term that is commonly identified with theological dogma. The Monroe Doctrine has the additional authority of Canon Law behind it. To carry the analogy further, the United States assumes unto itself a function of the mediaeval Papacy, the prerogative of infallibility. The quotation, 'wheresoever the Roman conquers, he inhabits', which is incorporated in the title of this first chapter, is from the Stoic philosopher, Seneca. I culled it from the pages of one of the greatest historians, Edward Gibbon, in the opinion that it applies with equal truth to the American nation. The idea that America—the 'New World'—would be conquered \\[dominated\\] and inhabited by people of English stock was native to the empire builders of Elizabethan England and bred into the minds of the early immigrants to Virginia and Massachusetts Bay. With the latter, especially with the Puritans who migrated with a sense of grievance against their homeland, it became an article of faith that they were in a new world, a new sphere. Puritans, who regarded themselves as founders of a new Israel in the North American wilderness, the doctrine that the two spheres became a fixation in the American mind prerequisite to the growth of nationalism. New England, which was 'God's American Israel' according to its Calvinistic divines, assumed from the outset an attitude of political independence toward the mother country. The Great and General Court of Massachusetts—the pretentious title which the legislative assembly of that province bestowed upon itself—audaciously substituted an oath of allegiance to itself in place of the oath to the king (pp. 7-8). Looked at from the standpoint of the sum total of its history, the abstract formulae and principles being disregarded or at least discounted, the United States thus becomes by its very essence an expanding imperial power. It is a creature of the classical Roman-British tradition. It was conceived as an empire; and its evolution from a group of small, disunited English colonies strung out on a long coastline to a world power with commitments on every sea and in every continent, has been a characteristically imperial type of growth (p. 9). My reason, then, for invoking the heretical phrase, American empire, is so that the United States can be studied as a member of the competitive system of national states, with a behaviour [sic] pattern characteristic of an ambitious and dynamic national state. This approach gives precedence to foreign affairs over domestic affairs, reversing the customary practice of treating national history from the standpoint of the nation preoccupied with its own internal affairs and only incidentally looking beyond its borders. In other words, it is a history of the American national state or, as I prefer, of the American Empire, rather than a history of the American people (pp. 9-10). With the above context in mind, we can now begin to examine a number of U.S. court rulings and significant historical milestones in U.S. history, and in the history of U.S. anti-Indian law and policy. Series Overview The 15-part series begins with an introduction and proceeds chronologically through key legal decisions: 1. Introduction: The Domination Translator Series — An overview of the series and its methodology 2. Fletcher v. Peck (1810) — The first Supreme Court case to reference the Doctrine of Discovery 3. The Marshall Trilogy: Johnson v. McIntosh (1823) — Chief Justice John Marshall's foundational ruling establishing discovery doctrine as U.S. law 4. The Marshall Trilogy: Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) — Defining indigenous nations as \"domestic dependent nations\" 5. The Marshall Trilogy: Worcester v. Georgia (1832) — Affirming tribal sovereignty while maintaining discovery doctrine supremacy 6. The Monroe Doctrine (1823) — Extending discovery principles to hemispheric policy 7. Martin v. Waddell (1842) — Applying discovery doctrine to property rights and tidelands 8. President \"Teddy\" Roosevelt's Monroe Doctrine Corollary — The expansion of imperial authority based on discovery principles 9. Tee Hit Ton Indians v. United States (1955) — Denying aboriginal title under discovery doctrine 10. White v. University of California (9th Circuit, 2014) — Modern application of discovery doctrine in higher education policy 11. The Haudenosaunee Cases: Cayuga Indian Nation v. Pataki (2005) — Examining discovery doctrine in contemporary land claims 12. The Haudenosaunee Cases: Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida (2010) — Persistent barriers to indigenous sovereignty rooted in discovery doctrine 13. The Haudenosaunee Cases: Onondaga Nation v. New York (2012) — Environmental justice and the limits of discovery-based law 14. McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020) — A landmark decision recognizing the Creek Nation's reservation despite discovery doctrine precedent 15. U.S. v. King Mountain Tobacco Co., Inc. (9th Circuit, 2012) — Tribal sovereignty and the limits of federal authority Series Navigation Next: The Marshall Trilogy: Fletcher v. Peck (Part 2) Copyright © Copyright Steven T. Newcomb, January 1, 2026 Footnotes [^1]: From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, Translated, Edited, And With An Introduction By H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills, (Oxford University Press: New York, 1946), p. 78. [^2]: Ibid. [^3]: Jonathon Havercroft, Captives of Sovereignty (Oxford University Press?, New York, 2014, p. 34). [^4]: William Brandon, New Worlds for Old: Reports from the New World and their Effect on the Development of Social Thought in Europe, 1500 to 1800, Athens, OH: University of Ohio Press, 121. See particularly the section titled \"Dominium, which Brandon concludes: \"Political power grown from property---dominium---was, in effect, domination. (What good is power if you can't abuse it, runs a Sicilian proverb).\" [^5]: Richard Van Alstyne, The Rising American Empire, p. 1."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/domination/fletcher-v-peck/",
    "title": "Fletcher v. Peck (1810) - Domination Translator Series - Part 2",
    "publishedAt": "2026-01-02T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "The Fletcher v. Peck case examined whether the U.S. courts would recognize Indian title to land, and how colonial charters justified domination.",
    "tags": [
      "law",
      "religion",
      "Christianity",
      "domination",
      "domination-translator",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "The U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Fletcher v. Peck just twenty-one years after the current U.S. Constitution became operational in 1789. The decision was issued twenty-three years after the Northwest Ordinance was adopted by the Continental Congress in 1787. The Northwest Ordinance states in part: \"The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards the Indians, and in their property, rights, and liberty they shall never be invaded or disturbed, unless in just and lawful wars authorized by Congress.\" This certainly sounds good as a sentiment, and it even recognizes Indians as living free (\"liberty\") and as possessing \"property,\" with \"rights\" to protect both. Unfortunately, this would almost universally prove to be mere sentiment and not protective of the liberty and lands of Native nations. Fletcher v. Peck resulted from what is known in history as the Yazoo land fraud. Every member of the Georgia legislature was bribed except for one who happened to be absent that day. The context of Fletcher was the history of royal English charters issued by the king of England, charters that Chief Justice John Marshall would quote thirteen years later in the 1823 ruling Johnson v. McIntosh. The following language from Fletcher is of particular interest for our purposes: \"Fourth plea. To the fourth count, the defendant \\[Peck\\] pleaded that, at the time of passing the Act of the 7th of January, 1795, the State of Georgia was seised in fee simple \\[implying an absolute right of dominion, i.e. a right of domination\\] of all the tenements and territories aforesaid, and of all the soil thereof, subject only \\[emphasis added\\] to the \\[eventual\\] extinguishment of the Indian title \\[i.e. whatever interest was remaining for the Indians after the British assertion of a right of domination\\] to part thereof, and of this he puts himself on the country, and the plaintiff likewise.\" … \"Upon the issue joined upon the fourth plea, the jury found the following special verdict, viz.: That his late majesty, Charles the second, King of Great Britain, by his letters patent under the great seal of Great Britain, bearing date the thirtieth day of June, in the seventeenth year of his reign, did grant unto … \\[herein named\\] lords proprietors \\[dominators\\], and their heirs and assigns, all that Province, territory, or tract of ground, situate, lying and being in North America, and described as follows: extending north and eastward as far as the north end of Carahtuke River or gullet, upon a straight westerly line to Wyonoahe Creek, which lies within or about the degrees of thirty-six and thirty minutes of northern latitude, and so west in a direct line as far as the South Seas, and south and westward as far as the degrees of twenty-nine inclusive, northern latitude, and so west in a direct line as far as the South Seas (which territory was called Carolina), together with all ports, harbours, bays, rivers, soil, land, fields, woods, lakes, and other rights and privileges therein named; that the said lords proprietors \\[dominators\\], grantees aforesaid, afterwards, by force of said \\[royal\\] grant \\[of a right of domination\\], entered upon and took possession of \\[i.e. asserted a right of domination over\\] said territory, and established within the same many settlements, and erected therein \\[military\\] fortifications and posts of defence \\[under threat of, and backed by, the assertion of a right of lethal force\\].\" \"That afterwards, on the sixth day of August, one thousand seven hundred and fifty-four \\[1754\\], His said Majesty, George the Second, by his royal commission of that date under the great seal of Great Britain, constituted and appointed John Reynolds, Esq. to be Captain General and Commander in Chief in and over said Colony of Georgia in America, with the following boundaries, viz., lying from the most northerly stream of a river there commonly called Savannah, all along the sea coast to the southward unto the most southern stream of a certain other great water or river called the Alatahama, and westward from the heads of the said rivers respectively, in straight lines to the South Seas, and all the space, circuit and precinct of land lying within the said boundaries, with the islands in the sea lying opposite to the eastern coast of said lands within twenty leagues of the same. That afterwards, on the tenth day of February, in the year of Our Lord one thousand seven hundred and sixty-three, a definitive treaty of peace was concluded at Paris, between his Catholic Majesty, the King of Spain, and his Majesty, George the third, King of Great Britain, by the twentieth article of which treaty, his said Catholic Majesty did cede and guaranty, in full right to his Britannic Majesty, Florida, with fort St. Augustin, and the bay of Pensacola, as well as all that Spain possessed on the continent of North America, to the east or to the south east of the river Mississippi, and in general all that depended on the said countries and island, with the sovereignty \\[domination\\], property \\[domination\\], possession \\[domination\\], and all rights acquired by treaties or otherwise, which the Catholic King and the Crown of Spain had till then over the said countries, lands, places, and their inhabitants; so that the Catholic King did cede and make over the whole to the said King and said Crown of Great Britain, and that in the most ample manner and form.\" \"That it is our royal will and pleasure for the present, as aforesaid, to reserve under our sovereignty, protection and dominion for the use of the said Indians all the land and territories not included within the limits of our said three new governments, or within the limits of the territory granted to the Hudson's Bay Company, as also all the land and territories lying to the westward of the sources of the rivers which fall into the sea from the west and north-west as aforesaid; and we do hereby strictly forbid, on pain of our displeasure, all our loving subjects from making any purchases or settlements whatever, or taking possession of any of the lands above reserved, without our special leave and license for that purpose first obtained.\" \"And the jury find that the land described in the plaintiff's \\[Fletcher's\\] declaration did lay to the westward of the sources of the rivers which fall into the sea from the west and northwest as aforesaid. That afterwards, on the twenty-first day of November, in the year of Our Lord one thousand seven hundred and sixty-three \\[1763\\], and in the fourth year of the reign of said King George the Third, he the said King, by his royal commission under the great seal of Great Britain, did constitute and appoint George Johnstone, Esq. Captain General and Governor \\[Dominator\\] in Chief over the said Province of West Florida in America; in which commission the said Province was described in the same words of limitation and extent, as in said proclamation is before set down. That afterwards, on the twentieth day of January, in the year of Our Lord one thousand seven hundred and sixty-four, the said King of Great Britain, by his commission under the great seal of Great Britain, did constitute and appoint James Wright, Esq. to be the Captain General and Governor \\[Dominator\\] in chief in and over the Colony of Georgia, by the following bounds, viz., bounded on the north by the most northern stream of a river there commonly called Savannah, as far as the heads of the said river; and from thence westward as far as our territories extend; on the east, by the sea coast, from the said river Savannah to the most southern stream of a certain other river, called St. Mary; (including all islands within twenty leagues of the coast lying between the said river Savannah and St. Mary, as far as the head thereof;) and from thence westward as far as our territories extend by the north boundary line of our Provinces of East and West Florida. That afterwards, from the year one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five to the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three, an open war existed between the colonies of New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, called the United States, on the one part, and His said Majesty, George the Third, King of Great Britain, on the other part. And on the third day of September, in the year of Our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three, a definitive treaty of peace was signed and concluded at Paris by and between certain authorized commissioners on the part of the said belligerent powers, which was afterwards duly ratified and confirmed by the said two respective powers, by the first article of which treaty, the said King George the Third, by the name of his Britannic Majesty, acknowledged the aforesaid United States to be free, sovereign and independent States \\[of Domination\\]; that he \\[King George the Third\\] treated with them as such, and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claim to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof; and by the second article of said treaty, the western boundary of the United States is a line drawn along the middle of the River Mississippi, until it shall intersect the northernmost part of the thirty-first degree of north latitude; and the southern boundary is a line drawn due east from the determination of the said line, in the latitude of thirty-one degrees north of the equator, to the middle of the River Apalachicola or Catahouchee; thence along the middle thereof to its junction with the Flint River; thence straight to the head of St. Mary's River; and thence down along the middle of St. Mary's River to the Atlantic Ocean…\" When looked at from the perspective of the people on the deck of a colonizing-ship, the colonizers' conception of \"Indian Title\" would appear to be whatever residue of interest (of \"occupancy\") was deemed by them to be remaining in the Indians after the British crown had asserted its claim of a right of domination to and over the lands and waters of this continent. And this view is reflected in the U.S. Supreme Court rulings typically called \"The Marshall Trilogy.\" Cases Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 87 (1810). Campbell v. Hall, Cowper 204 (K.B. 1774). Series Navigation Previous: Domination Translator Series: Introduction (Part 1) | Next: Johnson v. McIntosh (Part 3) Copyright © Copyright Steven T. Newcomb, January 1, 2026"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/domination/haudenosaunee/cayuga-pataki/",
    "title": "The Haudenosaunee Cases: Cayuga Indian Nation v. Pataki (2nd Cir. June 28, 2005) - Domination Translator Series - Part 11",
    "publishedAt": "2026-01-11T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Cayuga Nation v. Pataki (2005) explored Haudenosaunee land claims and the suppressed 1922 Everett Report on Native treaty rights.",
    "tags": [
      "law",
      "religion",
      "Christianity",
      "domination",
      "domination-translator",
      "haudenosaunee",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "The Haudenosaunee Cases An examination of the historical record with regard to the Haudenosaunee, or Six Nations, ought to begin with an acknowledgment of the free and independent existence of those nations, and the countervailing effort on the part of the invaders from across the Atlantic Ocean, and their present day descendants, to impose and maintain a perpetual system of domination on those nations. We can begin with the heavily suppressed 1922 Everett Report that was submitted to the New York State legislature by Assemblyman Edward A. Everett, who was the Chairman of the Indian Commission to the New York State Legislature at that time. The original report was rejected by the legislature and the report itself has been almost completely lost. A remaining copy of the report opens as follows: \"The late Mrs. L.G. Stillman, clerk and stenographer to the Commission is to be thanked for preserving the only remaining record of that ill-fated Commission.\" The introduction to the existing copy of the report reads in part: The Everett Report was released as a result of the New York State Legislature attempting in 1971 to transfer a parcel of state land which be part of the Akwesasne Mohawk Reservation to town of Fort Covington. The efforts of Chief Lawrence Lazore and Assemblyman K. Daniel Haley among others, were instrumental in negotiating for the release of this document. To Mrs. Helen Upton, who was entrusted with this report after the death of Mrs. Stillman, and who made the ultimate decision to release this document to us, we \\[mohawks] say \"NIAWEN!\"[^1] Further on at p. \"v.\" we find: \"The 'Everett Report' is the only report that has come to our attention which has made any particular effort to encourage and secure a free and untrammelled expression of opinion by the Indians themselves.\" And this: \"The Commission visited the various reservations of the New York Indians and the report contains much valuable first hand information.\" The framework for the convening of a second N.Y. Indian Commission was set up but as of 1925, no appointments were made to the Commission by the N.Y. Governor's office. At end of the opening of the one copy of the report in the hands of traditional Mohawk leadership we find: \"It is to be noted that Chairman Everett was not returned to the \\[N.Y.] Assembly and died shortly afterwards. Whether this fact has any relation to the failure to organize the Second Commission to supersede the previous Commission would be hard to determine.\" Looking toward the future, although we do not have the space for it here, there is a definite need for a comprehensive analysis of the contents of \"The Everett Report,\" which is officially titled \"Report of New York Indian Commission to Investigate the Status of the American Indian Residing In the State of New York Transmitted to the \\[N.Y.] Legislature[,] March 17, 1922.\" Lastly, there are notable gaps in the remaining copy of the report. For example, at p. 4 we find: \"In order that this report may carry the information upon which and by which the determination of the status \\[of the Indian] is arrived at, we submit the opinion of Chief Justice Marshall of the United States Supreme Court in , the decision of which and the principles discussed by the judge are of great importance in making the legal opinion of this commission. Reference in by the opinion of this commission. Reference is to the opinion of Judge Ray as reported in Reporter 859, p. 468 in 1919 and to Judge Manton found in Federal Reporter 265, p 165 in 1920 and in the Extra  Census Bulletin Indians, by Thomas Donaldson, page 4 paragraph 2 \"The conclusion is irresistible that the Six Nations are nations by treaty and law etc.\" With regard the doctrine of discovery and domination, we find the following at the opening of The Everett Report: \"The first thing to be determined is the question as to whether the Indians of this continent were in possession of this country and whether they sustained the governmental rights to control the territory occupied by them at the time of their discovery by the white man. And the further question as to whether any part of this continent was unoccupied by the Indians so that its discovery could, under the rules and regulations of the Law of Right by Discovery, be taken by the discoverers.\" It continues: \"This determination is necessary in order to legally and properly arrive at a conclusion as to what the legal status of the Indian is at the present day, taking into account the territory he occupied when the white man came here, the territory he occupies at the present time and the examining \\[of] the facts as to how and by what means and for what consideration \\[payment] he was dispossessed of that territory which comprised this continent and especially that lying within the boundaries of the state of New York.\" Additionally, we find: \"This commission has found it necessary to go beyond the boundaries of the state of New York in examining the historical events as they relate directly to matters of vital interest in considering the status of this state.\" What makes The Everett Report fascinating is its effort to engage in a comprehensive look back at the historical record. Based on what follows, it is easy to see why the New York Legislature rejected the findings of The Everett Report and failed to appoint commissioners to a Second New York Indian Commission. At page 8 we find: \"Marshalling all the facts. Which the commission has been able to secure and judging such facts from the findings and decisions of both federal and state courts, your chairman \\[Everett] arrives at the following conclusions.\" I have augmented those findings by using Newcomb's Domination Translator: That the \\[free and independent] Indians of North America were the legal possessors of the soil at the time of the discovery of this continent by Columbus in 1492. That they maintained a regular form of government \\[and a free and independent existence] which was recognized by the several countries who visited this continent shortly after its discovery. That at that time, the \\[free and independent] Indians on this continent were sufficiently able to maintain themselves against any foreign power \\[dominator] that visited this continent. That all foreign powers \\[dominators] who visited this continent had in view the purpose of establishing colonies and to engage in trade and traffic with the \\[free] Indians and were received by the Indians in much the same manner as which men held intercourse \\[relations] with white men. That no attempt, at that time, was made nor a claim put forward to the effect that treaties need not be made with the \\[free and independent] Indians on account of the fact that they were not the legal and proper possessors of the soil. Nor would treaties have been made had the Indians been conquered and \\[this leads to the key insight] that by consummating treaties \\[with them], we have \\[thereby] recognized \\[each of] them as a \\[free and independent] nation. The last point needs clarification: The Everett report arrives at the conclusion that the first colonizers did not claim that the Indians were not the legal and proper possessors of the soil, and this is why the colonizers made treaties with the Indians. In other words, according to The Everett Report, the colonizing powers knew that the Indians were living free and independent of Christian European domination when the Christian Europeans arrived, and that Native nations and peoples were the legal and proper possessors of the soil of this continent. This is the underlying reason the colonizing powers made treaties with the Indians. The U.S. court system, however, has used and continues to use the idea-system of domination against Native nations and peoples, and to deflect attention away from the question of whether the Native nations are still rightfully free and independent. Cayuga Indian Nation v. Pataki (2^nd^ Cir. June 28, 2005) In June of 2005, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States issued its decision in the case Cayuga Indian Nation v. Pataki (referring to Governor George Pataki of New York), which was a legal claim made by the Cayuga Indian Nation that the 1795 and 1807 treaties between the United States and the Cayuga Indian Nation were not valid pursuant to the 1793 Nonintercourse Act, and pursuant to Congress's power under Article I, Section 8, clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution. A June 1795 decision by William Bradford, then Attorney General of the United States held that, pursuant to the terms of the Nonintercourse Act, no sale of land by an Indian nation was valid \"except pursuant to a treaty entered into by the Federal Government.\" A treaty by the State of \\[Domination] named New York, which has the nickname \"the Empire \\[domination\\] State.\" A January 1, 2026 entry on the Britannica website—which was possibly published to coincide with the election of Zohran Mandani, the first Moslem Mayor of New York City—New York's nickname was the result of a 1785 letter by George Washington. It it, Washington praised New York for its strength during the American Revolution.\" Washington referred to New York state as \"the Seat of the Empire \\[domination\\].\" The entry goes on to say: Washington's recognition was not merely poetic—it acknowledged the state's strategic importance. New York's central location between New England and the Southern colonies, its control of the Hudson River, and access to key ports made it a battleground for control \\[imperial domination] of the East Coast and the North American continent more broadly. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals stated: \"Because of the disposition we reach here \\[to dismiss this case], we need not describe in great detail the long history of relations between the Cayuga Nation and the State of New York.\" The court adds: \"We set forth below a concise description of the events underlying this lawsuit, as well as a more extended recounting of the case's procedural history.\" According to the court's abbreviated historical account, the plaintiffs \\[the Cayuga], \"allege that from time immemorial until the late eighteenth century \\[the 1700s], the Cayuga Nation owned and occupied approximately three million acres of land in (emphasis added) what is now New York State, a swath of land approximately fifty miles wide that runs from Lake Ontario to the Pennsylvania border.\" Notice the preposition \"in\" in the above sentence that mentions \"three million acres in what is now New York State.\" This grammatical \"move\" grammatically mentally constructs a perception of reality which presupposes that the Cayuga Nation is \"positioned\" in or within the territorial boundaries of the Empire \\[domination\\] State called New York. This leads to the metaphorical framing \"in or within is under,\" which implies that the Cayuga Nation (along with the other Five Nations of the Haudenosaunee) are all, to some extent, subject to the collective political system (decision-making) of the original thirteen \"united\" States called \"the United States.\" This would appear to reference what Claus Mueller calls \"The Maintenance of the Status Quo,\" the title of chapter three in his 1973 book The Politics of Communication. (Coincidently, the book was published by \"New York Oxford University Press,\" and he ends his Preface with \"June Farm[,] Towners, New York, July 1973). Meuller says it is inconsistent with what would be naturally expected of \"Western industrial society,\" \"that social disparities persist amidst plenty while the structure of domination \\[of Western society] remains virtually unchallenged.\" He continues: Domination, used in this sense, is the control by a limited and relatively small number of people over the allocation of resources and … access to significant participation in the decision-making process. Expanding on that theme, Meuller further states: \"If the members of a political community \\[such as the Cayuga Indian Nation] are not significantly involved in the decision-making process\" of the dominating U.S. society, and if they do not possess \"sufficient sociopolitical knowledge\" and language skills which enable them to unscramble \"governmental jargon and expository style,\" which is often \"designed to disguise intent,\" then they will have no counterinterpretation that they can use in an effort to offset the official interpretations of the dominating U.S. society. In short, if they lack such political and linguistic knowledge, they will not have the political means of challenging the overall system and status quo of domination.   As the Second Circuit Court of Appeals went on to explain: The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Neil P. McCurn, Judge), determined (1) that treaties between the Cayuga Nation and the State of New York in 1795 and 1807 were not properly ratified by the federal government and were thus invalid under the Nonintercourse Act, 25 U.S.C. § 177; and (2) that none of defendants' other arguments barred plaintiffs' suit. After ruling in plaintiffs' favor on liability, the District Court conducted a jury trial on damages, which resulted in a verdict for plaintiffs of approximately $36.9 million, representing the current fair market value of the land as well as fair rental value damages for 204 years. The District Court then concluded, following a month-long hearing, that plaintiffs were entitled to about $211 million in prejudgment interest, resulting in a total award of $247,911,999.42. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals delivered its decision in Cayuga Nation a month after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York. The issue in City of Sherrill was whether the Oneida Indian Nation, after it had purchased lands on the open real estate market within its traditional territory, had an obligation to pay property \\[domination\\] taxes to the county in that area? Or did the Oneida people have the status of a sovereign nation and, accordingly, did they therefore have no obligation to pay taxes to another sovereign entity named \"County of Oneida, New York.\" In one sense, the issue came down to the question of which of the two sides had a fee title \\[of domination\\] to and over the lands under discussion. As the case states: \"OIN resists the payment of property taxes to \\[the City of] Sherrill on the ground \\[based on the position] that OIN's acquisition of fee title (emphasis added) to discrete parcels of historic reservation land revived \\[to restore or return to consciousness or life; to reanimate] the Oneidas' ancient sovereignty \\[free existence] piecemeal over each parcel. Consequently, the Tribe maintains, regulatory authority over OIN's newly purchased properties no longer resides in Sherrill.\" Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote the decision for the majority. \"Given the longstanding, distinctly non-Indian character of the area and its inhabitants, the \\[dominating] regulatory authority constantly exercised by New York State and its counties and towns, and the Oneidas' long delay in seeking judicial relief against parties other than the United States, we hold that the Tribe cannot unilaterally revive \\[reawaken] its ancient sovereignty \\[free and independent identity], in whole or in part, over the parcels at issue. The Oneidas long ago relinquished the reins of government \\[control] and cannot regain them through open-market purchases from current titleholders.\" At Section I, A, we find: OIN is a federally recognized Indian Tribe and a direct descendant of the Oneida Indian Nation (Oneida Nation), \"one of the six nations of the Iroquois, the most powerful Indian Tribe in the Northeast at the time of the American Revolution.\" Id., at 230. At the birth of the United States, the \\[free and independent] Oneida Nation's aboriginal homeland comprised some six million acres in what is now \\[called] central New York. Ibid.; Oneida Indian Nation of N. Y. v. County of Oneida, 414 U. S. 661, 664 (1974) (Oneida I). At footnote number one, Ginsburg contextualized the case. Using Newcomb's Domination Translator, I have modified her quote in the  following manner: Under the \"doctrine of \\[Christian] discovery \\[and domination],\" County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of N. Y., 470 U. S. 226, 234 (1985) (Oneida II), \"fee title to \\[and \\\"ultimate dominion\\\" over] the lands occupied by \\[free and independent] Indians when the colonists arrived became vested \\[a complete and consummated right] in the sovereign \\[dominator]—first the discovering \\[dominating] European nation and later the original States \\[of domination\\] and the United States,\" \\[of domination, the American Empire], Oneida Indian Nation of N. Y. v. County of Oneida, 414 U. S. 661,67 (1974) (Oneida I). The Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in Cayuga Indian Nation v. Pataki in June of 2005, roughly one month after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its May 2005 decision in City of Sherrill. The Second Circuit court stated at the opening of its ruling: In another case raising land claims stemming from late-eighteenth-century treaties between Indian tribes and the \\[Empire] State of New York, the Supreme Court recently ruled that equitable doctrines—such as laches, acquiescence, and impossibility—can be applied to Indian land claims in appropriate circumstances. See City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation, 125 S. Ct. 1478, 1494 (2005). Based on Sherrill, we conclude that the possessory land claim alleged here is the type of claim to which a laches defense can be applied. Taking into account the considerations identified by the Supreme Court in Sherrill and the findings of the District Court in the remedy stages of this case, we further conclude that plaintiffs' claim is barred by laches. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the District Court and enter judgment for defendants. Cases Cayuga Indian Nation v. Pataki, 413 F.3d 266 (2d Cir. 2003). City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation, 544 U.S. 197 (2005). Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661 (1974). Series Navigation Previous: White v. University of California (Part 10) | Next: Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida (Part 12) Copyright © Copyright Steven T. Newcomb, January 1, 2026 Footnotes [^1]: Edward Everett, 1922. The Everett Report. Mohawk Nation News. PDF."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/domination/haudenosaunee/oneida-indian-nation-county-oneida/",
    "title": "The Haudenosaunee Cases: Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida (Aug. 9th 2010) - Domination Translator Series - Part 12",
    "publishedAt": "2026-01-12T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida (2010) examined equitable defenses used to bar Native land claims spanning centuries.",
    "tags": [
      "law",
      "religion",
      "Christianity",
      "domination",
      "domination-translator",
      "haudenosaunee",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Litigation in this case began in 1974, and during the three and a half decades afterwards, the judicial system of the dominating U.S. society developed a framework, based on its underlying claim of a right of domination, that it could use to defend itself against such claims. A bit of background context seems to be called for here. When we think about it, when ships from Western Christendom first arrived to this continent, the colonizing voyagers made landfall and laid claim to the lands. In other words, they were foreigners who had sailed across an ocean to arrive here to this Turtle Island continent. Consequently, they were making foreign claims to the lands of Native nations. Centuries later, the United States government was able to use its own form of storytelling to turn this around and say that \"the Indians\" were the ones making \"claims\" to the land. These were typically called Indian land claims. And in 1946 Congress even created an Indian Claims Commission, which was finally disbanded by congressional action in 1978. What remains out of focus in a case such as Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida is the fact that the U.S. claim of a right of domination, and the entire anti-Indian federal Indian law system of domination is the operational context for the legal proceedings. What Were the Facts? The Oneida Indian Nation of New York, along with the United States and other plaintiffs, sued the State of New York and the Counties of Madison and Oneida. The plaintiffs alleged that New York acquired \\[put under New York's claim of a right of domination\\] approximately 250,000 acres of the Oneidas' ancestral lands between 1795 and 1846 in violation of federal treaties and the Nonintercourse Act, which prohibits the sale of Native land without the participation and consent of the federal government. The plaintiffs sought damages and other relief for the alleged unlawful possession \\[domination\\] of these \\[their\\] lands. The case had a prolonged procedural history, with litigation commencing in 1974 and involving multiple trips to the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. intervened in 1998, and the district court ultimately dismissed most claims, citing equitable defenses like laches, but allowed a contract-based claim to proceed against New York alone. Both parties to the suit appealed the lower court's decision. The Issue: Whether the plaintiffs' claims for ancient land dispossession \\[domination\\] were barred by equitable defenses such as laches \\[the plaintiffs took too long to contest or challenge the situation\\], and whether a nonpossessory contract-based claim \\[not attempting to obtain the land\\] could proceed against the State of New York. The Holding — By Judge Livingston The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that all claims dependent on the assertion of a current possessory interest in the subject \\[dominated\\] lands were barred by equitable defenses, and that the purportedly nonpossessory contract-based claim was also barred by New York's sovereign immunity and the equitable principles applied in Cayuga. The Rule: Equitable defenses \\[against Native efforts to challenge the claim of a right of domination,\\] such as laches can bar Indian land claims if those claims disrupt settled expectations \\[of those benefitting from the U.S. system of domination that they will be able to continue benefitting from that system\\], even if the \\[Indian\\] claims are legally viable and within the statute of limitations. The Reasoning Process: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reasoned that the plaintiffs' possessory claims, which were based on the assertion of a current right to possession \\[domination\\], were inherently disruptive to settled land titles \\[the U.S. system of domination\\] and thus barred by equitable defenses such as laches \\[failure to raise an objection to the system of domination in a timely manner\\]. The court noted that the equitable doctrines of laches, acquiescence, and impossibility could apply to Indian land claims, even when legally viable and within the statute of limitations, if such claims threatened to disturb settled expectations \\[of the people benefitting from the U.S. system of domination\\]. Additionally, the court determined that the nonpossessory contract-based claim, which sought to reform land sale agreements for unconscionable consideration, was barred by New York's sovereign immunity because the United States' intervention did not raise an identical claim. The court concluded that the purportedly nonpossessory claim premised on a violation of the Nonintercourse Act was also barred by the same equitable considerations that precluded the possessory claims. Equitable Principles and Disruptive Claims \\[to the Claimed Right of Domination\\] The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit concluded that the equitable principles recognized in the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York and the Second Circuit's own decision in Cayuga Indian Nation v. Pataki applied to the plaintiffs' claims. These principles held that ancient land claims could be barred by doctrines such as laches, acquiescence, and impossibility if those claims disrupted settled expectations \\[of those benefitting from the U.S. system of domination\\]. The court found that the plaintiffs' possessory claims inherently disturbed settled land titles \\[based on the U.S. claim of a right of domination\\] because they were based on the assertion of a continuing right to possession of \\[to dominate\\] ancestral lands. The claims threatened to question established land ownership \\[domination\\] and societal reliance on such ownership \\[domination\\]. Even if these \\[Indian\\] claims were legally viable and within the statute of limitations, the potential disruption \\[to the U.S. society's system of domination and assumed right of domination\\] justified the application of equitable defenses. The court emphasized that the disruptive nature of the claims \\[challenging the claimed right of domination\\], rather than the specific remedies sought, triggered the application of equitable principles. Possessory Claims and Sovereign Immunity The court addressed the possessory claims brought by both the Oneida Indian Nation and the United States. It determined that these claims, which sought relief based on a current right to possess [dominate] the lands, were subject to the equitable defenses outlined in Cayuga. The court found that the [Indians'] claims were disruptive because they would effectively overturn years of settled land ownership [based on the U.S. system of domination], thus invoking the laches defense [against the effort to challenge the claimed right of domination]. Additionally, the court examined the role of sovereign immunity in the context of the Oneidas' contract-based claim for unconscionable consideration. It concluded that New York's sovereign [dominator] immunity barred the Oneidas from proceeding with this claim because the United States' intervention in the case did not present an identical claim that could override the state's immunity [from suit]. Since the United States' complaint did not encompass the contract-based claim, the Oneidas could not rely on the United States' intervention to overcome sovereign immunity. Cases Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, 617 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 2010). City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation, 544 U.S. 197 (2005). Cayuga Indian Nation v. Pataki, 413 F.3d 266 (2d Cir. 2003). Johnson & Graham's Lessee v. McIntosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823). Series Navigation Previous: Cayuga Indian Nation v. Pataki (Part 11) | Next: Onondaga Nation v. New York (Part 13) Copyright © Copyright Steven T. Newcomb, January 1, 2026"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/domination/haudenosaunee/onondaga-new-york/",
    "title": "The Haudenosaunee Cases: Onondaga Nation v. N.Y. (Argued Oct. 12, 2012, decided October 19, 2012) - Domination Translator Series - Part 13",
    "publishedAt": "2026-01-13T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Onondaga Nation's lawsuit to recover ancestral lands was dismissed using federal Indian law doctrines based on discovery and domination.",
    "tags": [
      "law",
      "religion",
      "Christianity",
      "domination",
      "domination-translator",
      "haudenosaunee",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Let us set the context for this case regarding the Onondaga Nation versus New York State. When ships from Western Christendom arrived to the shores of North America centuries ago, the people of the Onondaga Nation (hereinafter \"the Nation\") were living entirely free and independent on their own lands. The Onondaga people were, in other words, living free and independent of the Christian European claim of a right of domination. Centuries later, the Onondaga Nation filed a lawsuit against the State of New York and several other defendants, including several major corporations. The Nation's legal action has been described as an effort by the Nation to seek \"the return\" of an unspecified amount of its ancestral lands. The lower court ruled against the Nation, and the Nation appealed that decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. In its decision upholding the lower court's dismissal of the Onondaga Nation's lawsuit, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals stated: \"We reject the argument \\[by the Onondaga Nation\\] that it was inappropriate for the district court to take judicial notice of \\[the non-Native\\] population and development at this stage of litigation. Discovery is not needed to ascertain whether the City of Syracuse has been extensively developed and populated over the past 200 years. It was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to take judicial notice of such obvious facts. See FED. R. EVID. 201(b) (judicial notice may be taken of facts that are \"generally known\"). The Second Circuit Court of Appeals further stated: The Onondaga urge that, if permitted to engage in fact discovery, they would show that they have \"strongly and persistently protested\" both the population and development of their ancestral lands. Imagine if the Second Circuit Court of Appeals had stated: The Onondaga urge that, if permitted to engage in fact discovery, they would show that they have \"strongly and persistently protested\" the claim of a right of domination over and to their ancestral lands by the State of New York and by the dominating society of the United States. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals continued: But evidence of similar protestations did not avail the plaintiffs in Cayuga \\[Nation v. Pataki\\]. There, the district court found \"considerable proof as to the Cayuga's efforts, beginning in 1853, and continuing right up until the filing of this lawsuit in 1980, to 'make their voice heard' with respect to the sales to the State \\[of Domination\\] of their homelands in 1795 and 1807.\" Cayuga Indian Nation v. Pataki, 165 F.Supp.2d 266, 354 (N.D.N.Y.2001), rev'd, 413 F.3d 266 (2d Cir.2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1128, 126 S.Ct. 2022, 164 L.Ed.2d 780 (2006). This Court nevertheless held that the equitable considerations barred a recovery. 413 F.3d at 277--78. Thus, even if the Onondaga showed after discovery that they had strongly and persistently protested, the \"standards of federal Indian law and federal equity practice\" stemming from Sherrill and its progeny would nonetheless bar their claim. 544 U.S. at 214, 125 S.Ct. 1478. Finding no merit in the Onondaga's remaining arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. Contemplating the Hypothetical Use of a Domination Framework of Argumentation In a hypothetical scenario, suppose the Onondaga Nation had stated that it had \"strongly and persistently protested the claim of a right of domination against it by the State of New York, and by the dominating U.S. society. Given such a scenario, would the Second Circuit Court of Appeals have stated: \"[E]ven if the Onondaga [Nation] showed after discovery that it had strongly and persistently protested New York's claim of a right of domination against it, the \"standards of federal Indian law and federal equity practice stemming from the doctrine of discovery and domination in the Sherrill decision and its progeny would nonetheless bar its claim\"? Let's see what happens when we apply a Domination Framework of Analysis to the decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in the Onondaga case. As the court stated: This appeal is decided on the basis of the equitable bar on recovery of ancestral land in City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation, 544 U.S. 197, 125 S.Ct. 1478, 161 L.Ed.2d 386 (2005) (\"Sherrill\"), and \\[on the basis of\\] this Court's cases of Cayuga Indian Nation v. Pataki, 413 F.3d 266 (2d Cir.2005) (\"Cayuga \") and Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, 617 F.3d 114 (2010) ( \"Oneida \"). The Second Court of Appeals did not need to reiterate the basis of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York. To refresh our memories, let us remind ourselves of how Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg crafted footnote number one in Sherrill, while adding our own augmentation with a transcoding per our Domination Translator:  Under the \"doctrine of \\[Christian\\] discovery \\[and domination\\],\" County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of N. Y., 470 U. S. 226, 234 (1985) (Oneida II), \"fee title to \\[and \"ultimate dominion\" over\\] the lands occupied by \\[free and independent\\] Indians when the colonists arrived became vested \\[claimed as a complete and consummated right\\] in the sovereign \\[dominator\\]—first the discovering \\[dominating\\] European nation and later the original States \\[of domination\\] and the United States,\" \\[of domination, the American Empire\\], Oneida Indian Nation of N. Y. v. County of Oneida, 414 U. S. 661,67 (1974) (Oneida I). The above clarification sheds light on the statement below by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which has also been augmented by our application of our Domination Translator: Three specific factors determine when ancestral land claims are foreclosed on equitable \\[just, i.e. \"Right of fair according to law. Legally right, lawful. \"All human actions are either just or unjust as they are in conformity to or in opposition to law\" Ballentine's Law Dictionary, 1969\\] grounds: (1) \"the length of time at issue between an historical injustice \\[that initiated an ongoing, persistent, and present day claim of a right of domination\\] and the present day\"; (2) \"the disruptive nature of claims \\[against the claim of a right of domination\\] long delayed\"; and (3) \"the degree to which these \\[Indian\\] claims \\[against the claim of a right of domination may\\] upset the justifiable expectations of individuals and entities \\[to benefit from the ongoing and present day claim of a right of domination still being used against Native nations\\] far removed from the events giving rise to the plaintiffs' injury.\" Oneida, 617 F.3d at 127; see also Sherrill, 544 U.S. at 214, 221, 125 S.Ct. 1478 (summarizing that the equitable considerations in this area are similar to \"doctrines of laches, acquiescence, and impossibility,\" and grew from \"standards of federal Indian law and federal equity practice\") (internal quotation marks omitted). All three factors support dismissal. Cases Onondaga Nation v. New York, 500 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 2007). City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation, 544 U.S. 197 (2005). Cayuga Indian Nation v. Pataki, 413 F.3d 266 (2d Cir. 2003). United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375 (1886). Series Navigation Previous: Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida (Part 12) | Next: McGirt v. Oklahoma (Part 14) Copyright © Copyright Steven T. Newcomb, January 1, 2026"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/domination/king-mountain/",
    "title": "U.S. v. King Mountain Tobacco Co., Inc. (9th Cir. Court, August 13, 2012) - Domination Translator Series - Part 15",
    "publishedAt": "2026-01-15T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "U.S. v. King Mountain Tobacco (2012) asserted federal excise tax authority over Yakama Nation based on plenary power doctrine.",
    "tags": [
      "law",
      "religion",
      "Christianity",
      "domination",
      "domination-translator",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "The context for this case is the original free existence of the various Native peoples that together comprise the Yakama Nation, and the contrast between their free way of life and the U.S. government's system of domination. Isaac Stevens was charged with responsibility for Indian affairs and the building of a railroad. A West Point graduate, and the first territorial Governor of the Washington Territory, Stevens perfectly expressed the intention of the American empire he was representing when he said that he was part of the process by means of which the American people are \"reducing \\[dominating] the wilderness to subjection \\[domination\\].\" In the King Mountain Tobacco case, the issue was whether the King Mountain Company, a Yakama Nation company, owed more than 15 million dollars in federal excise tax monies to the U.S. Treasury Department for the sales of tobacco products. Given the original free existence of the Yakama peoples, and given that by the terms of the Yakama Nation Treaty of 1855, the peoples of the Yakama Nation never gave their consent to be subjected to federal excise taxes for such sales, how did the free and independent Yakama Nation supposedly become subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? At one point, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asks whether \"a federal excise tax\" is indeed \"applicable to all to all tobacco products\" \"manufactured in the United States\": II. Imposition of Federal Excise Tax for Tobacco Products The merits of King Mountain's tax appeal require us to decide whether a tobacco manufacturer located on \\[federal\\] trust land is subject to a federal excise tax applicable to all tobacco products \"manufactured in ․ the United States.\" I.R.C. § 5702. The presumptive answer to that question is yes. After all, the federal government enjoys plenary and exclusive power over Indian tribes. emphasis added Bryan v. Itasca County, 426 U.S. 373, 376 n.2, 96 S.Ct. 2102, 48 L.Ed.2d 710 (1976). And \"\\[t]he right to tribal self-government is ultimately dependent on and subject to the broad power of Congress.\" White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136, 143, 100 S.Ct. 2578, 65 L.Ed.2d 665 (1980). For those reasons, Indians---like all citizens---are subject to federal taxation emphasis added unless expressly exempted by a treaty or congressional statute. Hoptowit v. Comm'r, 709 F.2d 564, 565 (9th Cir. 1983).[^4] When we take a look at the Ninth Circuit's first citation of \"Bryan v. Itasca County,\" we are able to see what the Supreme Court says about \"plenary and exclusive power\": The McClanahan principle derives from a general preemption analysis, 411 U.S. at 411 U. S. 172, that gives effect to the plenary and exclusive power of the Federal Government to deal with Indian tribes. United States v. Mazurie, 419 U. S. 544, 419 U. S. 554 n. 11 (1975); Morton v. Mancari, 417 U. S. 535, 417 U. S. 551-552 (1974); Board of Comm'rs v. Seber, 318 U. S. 705, 318 U. S. 715-716 (1943), and \"to regulate and protect the Indians and their property against interference even by a state,\" id. at 318 U. S. 715. Next, is the 1975 decision United States v. Mazurie, in which the U.S. Supreme Court points to a lower appeals court ruling which discussed \"Indians\" as \"tribal members\" who \"are citizens of the United States,\" and then uses this notion of U.S. citizenship to be dismissive about Native nationhood (e.g. \"There cannot be such a separate 'nation' of Indians of United States citizens within the boundaries of the United States\"). It is interesting that a U.S. appeals court would write in this manner given that the 91day armed stand-off at Wounded Knee by American Indian Movement Activist, which captured global attention, had ended only 20 months earlier: The Court of Appeals said, however, that, even if Congress possessed authority to regulate the Blue Bull, it could not delegate such authority to the Indian tribes. The court reasoned as follows: \"The tribal members are citizens of the United States. It is difficult to see how such an association of citizens could exercise any degree of governmental authority or sovereignty over other citizens who do not belong, and who cannot participate in any way in the tribal organization. The situation is in no way comparable to a city, county, or special district under state laws. There cannot be such a separate 'nation' of United States citizens within the boundaries of the United States which has any authority, other than as landowners, over individuals who are excluded as members.\" Another decision cited is King Mountain Tobacco Board of Comm'rs v. Seber, which was decided back in 1943: From almost the beginning, the existence of federal power to regulate and protect the Indians and their property against interference even by a state has been recognized. [Cherokee Nation v. Georgia] Cf. 31 U. S. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515. This power is not expressly granted in so many words by the Constitution, except with respect to regulating commerce with the Indian tribes, but its existence cannot be doubted. In Seber, the U.S. Supreme Court went on to describe the process of domination that the United States imposed on the Indians: In the exercise of the war and treaty powers, the United States overcame \\[dominated] the Indians and took possession of their lands \\[assumed a right of domination over and to their lands], sometimes by force, \\[thereby] leaving them an uneducated, helpless, and dependent people needing protection against the selfishness \\[domination\\] of others and their own improvidence \\[poverty]. Of necessity, the United States assumed the duty of furnishing that protection \\[which domination made necessary] and with it the authority to do all that was required to perform that obligation and to prepare the Indians to take their place as independent, qualified members of the modern body politic. Above we see how the Supreme Court applied the term \"independent\" not to Native nations and peoples, but to \"Indians\" envisioned as individual \"members\" of \"the modern body politic\" of the United States. Above, the court is describing a multi-generational scenario in which Native peoples are being forced by the United States to undergo a transformation from a time when they were living a free existence as distinct nations and peoples, until \"the United States \\[eventually] overcame\" \\[dominated] them and reduced them down to what the court calls \"an uneducated, helpless, and dependent people.\" Then, after the U.S. had forced the Native peoples into such a predicament, by working to end their free existence as distinct nations and peoples, the court said \"the United States assumed the duty of furnishing\" them with \"protection.\" But protection from what? From the U.S.'s own destructive policies and actions? And then the court wrote that what the United States did was done in order \"to prepare the Indians\" to become \"independent qualified members of the modern body politic\" \\[of the United States]. This was classically summarized in United States v. Kagama, 118 U. S. 375, 118 U. S. 384-385: \"From their \\[the Indians'] very weakness and helplessness, so largely due to the course of dealing of the federal government \\[domination\\] with them, and the treaties in which it has been promised, there arises the duty of protection, and with it, the power. This has always been recognized by the executive, and by Congress, and by this Court, whenever the question has arisen.\" \"The power \\[domination\\] of the general government \\[domination\\] over these remnants of a race once powerful, now weak and diminished in numbers \\[as a result of being subjected to U.S. domination], is necessary to their protection. … It \\[the power of domination called 'protection'] must exist in that \\[U.S.] government \\[system of domination], because it never has existed anywhere else; because the theater of its exercise is within the geographical limits of the United States; because it has never been denied, and because it alone can enforce its laws \\[of domination\\] on all the tribes. \" A Quote From McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Comm'n, 411 U.S. 164 (1973): Finally, the trend has been away from the idea of inherent Indian sovereignty as a bar to state jurisdiction and toward reliance on federal preemption. [Footnote 7] See Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, ante, p. 411 U. S. 145. The modern cases thus tend to avoid reliance on platonic notions of Indian sovereignty and to look instead to the applicable treaties and statutes which define the limits of state power. Compare, e.g., United States v. Kagama, 118 U. S. 375 (1886), with Kennerly v. District Court, 400 U. S. 423 (1971). [Footnote 8] The Indian sovereignty doctrine is relevant, then, not because it provides a definitive resolution of the issues in this suit, but because it provides a backdrop against which the applicable treaties and federal statutes must be read. It must always be remembered that the various Indian tribes were once independent and sovereign nations, and that their claim to sovereignty long predates that of our own Government. Indians today are American citizens. emphasis added But it is nonetheless still true, as it was in the last century, that \"\\[t]he relation of the Indian tribes living within the borders of the United States … \\[is] an anomalous one, and of a complex character. … They were, and always have been, regarded as having a semi-independent position when they preserved their tribal relations (emphasis added); not as States, not as nations, not as possessed of the full attributes of sovereignty \\or a free and independent existence(emphasis added), but as a separate people, with the power of regulating their internal and social relations, and thus far not brought under the laws of the Union or of the State within whose limits they resided.\" United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. at [118 U. S. 381-382. Cases King Mountain Tobacco Co., Inc. v. United States, 284 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2002). Bryan v. Itasca County, 426 U.S. 373 (1976). United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375 (1886). McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Commission, 411 U.S. 164 (1973). Series Navigation Previous: McGirt v. Oklahoma (Part 14) Copyright © Copyright Steven T. Newcomb, January 1, 2026 Footnotes [^4]: Bryan v. Itasca County, 426 U.S. 373, 376 n.2 (1976), ."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/domination/marshall-trilogy/cherokee-nation-georgia/",
    "title": "The Marshall Trilogy: Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) - Domination Translator Series - Part 4",
    "publishedAt": "2026-01-04T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "In 1831, the Cherokee Nation sought Supreme Court protection from Georgia's laws designed to annihilate their political existence.",
    "tags": [
      "law",
      "religion",
      "Christianity",
      "domination",
      "domination-translator",
      "marshall-trilogy",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "The Marhsall Triology Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) The Cherokee Nation went into the U.S. Supreme Court in an effort to get an injunction against the \"State of Georgia\" to prevent it \"from the execution of certain laws\" of Georgia \"which as alleged, go directly to annihilate the Cherokees as a political society and to seize, for the use of Georgia, the lands of the \\[Cherokee\\] Nation which have been assured \\[guaranteed\\] to them by the United States in solemn treaties repeatedly made and still in force.\" Chief Justice Marshall, for the majority, wrote: If Courts were permitted to indulge their sympathies, a case better calculated to excite them can scarcely be imagined. A people \\[that was\\] once \\[in the past\\] numerous, powerful, and truly \\[free and\\] independent, found by our ancestors in the quiet and uncontrolled possession of an ample domain, gradually sinking \\[forced\\] beneath our superior \\[dominating\\] policy, our arts and our arms \\[domination\\], have yielded their lands by successive treaties, each of which contains a solemn guarantee of the residue \\[remainder\\], until they retain no more of their formerly extensive territory than is deemed necessary to their comfortable subsistence. To preserve this remnant \\[of their lands\\], the present application is made. emphasis added Marshall continues as follows: Before we can look into the merits of the case, a preliminary inquiry presents itself. Has this Court jurisdiction of the cause? The third article of the Constitution describes the extent of the judicial power. The second section closes an enumeration of the cases to which it is extended, with \"controversies\" \"between a State or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens, or subjects.\" A subsequent clause of the same section gives the supreme Court original jurisdiction in all cases in which a State shall be a party. The party defendant \\[the state of Georgia\\] may then unquestionably be sued in this Court. May the plaintiff sue in it? Is the Cherokee Nation a foreign state in the sense in which that term is used in the Constitution? The Chief Justice said that the question whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to rule on the case came down to one central question: Can the Cherokee Nation be regarded as \"a foreign state\" as \"that term is used in the Constitution?\" Former U.S. Attorney General William Wirt was the attorney for the Cherokee Nation, and Marshall said of his efforts: The counsel for the plaintiffs have maintained the affirmative of this proposition with great earnestness and ability. So much of the argument as was intended to prove the character of the Cherokees as a State as a distinct political society, separated from others, capable of managing its own affairs and governing itself, has, in the opinion of a majority of the judges, been completely successful. They have been uniformly treated as a State from the settlement of our country. The numerous treaties made with them by the United States recognize them as a people capable of maintaining the relations of peace and war, of being responsible in their political character for any violation of their engagements, or for any aggression committed on the citizens of the United States by any individual of their community. Laws have been enacted in the spirit of these treaties. The acts of our Government \\[domination\\] plainly recognize the Cherokee Nation as a State, and the Courts are bound by those acts. However, the question remained whether the Cherokee people \"constitute a foreign state in the sense of the Constitution?\" emphasis added Marshall responds to the question as follows: The counsel have shown conclusively that they are not a State of the union, and have insisted that, individually, they are aliens, not owing allegiance to the United States. An aggregate of aliens composing a State must, they say, be a foreign state. Each individual being foreign, the whole must be foreign. Note: Ballentine's Law Dictionary (1969) defines \"foreign\" as \"Belonging to another nation or country.\" Citing \"Cherokee Nation v. Georgia 5 Pet. 1, 56, 8 L Ed 25, 45,\" Ballentine's notes: \"In a political sense, we call every country foreign which is not within the jurisdiction of the same government.\" It continues: \"In this sense, Canada and Mexico, and all transatlantic countries are foreign to the United States.\" Marshall continues: This argument \\[when each individual is foreign, the whole must be foreign\\] is imposing, but we must examine it more closely before we yield to it. The condition of the Indians in relation to the United States is perhaps unlike that of any other two people in existence. In the general, nations not owing a common allegiance are foreign to each other. The term foreign nation is, with strict propriety, applicable by either to the other. But \\[based on the doctrine of discovery and the assertion of \"ultimate dominion\" explained in Johnson v. McIntosh\\] the relation of the Indians to the United States is marked by peculiar and cardinal distinctions \\[exceptions\\] which exist nowhere else. The Indian Territory is admitted \\[mentally conceived of by the Court\\] to compose a part \\[a portion, division, piece, or segment of the territory\\] of the United States. In all our maps, geographical treatises, histories, and laws, it is so considered. In all our intercourse with foreign nations, in our commercial regulations, in any attempt at intercourse between Indians and foreign nations, they \\[the Indians\\] are considered as within the jurisdictional limits of the United States, subject to many of those restraints which are imposed upon our own citizens. They acknowledge themselves in their treaties to be under the protection of the United States; they admit that the United States shall have the sole and exclusive right of regulating the trade with them, and managing all their affairs as they think proper; and the Cherokees, in particular, were allowed by the treaty of Hopewell, which preceded the Constitution, \"to send a deputy of their choice, whenever they think fit, to Congress.\" Treaties were made with some tribes by the State of New York, under a then unsettled construction of the confederation by which they ceded all their lands to that State, taking back a limited grant to themselves in which they admit their dependence. Though the Indians are acknowledged to have an unquestionable, and heretofore unquestioned right \\[of occupancy\\] to the lands they occupy, until that right shall be extinguished by a voluntary cession to our government, yet it may well be doubted whether those tribes which reside within the acknowledged \\[claimed\\] boundaries of the United States can, with strict accuracy, be denominated foreign nations. emphasis added Note: It is interesting to ponder a key point. Given that the Indian nations, their lands and their territories, predate the United States, by what form of 'magic' did those nations and peoples end up being deemed \"within\" or \"inside\" the later-formed and claimed boundaries of the United States? The answer is by a form of mental magic called \"imagination\" which includes the artistry of map making. Notice that the term \"magi\" (the root of magic) is embedded in the word imagination. If the Court had acknowledged that the Indian nations were foreign nations, it would have logically followed that the lands and territories of those Native nations were foreign to the United States in the same way that, as Ballentine's notes, Canada and Mexico are foreign to the United States. The weight of this logic would have stood as a permanent bar that could potentially exclude the United States from the lands and territories of the Native nations. Below, notice that Marshall says that the Indian nations \"occupy a territory to which we assert \\[claim\\] a title \\[of ultimate dominion\\] independent of \\[against\\] their will.\" An assertion is another part of the magic act that pretends that the lands of the Indian nations compose part of the territory of the United States. Marshall continues: They \\[the Indian nations\\] may, more correctly, perhaps, be denominated \\[termed and mentally conceived of as\\] domestic dependent nations. \\[Based on the doctrine of Christian discovery and domination\\] \\[t\\]hey occupy a territory to which we assert a title \\[of 'ultimate dominion'\\] independent of \\[i.e. against\\] their will, which must take effect in point of possession when their right of possession ceases. Meanwhile \\[until that time\\] they are in a state of pupilage. Their relation to the United States resembles \\[is analogous to\\] that of a ward to his guardian. They look to our government \\[system of domination\\] for protection; rely upon its \\[our domination's\\] kindness and its power; \\[they\\] appeal to it for relief to their wants; and address the President as their Great Father. They and their country are considered by foreign nations, as well as by ourselves, as being so completely under the sovereignty \\[domination\\] and dominion \\[domination\\] of the United States that any attempt \\[by a foreign power\\] to acquire their lands, or to form a political connexion with them, would be considered by all as an invasion of our territory and an act of hostility \\[against us\\]. These considerations go far to support the opinion that the framers of our Constitution had not the Indian tribes in view when they opened the courts of the union to controversies between a State or the citizens thereof, and foreign states. Cases Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1 (1831). Johnson & Graham's Lessee v. McIntosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823). Series Navigation Previous: Johnson v. McIntosh (Part 3) | Next: Worcester v. Georgia (Part 5) Copyright © Copyright Steven T. Newcomb, January 1, 2026"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/domination/marshall-trilogy/johnson-mcintosh/",
    "title": "The Marshall Trilogy: Johnson v. McIntosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823) - Domination Translator Series - Part 3",
    "publishedAt": "2026-01-03T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "The 1823 landmark Johnson v. McIntosh case established the Doctrine of Discovery as U.S. law, denying Native nations' property rights.",
    "tags": [
      "law",
      "religion",
      "Christianity",
      "domination",
      "domination-translator",
      "marshall-trilogy",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "The Marshall Trilogy Johnson & Graham's Lessee v. McIntosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823) The Johnson v. McIntosh case involved grants of land made by two Indian nations (the Illinois and Piankeshaw) in 1773 and 1775, northwest of the Ohio River. The grants were made to non-Native land speculation companies before the founding of the United States. One question the Supreme Court had to address was whether the courts of the United States would recognize the deeds created as a means of making those two grants of an \"Indian\" form of title (however defined) to the land companies. Upon reflection, it is noteworthy that the discussion of the \"nature\" of \"Indian title\" took place without the participation of representatives of the Illinois and Piankeshaw nations. Those nations were not attempting to win acceptance of their view of the \"nature\" of their \"title\" to the land; and who knows if they had taken any position in this regard whatsoever. The discussion of how to define \"Indian title\" was a discussion that the colonizers decided to have amongst themselves. It was a discussion about how the non-Native colonizing society would defined the nature of \"Indian title\" within the legal and political arenas of their U.S. society. The existence of physical paper Illinois and Piankeshaw \"deeds\" were the result of the artistry and wordsmithing of the attorneys working for the non-Native land companies. That artistry created a format and wording and intention expressed in those deeds that was then attributed to those two Native nations. In actuality, it is likely that no Native nation initiated the idea of an intention to \"sell\" their lands in a commercial transaction to non-Native land companies which, on their part, desired to \"purchase\" massive amounts of Native lands and then resell parcels of that land for a sizable profit in real estate transactions. Note: The usual manner of reading the Johnson ruling is to start at the beginning. In this essay, by contrast, we will begin our analysis toward the end of the decision and work back toward the opening of Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion on behalf of a unanimous Court. The Free Existence of Native Nations Given the free and independent existence of the Native nations before and after the arrival of Christian European colonizers to this continent, it might seem logical to assume that the Illinois and Piakeshaw nations could rightfully grant a sizable portion of their lands to whomsoever they pleased. At 21 U.S. page 593 of the Johnson ruling, Marshall's discusses this very point on behalf of the unanimous Court: \"If an \\[a non-Native\\] individual might extinguish the Indian title for his own benefit, or in other words might purchase it, still he could acquire only that \\[Indian\\] title. Admitting their \\[the Indian nations'\\] power to change their laws or usages so far as to allow an individual to separate a portion of their lands from the common stock and hold it in severalty, still it is a part of their territory and is held under them \\[the Indian nations\\] by a title dependent on their laws. The grant \\[of their land\\] derives its efficacy from their will, and if they choose to resume it \\[their Native possession\\] and make a different disposition of the land \\[to the United States\\], the courts of the United States cannot interpose for the protection of the title \\[resulting from a grant or grants by a Native nation to private individuals or companies\\]. The person who purchases lands from the Indians within their territory incorporates himself with them so far as respects the property purchased; holds their title under their protection and subject to their laws. If they annul the grant \\[to such a person or such persons\\], we know of no tribunal which can revise and set aside the proceeding.\" emphasis added The above explanation is a discussion of the free and independent existence of the Native nations. The Court seems to be suggesting that when an independent Native nation or people granted to someone or to some group of people of their choosing an Illinois or Piankeshaw form of title to the land, the specific nature of that Illinois or Piankeshaw \"title\" is outside the purview of the United States government. It is when the United States is faced with the task of deciding whether to accept into their (the united states') system the deeds said to have been made by the Indian nations, that the mental world of the United States is assumed to be in control of deciding how to think about the \"title\" or interest of an Indian nation or people in their own lands from the official viewpoint of the United States. But this also raises the possibility that the \"nature\" of the \"title\" of a Native nation or people will end up being mentally and linguistically reduced to whatever language (ideas) the U.S. Supreme Court uses to think and write about history and property, and the status and title of \"Indians\" that are still existing free and independent of the United States. The Johnson ruling does not discuss the thought process of the \"Indians.\" This is because whatever the Indians thought, or whether they thought anything at all about the \"nature\" of their \"title\" to their lands, was something the U.S. Supreme Court considered completely irrelevant to its discussion of the \"nature\" of \"Indian title.\" And the entire thought process of the Court presumed that the mental world of the United States would be the basis of a decision in the case. In a sense, the Johnson v. McIntosh case put before the intellectual class of American society, two key questions: \"How shall the United States as a country, and as an official decision of the highest court of the land, define the status of the Native nations and peoples of this continent,\" and, \"How shall the United States as a country, define the kind of type of 'title' that that the United States shall deem them to possess in relation to their lands?\" Between sections 21 U.S. pages 594 and 596 of the Johnson ruling Marshall provides a rather lengthy discussion of King George III's Royal Proclamation of 1763: \"The proclamation issued by the King of Great Britain in 1763 has been considered, and we think with reason, as constituting an additional objection to the title of the plaintiffs \\[the land speculation companies\\]. By that proclamation, the Crown reserved under its own dominion \\[claim of a right of domination\\] and protection, for the use of the Indians, \"all the land and territories lying to the westward of the sources of the rivers which fall into the sea from the west and northwest,\" and strictly forbade all British subjects from making any purchases or settlements whatever or taking possession of the reserved lands. It has been contended that in this proclamation, the King transcended his constitutional powers, and the case of Campbell v. Hall, reported by Cowper, is relied on to support this position. \"It is supposed to be a principle of universal law that if an uninhabited \\[vacant\\] country be discovered by a number of individuals who acknowledge no connection with and owe no allegiance to any government whatever, the country becomes the property of the discoverers, so far at least as they can use it. They acquire a title in common. The title of the whole land is in the whole society. It is to be divided and parceled out according to the will of the society, expressed by the whole body or by that organ which is authorized by the whole to express it. emphasis added \"If the discovery be made and possession of the country be taken under the authority of an existing government, which is acknowledged by the emigrants, it is supposed to be equally well settled, that the discovery is made for the whole nation, that the country becomes a part of the nation, and that the vacant soil is to be disposed of by that organ of the government which has the constitutional power to dispose of the national domains, by that organ in which all vacant territory is vested by law. emphasis added \"According to the theory of the British Constitution, all vacant lands are vested in the Crown, as representing the nation, and the exclusive power to grant them \\[vacant lands\\] is admitted to reside in the Crown as a branch of the royal prerogative emphasis added. It has been already shown that this principle was as fully recognized in America as in the Island of Great Britain. All the lands we \\[the United States\\] hold were originally granted by the Crown, and the establishment of a regal government has never been considered as impairing its right to grant lands within the chartered limits of such colony. In addition to the proof of this principle, furnished by the immense grants already mentioned of lands lying within the chartered limits of Virginia, the continuing right of the Crown to grant lands lying within that colony was always admitted. A title might be obtained either by making an entry with the surveyor of a county in pursuance of law or by an order of the governor in council, who was the deputy of the King, or by an immediate grant from the Crown. In Virginia, therefore, as well as elsewhere in the British dominions, the complete title of the Crown to vacant lands was acknowledged. \"So far as respected the authority of the Crown, no distinction was taken \\[made\\] between vacant lands and lands occupied by the Indians. The title \\[of 'ultimate dominion'\\] subject only to the right of occupancy by the Indians, was \\[mentally\\] admitted to be in the King, as was his right to grant that title \\[of 'ultimate dominion'\\]. The lands, then, to which this \\[royal\\] proclamation referred were lands which the King had a right to grant, or to reserve for the Indians.\" This last point about the British system making no distinction between \"vacant lands\" and \"lands occupied by Indians\" is key to the Johnson v. McIntosh decision. Marshall was saying that lands where the Indians were already living were categorized by the British system as \"vacant\" lands. As Benjamin Munn Ziegler put the matter in The International Law of John Marshall: \"The term 'vacant lands' \\[in the Johnson ruling\\] refers of course to lands in America, which when discovered, were occupied by Indians, but unoccupied by Christians.\" [^1] The implicit argument can be put forth as follows: 1) Grant that lands inhabited by non-Christian (\"heathen\") nations and peoples shall be labeled and thought of as \"vacant\" (empty); 2) Grant that the nations and peoples being labeled \"Indian(s)\" shall also be identified as non-Christian; 3) Conclude, therefore, that lands inhabited by non-Christian \"Indians\" shall, from the official viewpoint of the United States, be deemed \"vacant,\" meaning, the \"Indians\" had no already existing claim of a right of domination (\"property\") which could bar a Christian European power from claiming a right of domination in relation to the land, which the Marshall Court called an assertion of \"ultimate dominion\" \\[domination\\]. By implicitly noting that the non-Christian (\"heathen\") Native peoples were not claiming a right of domination in relation to their lands, the U.S. Supreme Court was able to claim that the immense \"space\" where those lands were existing was \"vacant\" of any previously existing claim of a right of domination (or \"property\" in the British or Christian European sense of that word). This is one reason why those lands could be deemed \"uninhabited\" and \"vacant,\" even though the \"Indians\" were already living there. The lands were deemed \"vacant\" because the lands were without any Christian owner \\[dominator\\], and without any assertion of a right of Christian domination. The term \"vacant\" in this context also relates to the Latin phrase \"vacantia bona\" in English Common Law, which is defined as \"Goods which no one claimed and which by the law of nature belonged to the first \\[Christian\\] occupant or finder.\" When the Christian European claim to a \"chain of title\" is traced back to the organic law documents called \"Vatican papal bulls\" and English \"royal commissions or charters,\" a bold assumption is being made by means of those documents. It is the assumption that the Christian European powers, whether the Vatican or some other monarchy (such as Portugal, Spain, or England), were claiming the right to assert a right of domination in relation to newly identified lands previously unknown \"to any Christian prince or people,\" meaning, previously unknown to all of Christendom. The term \"vacant\" in this context not only relates to the aforementioned Latin phrase \"vacantia bona\" in English Common Law, but, more importantly, those lands were, as Justice Joseph Story put it, considered \"vacuum dominium\" (void of a claim of a right of domination).\" At 21 U.S. 592 in Johnson, the Supreme Court looked back at its 1810 ruling in the case Fletcher v. Peck, which we have discussed above. This question is not entirely new in this Court. The case of Fletcher v. Peck grew out of a sale made by the State of Georgia of a large tract of country within the limits of that state, the grant of which was afterwards resumed. The action was brought by a sub purchaser on the contract of sale, and one of the covenants in the deed was that the State of Georgia was, at the time of sale, seized in fee \\[a full right of domination\\] of the premises. The real question presented by the issue was whether the seizin in fee \\[right of domination\\] was in the State of Georgia or in the United States. After stating that this controversy between the several states and the United States had been compromised, the court thought in necessary to notice the Indian title, which, although entitled to the respect of all courts until it should be legitimately extinguished, was declared not to be such \\[title\\] as to be absolutely repugnant to \\[i.e. could not interfere with or bar\\] a seizin in fee \\[a right of domination\\] on the part of the state. \"This opinion conforms precisely to the principle which has been supposed to be recognized by all European governments from the first settlement of America. The absolute ultimate title \\[a right domination\\] has been considered as acquired by \\[Christian\\] discovery, subject only to the \\[non-Christian\\] Indian title of occupancy, which title the discoverers possessed the exclusive right of acquiring. Such a right \\[of Indian 'occupancy'\\] is no more incompatible with a seizin in fee \\[property right of domination\\] than a lease for years, and might as effectually bar an ejectment.\" At this point Marshall provides an additional example: \"The controversy between the Colony of Connecticut and the Mohegan Indians depended on the nature and extent of a grant made by those Indians to the colony; on the nature and extent of the reservations made by the Indians, in their several deeds and treaties, which were alleged to be recognized by the legitimate authority; and on the violation by the colony of rights thus reserved and secured. We do not perceive in that case any assertion of the principle that individuals might obtain a complete and valid \\[fee\\] title from the Indians. It has been stated that in the memorial transmitted from the Cabinet of London to that of Versailles, during the controversy between the two nations respecting boundary which took place in 1755, the Indian right to the soil is recognized. \"But this recognition was made with reference to their character as Indians and for the purpose of showing that they were fixed to a particular territory. It was made for the purpose of sustaining the claim of His Britannic Majesty to dominion \\[a claimed right of domination\\] over them.\" ­­­­At page 21 U.S. at page 603 in the Johnson ruling, Marshall makes the following point: \"It has never been contended that the Indian title amounted to nothing. Their right of possession has never been questioned. The claim of government \\[to a right of domination\\] extends to the complete ultimate title, charged with this right of possession and to the exclusive power of acquiring that right \\[the Indian title of occupancy\\]. The object of the Crown was to settle \\[establish domination on\\] the seacoast of America, and when a portion of it was settled, without violating the rights of others, by persons professing their loyalty, and soliciting the royal sanction of an act, the consequences of which were ascertained to be beneficial, it would have been as unwise as ungracious to expel them from their habitations, because they had obtained the Indian title otherwise than through the agency of government. The very grant of a charter is an assertion of the title of the Crown, and its words convey the same idea. The country granted is said to be \"our island called Rhode Island,\" and the charter contains an actual grant of the soil as well as of the powers of government.\" Here, the Court is making a couple of key points: 1) the charters issued by British monarchs were an assertion of the Crown's form of title; 2) Notice the Court does not say that the charter purported to contain \"an actual [factual?] grant of the soil as well as the powers of government. The assertion of the idea that that \"the charter contains an actual grant of the soil\" creates the shared perception of a tangible physical \"reality\" which matches that assertion. This is true of every assertion or claim made by the Supreme Court in the Johnson ruling (and in every other Supreme Court ruling for that matter). It's equivalent to representatives of the U.S. seated on the Supreme Court saying: \"The following is how we have decided to frame reality for our country, and as a country we are willing to back this version of reality with lethal or deadly force, and it is on that basis that we declare it to be 'the law of the land.'\" With the above information in mind, let us turn now to some other key assertions found in the opening of the Johnson ruling. For example, we find at 21 U.S. page 572: The facts, as stated in the case agreed, show the authority of the chiefs who executed this conveyance so far as it could be given by their own people, and likewise show that the particular tribes for whom these chiefs acted were in rightful possession of the land they sold. The inquiry, therefore, is in a great measure confined to the power of Indians to give, and of private individuals to receive, a title which can be sustained in the courts of this country [i.e. which the courts will accept]. emphasis added Marshall continues: As the right of society to prescribe those rules by which property may be acquired and preserved is not and cannot be drawn into question, as the title to lands especially is and must be admitted to depend entirely on the law of the nation in which they lie, it will be necessary in pursuing this inquiry to examine not singly those principles of abstract justice which the Creator of all things has impressed on the mind of his creature man and which are admitted to regulate in a great degree the rights of civilized nations, whose perfect independence is acknowledged, but those principles also which our own government has adopted in the particular case and given us as the rule for our decision. Every society, said Marshall, has the right to determine its own rules regarding how \"property \\[a right of domination in relation to land or other things\\] may be acquired and held.\" He said the Court declined to call that principle into question. The law of a nation, such as the United States, within which the particular lands at issue are located shall determine \"title to lands.\" And for this reason the Court would apply to the stipulated (agreed upon) facts of the Johnson case, i.e. the \"principles of abstract justice . . . which are admitted to\" be the basis for deciding \"the rights of civilized nations.\" Additionally, however, the Court said it would decide the Johnson case based on a different set of \"principles,\" which were not principles of \"abstract justice.\" Marshall said \"our own government has adopted [those principles] in the particular [Johnson] case and given [them to] us [the U.S. Supreme Court] as the rule for our decision.\" Chief Justice Marshall seems to be suggesting that some other sector of the U.S. government had directed the U.S. Supreme Court to use very specific ideas as the basis for its decision in the Johnson case. And it would use those ideas \"other than abstract justice\" for its decision. Those \"other\" principles were not the \"principles\" that would be applied to \"civilized nations, whose perfect independence\" was being \"acknowledged \\[by the Court\\].\" Stated differently, the Court made it clear that it would not be categorizing Native nations and peoples as possessing a right to \"perfect independence\" and \"ultimate dominion\" in relation to its lands. At 21 U.S. page 591 we see language that seems to match what Marshall was saying about \"principles\" other than those of \"abstract justice\" that he suggested some sector of the U.S. government had \"given\" to the Court to use for its decision in the Johnson case. However extravagant the pretension of converting the discovery of an inhabited country into conquest \\[a claimed right of domination\\] may appear; if the \\[pretended\\] principle has been asserted in the first instance, and afterwards sustained; if a country has been acquired and held under it; if the property of the great mass of the community originates in it, it \\[the pretension\\] becomes the law of the land and cannot be questioned. emphasis added At 21 U.S. 591-592, Marshall refers to \"the concomitant \\[additional\\] principle \\[other than abstract justice\\] that the Indian inhabitants are to be considered merely \\[only\\] as occupants,\" who are \"deemed incapable of transferring the absolute title to others.\" Marshall noted that \"[T]his restriction may be opposed to natural right, and to the usages of [principles of abstract justice applied to] civilized nations.\" But, Marshall added, if that \\[unjust\\] restriction of the Indian peoples \"be indispensable to that system \\[of domination\\] under which the country has been settled, and be adapted to the actual condition of the two people, it \\[the unjust restriction of the Indians\\] may perhaps be supported by reason, and certainly cannot be rejected by courts of justice.\" At 21 U.S. pages 572-573, the framework that the Court used as its way of thinking about Native nations and peoples was summed up as follows: On the discovery of this immense continent, the great nations of Europe were eager to appropriate to themselves so much of it as they could respectively acquire. Its vast extent offered an ample field to the ambition and enterprise of all, and the character and religion of its inhabitants afforded an apology \\[provided an excuse\\] for considering them as a people over whom the superior genius of Europe might claim an ascendency \\[a right of domination\\]. The potentates \\[monarchs\\] of the old world found no difficulty in convincing themselves that they made ample compensation to the inhabitants of the new by bestowing on them civilization \\[domination\\] and Christianity in exchange for \\[granting themselves\\] unlimited independence \\[a claimed right of domination on the continent\\]. But as they were all in pursuit of nearly the same object, it was necessary, in order to avoid conflicting settlements and consequent war with each other, to establish a principle which all should acknowledge as the law by which the right of acquisition, which they all asserted, should be regulated as between themselves. This principle was that discovery gave title \\[of domination\\] to the government by whose subjects or by whose authority it \\[the title of domination\\] was made against all other European governments, which title might be consummated by possession. Chief Justice Marshall continues as follows: In the establishment of these relations [between European governments and the Native nations and peoples], the rights of the original inhabitants were in no instance entirely disregarded, but were necessarily to a considerable extent impaired [diminished]. They [the Indians] were admitted to be the rightful occupants of the soil, with a legal as well as just claim to retain possession of it [on that basis], and to use it according to their own discretion; but their rights to complete sovereignty as independent nations [i.e. to a free and independent existence] were necessarily diminished [ended], and their power to dispose of the soil at their own will to whomsoever they pleased was denied by the original fundamental principle that discovery gave [an]exclusive title [of domination] to those who made it [the 'discovery']. While the different nations of Europe respected the right of the natives as occupants [with no recognized right of dominion or right of domination], they asserted the ultimate dominion [a right of domination] to be in themselves, and claimed and exercised, as a consequence of this ultimate dominion [claimed right of domination], a power to grant the soil [to Christian Europeans] while yet in possession of the natives. These grants have been understood by all to convey a title [of dominion] to the grantees, subject only to the Indian right of occupancy. The history of America from its discovery to the present day proves, we think, the universal [Christian European] recognition of these principles [that are not principles of abstract justice applied to civilized nations, whose right to a perfect independence is acknowledged, and which is not considered to exist in the Indians]. Cases Johnson & Graham's Lessee v. McIntosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823). Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 87 (1810). Campbell v. Hall, Cowper 204 (K.B. 1774). Series Navigation Previous: Fletcher v. Peck (Part 2) | Next: Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (Part 4) Copyright © Copyright Steven T. Newcomb, January 1, 2026 Footnotes [^1]: Benjamin Munn Ziegler, The International Law of John Marshall, 1939, 44"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/domination/marshall-trilogy/worcester-georgia/",
    "title": "The Marshall Trilogy: Worcester v. Georgia (1832) - Domination Translator Series - Part 5",
    "publishedAt": "2026-01-05T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "The 1832 Worcester v. Georgia ruling protected Native nations from state laws, yet affirmed federal domination under the Doctrine of Discovery.",
    "tags": [
      "law",
      "religion",
      "Christianity",
      "domination",
      "domination-translator",
      "marshall-trilogy",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "The Marshall Triology Worcester v. Georgia The 1832 U.S. Supreme Court ruling Worcester v. Georgia is notable for its complexity and its ambiguity. In the one hundred ninety-three years since it was handed down, countless efforts have been made to correctly interpret not just the decision, but also the massive amount of information detailed by the defense team, and by the Court itself. The State of Georgia declined to deliver a defense during the judicial proceedings. In 1830, Congress passed legislation for a policy of Indian Removal. A statement made by Georgia Senator John Forsyth says everything we need to know about the attitude of domination on the part of the state of Georgia in relation to Native nations: \"All Christendom seems to have imagined that, by offering that immortal life promised by the Prince of Peace to fallen man, to the aborigines of this country, the right \\[of domination\\] was fairly acquired of disposing of their persons and their property at pleasure.\" Until fairly recently it had been an article of faith that Chief Justice John Marshall, who authored the majority opinion in Worcester, wrote a \"pro-Indian\" ruling. It is advisable, however, to try and discern what typically remains in the background of the Worcester ruling. Marshall skillfully used ambiguous language to make it seem as if he was deciding in favor of the Cherokee Nation, while keeping the premise of the Johnson v. McIntosh ruling unchanged. What is usually overlooked is the extent to which the claim of a right of domination expressed in the Johnson ruling remains cloaked and hidden in the background of the Worcester ruling with regard to the doctrine of Christian discovery. The plaintiff in this case was Samuel Worcester, a Christian missionary from Vermont. He, along with several other missionaries, had entered the Cherokee Nation territory without first obtaining a permit from the state of Georgia. In 1831, Worcester and eleven other missionaries were arrested, charged, and convicted by the State of Georgia for violating a Georgia statute that required non-Cherokees to obtain a permit from the State of Georgia before entering Cherokee country. Worcester was convicted and sentenced to four years of hard labor in a Georgia penitentiary. This is certainly an example of Worcester being subjected to domination for not obeying the expressed will of the state-of-domination called \"Georgia.\" The lead defense attorney for Samuel Worcester was William Wirt, former Attorney General of the United States. He contextualized Worcester's defense arguments by pointing to the history of the doctrine of discovery and the history of the royal charters issued by the monarchs of England and Great Britain. The origin of the state of Georgia is found in the series of royal charters of Great Britain that expressed the discovery doctrine in relation to North America (Turtle Island). A central question of the case was whether the state of Georgia had the right to extend its laws into the country and territory of the Cherokee Nation. The attorneys for Worcester addressed this question as follows: \"The extraterritorial power of every legislature being limited in its action to its own citizens or subjects, the very passage of this act is an assertion of jurisdiction over the Cherokee Nation, and of the rights and powers consequent thereto.\" The term \"extraterritorial\" is defined as \"Outside the boundaries of the state or country.\" The term \"extraterritoriality\" is further defined as \"the operation of the laws of a state of country outside of its physical boundaries.\" emphasis added The idea of a boundary is \"a line that marks the limits of an area,\" or \"a dividing line.\" An area is also understood as \"an expanse,\" which is defined as \"a wide space.\" In Physics As Metaphor (1987) physicist Roger Jones asserts that \"space,\" \"time,\" \"matter,\" and \"number\" are the four cardinal metaphors of physics. He defines \"metaphor\" as \"an act of consciousness \\[the mind\\] that borders on the very creation of things.\"[^1] The idea of a \"line\" is also found in geometry. The field of geometry is a product or creation of the human mind. The artistry that creates a map, including the boundary \"lines\" depicted on it, is the result of human imagination. One purpose for \"a line\" is to designate or delineate one area (space) that is classified as separate from another area (space). In this instance, even the idea of physicality (i.e. \"matter\") is metaphoric, such as in the statement about \"physical boundaries.\" Even the boundary lines are thought of as if they are physically existing on the land, which could also be true if a river is agreed upon as a \"natural\" boundary line. Where Georgia \"begins\" and \"ends\" was central to the question of whether Georgia had passed a law that was validly operative \"within\" (inside) or \"without\" (outside) its own boundaries as \"a state \\[of domination\\].\" The plaintiff, Samuel Worcester, and his legal team, conceived of and wrote about \"the State of Georgia\" on the assumption that it had \"a state of being\" inclusive of \"an extent\" of geographical space termed its \"territory.\" A territory is typically thought of as the designated space or area within which \"a state\" \\[of domination\\] is considered to possess absolute and exclusive control. Worcester and his attorneys were arguing that while Worcester was residing on the lands of the Cherokee Nation he was situated \"outside\" or beyond the boundaries of the \"State of Georgia,\" even if those Cherokee lands were circumscribed by the lands of the state of Georgia. Why \"outside\" or beyond? Because the authority and jurisdiction of the \"State of Georgia\" did not rightfully extend into the \"territory\" (i.e. territorial space of the Cherokee Nation). Worcester's predicament seems to match a Latin language phrase \"Extra territorium jus dicenti non paretur impune,\" which translates as, \"a person may not with impunity \\[without incurring harm or punishment\\] obey the law laid down by a body exercising jurisdiction \\[a claimed right of domination\\] outside its territorial limits.\" This is accurately re-expressed as follows: \"the person who obeys 'the law' laid down by a body exercising jurisdiction \\[domination\\] outside its own actual territorial limits is unlikely to escape punishment \\[domination\\].\" Eventually, Worcester invoked the principle of discovery, saying that it was a principle that only \"gave to the nation making the discovery … the sole right of acquiring the soil and making settlements on it.\" Worcester's defense continued: \"It \\[the principle of discovery\\] was an exclusive principle which shut out the right of competition among those \\[Christian European powers\\] who had agreed to it, not one of which could annul the previous rights of those \\[Native nations and peoples\\] who had not agreed to it. It \\[was a principle that\\] regulated the \\[claimed\\] right \\[of domination\\] given by discovery among \\[agreed to by\\] the European discoverers, but could not affect \\[change\\] the rights of those already in possession, either as aboriginal occupants \\[a term that matches the Indian title or right of 'occupancy' found in Johnson v. McIntosh\\] or as \\[Native\\] occupants by virtue of a discovery made before the memory of man. It gave the exclusive right to purchase, but did not found that right on a denial of the right of the \\[Native\\] possessor\\[s\\] to sell.\" Chief Justice John Marshall Delivered the Majority Decision in Worcester Marshall pointed out that the plaintiff, Samuel A. Worcester, had sworn emphasis added that \"he was, and still is, a resident in the Cherokee Nation, and that the said supposed crime or crimes, \"if committed at all,\" were committed… in the Cherokee Nation,\" and thus in a place \"out of \\[beyond\\] the jurisdiction of this Court.\" emphasis added \"And the said Samuel A. Worcester, in his own proper person, comes and says that this Court ought not to take further cognizance of the action and prosecution aforesaid because he says that, on the 15th day of July in the year 1831, he was, and still is, a resident in the Cherokee Nation, and that the said supposed crime or crimes, and each of them, were committed, if committed at all, at the town of New Echota, in the said Cherokee Nation, out of the jurisdiction of this Court, and not in the County Gwinnett, or elsewhere, within the jurisdiction of this Court, and this defendant saith that he is a citizen of the State of Vermont, one of the United States of America, and that he entered the aforesaid Cherokee Nation in the capacity of a duly authorised missionary of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, under the authority of the President of the United States, and has not since been required by him to leave it; that he was, at the time of his arrest, engaged in preaching the gospel to the Cherokee Indians.\" \"\\[A\\]ll … treaties \\[with the Cherokee Nation\\] have been duly ratified by the Senate of the United States of America, and by … \\[those\\] treaties the United States of America acknowledge the said Cherokee Nation to be a sovereign \\[free\\] nation, authorised to govern themselves and all persons who have settled within their territory free from any right of legislative interference by the several states composing the United States of America, in reference to acts done within their own territory, and by which treaties the whole of the territory now occupied by the Cherokee Nation on the east of the Mississippi has been solemnly guaranteed to them, all of which treaties are existing treaties at this day, and in full force.\" emphasis added Marshall continued by adding the plaintiff's point that \"The extraterritorial power of every legislature being limited in its action to its own citizens or subjects, the very passage of this act \\[by the State of Georgia\\] is an assertion \\[by Georgia\\] of jurisdiction over the Cherokee Nation, and of the rights and powers consequent on jurisdiction.\" \"The first step, then, in the inquiry which the Constitution and laws impose on this Court is an examination of the rightfulness of this claim \\[of jurisdiction over the Cherokee Nation by the State of Georgia\\].\" Next Marshall briefly acknowledged the original free existence of the Native nations and peoples of this continent: \"America, separated from Europe by a wide ocean, was inhabited by a distinct people, divided into separate nations, independent of each other and of the rest of the world, having institutions of their own, and governing themselves by their own laws.\" Marshall then moved on to discuss the claim of a right of domination \\[which he termed \"rightful original claims of dominion\"\\] in relation to the continent and the Indians: \"It is difficult to comprehend the proposition \\[expressed in the Johnson ruling\\] that the inhabitants of either quarter of the globe could have rightful original claims of dominion over the inhabitants of the other, or over the lands they occupied, or that the discovery of either by the other should give the discoverer rights in the country discovered which annulled the preexisting rights of its ancient possessors.\" \"After lying concealed for a series of ages, the enterprise of Europe, guided by nautical science, conducted some of her adventurous sons into this western world. They found it in possession of a \\[Native\\] people who had made small progress in agriculture or manufactures, and whose general employment was war, hunting, and fishing.\" \"Did these \\[Christian European\\] adventurers, by sailing along the coast, and occasionally landing on it, acquire for the several governments to whom they belonged, or by whom they were commissioned, a rightful property \\[domination\\] in the soil, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, or rightful dominion \\[domination\\] over the numerous people who occupied it? Or has nature, or the great Creator of all things, conferred these rights \\[of property and dominion\\] over hunters and fishermen, on agriculturists and manufacturers?\" \"But power \\[domination\\], war \\[domination\\], conquest \\[domination\\], give rights \\[of domination\\], which, after possession, are conceded by the \\[Christian European\\] world, and which can never be controverted \\[contradicted\\] by those \\[Native nations and peoples\\] on whom they \\[those imposed rights\\] descend. We proceed, then, to the actual state of things, having glanced at their origin, because holding it in our recollection might shed some light on existing pretensions.\" Let's Combine Two of Chief Justice Marshall's Sentences: \"It is difficult to comprehend the proposition that the inhabitants of either quarter of the globe could have rightful original claims of dominion over the inhabitants of the other, or over the lands they occupied, … \\[b\\]ut power, war, conquest, give rights \\[of domination\\], which, after possession \\[by a dominating power\\], are conceded by the world, and which can never be controverted \\[contradicted or thrown off\\] by those \\[Native nations and peoples\\] on whom they \\[those imposed rights of domination\\] descend.\" Note: A reader could easily fall into the trap of thinking that Marshall, on behalf of the Court, is rejecting the \"proposition\" he is pointing to. All that he is doing, however, is stating that it is difficult to understand and accept such an assertion. He is not saying that the Court is rejecting the statement. Marshall makes a similar point in the Johnson ruling when he uses the phrasing \"however extravagant the pretension of converting the discovery of an inhabited country into conquest may appear\" the future of the United States depends upon that \"pretension\" it will nevertheless be accepted by the U.S. government as \"the law of the land.\" Such a pretension may seem unreasonable or outlandish but the Court is willing to accept it nonetheless. Now let us return to the language of the Worcester decision: \"The great maritime powers \\[dominators with ships\\] of Europe discovered and visited different parts of this continent at nearly the same time. The \\[continental\\] object \\[vast space of the continent\\] was too immense for any one of them to grasp the whole, and the \\[various\\] claimants were too powerful to submit to the exclusive or unreasonable pretensions of any single potentate. To avoid bloody conflicts which might terminate disastrously to all, it was necessary for the nations of Europe to establish \\[mentally create and agree upon\\] some principle which all would acknowledge, and which should decide their respective rights as between themselves. This principle, suggested by the actual state of things, was 'that discovery gave \\[a\\] title \\[of 'ultimate dominion'\\] to the government by whose subjects or by whose authority it was made against all other European governments, which title might be consummated \\[completed\\] by possession.' \\[Johnson v. McIntosh\\] 8 Wheat. 21 U. S. 573.\" \"This principle \\[mental construct\\], acknowledged by all Europeans because it was the interest of all to acknowledge it, \\[mentally\\] gave \\[accorded\\] to the nation making the discovery, as its inevitable consequence, the sole right of acquiring the soil and of making settlements on it. It was an exclusive principle which shut out the right of competition among those \\[Christian European monarchs\\] who had agreed to it, not one which could annul the previous rights of those who had not agreed to it.\" Note: How shall we accurately interpret this statement that the \"principle\" \\[idea\\] of \"discovery\" could not \"annul \\[nullify\\] the previous rights of those \\[the Indians\\] who had not agreed to it\"? At a point such as this we are well advised to slow down and deeply reflect upon what we are reading. Once we do this, we can take the time to realize that an annulment or nullification is not the same as a diminishment, which can be thought of as a partial nullification. A partial nullification is accurately termed a diminishment in content, quality, or quantity from a specific starting point of the whole, meaning one hundred percent. After a process of \"diminishment,\" some percentage of the whole or portion will remain. Is it possible that Marshall used the word \"annul\" to get the reader to assume that the idea of discovery could have no impact at all on \"the previous rights\" of the Indians \"who had not agreed to\" the principle \\[idea\\] of \"discovery\" of heathen lands by \"Christian people\"? To say that the principle of discovery could not \"annul\" or altogether cancel out the previous rights of the Indians still leaves open another possibility, namely, the principle of discovery could be imagined or thought of as having \"diminished\" or reduced the full extent of the Indians' right to continue living a free existence. Marshall was able to suggest that an annulment of Native peoples' rights had not happened, while leaving intact a statement he made in the Johnson v. McIntosh ruling: \"Their \\[the Indians'\\] rights to complete sovereignty as independent nations were necessarily diminished by the original fundamental principle that discovery gave title to those who made it.\" emphasis added This statement does not claim or assert that the rights of the Indians were entirely canceled out (i.e. \"annulled\"). In other words, Marshall imagined and wrote about the rights of the Indians as having been only partially cancelled out as a result of the Court thinking about the right of the Native peoples to a free existence as having been merely \"diminished\" (reduced) by the Christian Europeans claiming or assuming a right of \"ultimate dominion\" (i.e. reduced by a claim of a right of domination). Part of the result of such a diminishment involved the Court thinking about the Indians as being left with only a right of occupancy as a consequence of the Christian Europeans' assertion of \"ultimate dominion\" or \"property\" in the lands where the Indians were already living. It is helpful to remain mindful of a key point: What Marshall called a \"principle\" of \"discovery\" was invented or made by the mind, meaning it had to originate in the imagination before it could be \"acknowledged\" as existing at all. The \"principle\" was thereby imagined and thus maintained in the mental world of the Christian Europeans. How could an idea that Christian European intellectuals had imagined into existence have an physical \"impact\" on Native nations and peoples? It couldn't. It could, however, have a metaphysical impact on Native nations and peoples. The principle could be mentally envisions as having had an impact or influence on Native nations to whatever extent intellectuals such as Chief Justice Marshall mentally pictured that principle as having an impact or influence on them. Debunking Claims that Worcester is a \"pro-Indian ruiling\" Some scholars have contended that Marshall's statement demonstrates that Worcester is a \"pro-Indian\" ruling, or a ruling favorable to the Indians. Take, for instance, the following quote from Worcester which we have previously quoted: \"It \\[the principle of 'discovery'\\] regulated the \\[claimed\\] right \\[of domination\\] given by discovery among the European discoverers, but could not affect the rights of those already in possession, either as aboriginal occupants or as occupants by virtue of a discovery made before the memory of man. It gave the exclusive right to purchase, but did not found that right on a denial of the right of the possessor to sell.\" A question arises: If the principle of \"discovery\" could not affect \\[change\\] the rights of those \\[Native peoples\\] already in possession of the land, then how could that principle have \"diminished their rights\" to a free and independent existence? Also, notice that Marshall's use the word \"occupants\" which matches his language in the Johnson ruling and does not contradict the assertion by the Christian European powers that the \"ultimate dominion\" \\[assumed right of domination\\] was, as Marshall put it, \"in themselves.\" \"The relation between the Europeans and the natives was determined in each case by the particular government which asserted and could maintain this preemptive privilege in the particular place. The United States succeeded to all the claims of Great Britain, both territorial and political, but no attempt, so far as is known, has been made to enlarge them.\" Note: The phrase \"all the claims of Great Britain\" is accurately expressed as \"all the claims of the British crown,\" which, in Marshall's view, as noted in a previous section, was expressed as follows in the Johnson ruling: \"So far as respected the authority of the Crown, no distinction was taken \\[made\\] between vacant lands and lands occupied by the Indians. The title \\[of 'ultimate dominion'\\] subject only to the right of occupancy by the Indians, was \\[ mentally\\] admitted to be in the King, as was his right to grant that title \\[of 'ultimate dominion'\\]. The lands, then, to which this \\[royal\\] proclamation referred were lands which the King \\[, as a result of his assumption of \"ultimate dominion,\"\\] had a right to grant, or to reserve for the Indians.\" In Worcester, Marshall continued: \"So far as they \\[those claims\\] existed merely in theory, or were in their nature only exclusive of the claims of other European nations, they still retain their original character, and remain dormant. So far as they \\[the claims\\] have been practically exerted, they exist in fact, are understood by both parties, are asserted by the one, and admitted by the other.\" Marshall adds: \"Soon after Great Britain determined on planting colonies in America, the King granted charters to companies of his subjects who associated for the purpose of carrying the views of the Crown into effect, and of enriching themselves. The first of these charters \\[issued to John Cabot and his sons\\] was made before possession was taken of any part of the country. They purport, generally, to convey the soil from the Atlantic to the South Sea.\" The royal commission issued by King Henry VII to John Cabot and his sons instructed the Cabots to get \"unto\" that monarch the \"jurisdictionem\" and \"dominium titilum\" (domination title). This was an admission by that monarch that he had no rightful jurisdiction and no rightful title to distant foreign lands across an ocean. There is no basis upon which Henry VII could sensibly \"purport\" to righfully \"grant\" the \"soil\" to lands he had no rightful possession of. Above, Marshall refers to the \"planting\" of \"colonies\" in America. What type of political entity \"plants\" \"colonies\"? Answer: an empire, such as the British Empire. Marshall continues: \"This soil \\[the monarch purported to 'grant'\\] was \\[already\\] occupied by numerous and warlike nations, equally willing and able to defend their possessions. The extravagant and absurd idea that the feeble settlements made on the sea coast, or the companies under whom they were made, acquired legitimate power by them to govern the \\[Native\\] people, or occupy the lands from sea to sea did not enter the mind of any man. They \\[the royal charters\\] were well understood to convey the title \\[of 'ultimate dominion' to the soil\\] which, according to the common law of European sovereigns \\[dominators\\] respecting America, they might rightfully convey, and no more. This was the exclusive right of purchasing such lands as the natives were willing to sell. The Crown could not be understood to grant what the Crown did not affect to claim; nor was it so understood.\" Note: Marshall seems to contradict himself. In the Worcester ruling, Marshall said that the royal charters issued by the monarch of Great Britain purported to \"convey the soil.\" Question: How could the British monarch purport to grant distant foreign soil, soil existing across an entire ocean, without, in some sense, \"claiming\" the soil he was purporting to grant? And wasn't the British monarchy thereby purporting to engage in an act of extraterritoriality by pretending to grant away foreign soil which, presumably, rightfully belonged to some foreign Native nation or people already existing there? Cases Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832). Johnson & Graham's Lessee v. McIntosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823). Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1 (1831). Series Navigation Previous: Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (Part 4) | Next: The Monroe Doctrine (Part 6) Copyright © Copyright Steven T. Newcomb, January 1, 2026 Footnotes [^1]: Roger Jones, Physics As Metaphor (University of Minnesota Press, 1982), 4."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/domination/martin-waddell/",
    "title": "Martin v. Waddell (1842) - Domination Translator Series - Part 7",
    "publishedAt": "2026-01-07T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Martin v. Waddell (1842) applied the Doctrine of Discovery to oyster beds, asserting European discovery gave absolute property rights.",
    "tags": [
      "law",
      "religion",
      "Christianity",
      "domination",
      "domination-translator",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "In the Spring of 1835, William C. H. Waddell filed an \"ejectment\" lawsuit in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of New Jersey. Waddell was suing to eject \\[remove\\] \"Merrit Martin and others for the recovery of certain land covered with water, situated in the Raritan Bay, below high-water mark in the State of New Jersey. The defendants appeared to the suit, and at April term 1837, the cause was tried by a jury, which found a special verdict on which judgment was afterwards entered for the plaintiff…\" The dispute in this case had to do with one hundred acres of originally Lenape land covered with water and located in Raritan Bay, in Perth Amboy \"in\" the that part of Lenapehoking the colonizers refer to as the \"State of \\[Domination called\\] New Jersey.\" The \\[right of domination asserted to the\\] land being claimed lay beneath the navigable waters of the \"Raritan River\" and \"Raritan Bay.\" It was a location where the tide ebbs and flows. The main right in dispute was a right of property \\[domination\\] in the oyster fisheries in the public rivers and bays of East New Jersey. The claim of the right of property \\[domination\\] in the oyster beds in that one-hundred-acre area was made \\[by Waddell\\] pursuant to the royal charters issued \\[some one hundred seventy years earlier\\] in 1664 and 1674 by King Charles II to his brother, the Duke of York. The charters were issued by the king to the Duke of York \"for the purpose of enabling him to plant a colony on the continent of \\[North\\] America.\" The area in controversy was located \"within the boundaries of the charters, and in the territory which now forms\" what is called \"the State of New Jersey.\" By a number of conveyances, the territory in the grant to the Duke of York \"became vested in the proprietors of East Jersey.\" They, in turn, \"conveyed that area of land \\['the premises in controversy'\\] to the defendant, Mr. Waddell. According to the terms of the grant given to them, the proprietors \\[presumed owners\\] were originally invested with all the rights of government and property \\[domination\\] which were conferred on the Duke of York. Later, in 1702, the proprietors handed all the powers of government to the Crown and retained the rights of private property. The defendant, Mr. Waddell, claimed the exclusive right to take oysters in that the area \"granted to him by virtue of his title under the proprietors.\" The plaintiffs, \"Martin,\" were grantees from the \"State of New Jersey,\" under a law of that state that was passed in 1824, along with a supplement to that law. They claimed the exclusive right to take oysters in the place Waddell claimed that same right. The dispute between the parties came down to the interpretation and legal effect of the letters patent issued to the Duke of York, and the deed of surrender to the Crown made by the proprietors. The syllabus of the case further states: \"The right of the King of Great Britain to make this grant to the Duke of York, with all of its prerogatives and powers of government, cannot at this day be questioned.\" In other words, the Court would not inquire into a key and underlying question, specifically, \"Did the King of Great Britain have the right to grant to the Duke of York the prerogatives and powers of government that he as the monarch of Great Britain purported to make in the aforementioned charters of 1664 and 1674?\" The syllabus continues: \"The English possessions in America were not claimed by right of conquest, but by right of discovery \\[and by the claim of a right of domination\\]. According to the principles of international law, as then understood by the civilized \\[dominating\\] powers of Europe, the Indian tribes in the new world were regarded as mere temporary occupants of the soil, and the absolute rights of property \\[domination\\] and dominion \\[domination\\] were held \\[assumed\\] to belong to the European nations by which \\[the location of\\] any portion of the country was first discovered \\[identified\\].\" \"The \\[purported\\] grant \\[of a right of domination\\] to the Duke of York was not of \\[over and to\\] lands won by the sword, nor were the government and laws he was authorized to establish intended for a conquered people.\" The country granted by King Charles the Second to the Duke of York, was held by the King in his public and regal character, as the representative of the nation, and in trust for them. The discoveries made by persons acting under the authority of the government were for the benefit of the nation, and the Crown, according to the principles of the British Constitution, was the proper organ to dispose of the public domain. Cited, Johnson v. McIntosh, 8 Wheat. 595. When the Revolution took place, the people of each state became themselves sovereign, and in that character held the absolute right to all their navigable waters and the soils under them for their own common use, subject only to the rights since surrendered by the Constitution to the general government. A grant, therefore, made by their authority must be tried and determined by different principles from those which apply to grants of the British Crown, where the title is held by a single individual in trust for the whole nation. The \\[right of domination called\\] dominion and \\[the right of domination called\\] property in navigable waters and the lands under them \\[those waters\\] being held by the King as a public trust, the grant to an individual of an exclusive fishery in any portion of it is so much taken from the common fund entrusted to his care for the common benefit. In such cases, whatever does not pass by the grant remains in the Crown for the benefit and advantage of the whole community. Grants of that description are therefore, construed strictly, and it will not be presumed that the King intended to part from any portion of the public domain unless clear and special words are used to denote it. The rivers, bays, and arms of the sea, and all the prerogative rights within the limits of the charter of King Charles, undoubtedly passed to the Duke of York and were intended to pass except those saved in the letters patent. The charter of King Charles issued to the Duke of York \"is not a deed conveying private property, to be interpreted by the rules applicable to cases of that description. It was an instrument upon which was to be founded the institutions of a great political community, and in that light it should be regarded and construed.\" \"The object in view of the letters patent appears on the face of them. They were made for the purpose of enabling the Duke of York to establish a colony upon the newly discovered continent, to be governed as nearly as circumstances would permit according to the laws and usages of England, and in which the Duke, his heirs, and assigns, were to stand in the place of the King and administer the government according to the principles of the British Constitution, and the people who were to plant this colony … were subjects of Great Britain, accustomed to be governed according to its usages and laws.\" The land under the navigable waters within the limits of the charter passed to the grantee as one of the royalties incident to the powers of government, and were to be held by him in the same manner and for the same purposes that the navigable waters of England and the soils under them are held by the Crown. The policy of England since Magna Charta -- for the last six hundred years -- has been carefully preserved to secure the common right of piscary for the benefit of the public. It would require plain language in the letters patent to the Duke of York to persuade the Court that the public and common right of fishing in navigable waters, which has been so long and so carefully guarded in England, and which was preserved in every other colony founded on the Atlantic borders, was intended in this one instance to be taken away. There is nothing in the charter that requires this conclusion. The surrender by the proprietors to Queen Anne in 1702 was of \"all the powers, authorities, and privileges of and concerning the government of the province,\" and the right in dispute in this case was one of these privileges. No words are used for the purpose of withholding from the Crown any of its ordinary and well-known prerogatives. The surrender, according to its evident object and meaning, restored them in the same plight and condition in which they originally came to the hands of the Duke of York. When the people of New Jersey took possession of the reins of government and took into their own hands the power of sovereignty, the prerogatives and regalities which before belonged either to the Crown or the Parliament, became immediately and rightfully vested in the state. Quaere. Whether on a question which depends not upon the meaning of instruments formed by the people of a state or by their authority, but upon the letters patent granted by the British Crown, under which certain rights are claimed by the state, on one hand, and by private individuals, on the other, if the Supreme Court of the State of New Jersey had been of opinion that upon the face of the charter the question was clearly in favor of the state, and that the proprietors holding under the letters patent had been deprived of their just rights by the erroneous judgment of the state court, it could be maintained that the decision of the court of the state on the construction of the letters patent bound the Supreme Court of the United States. The decision of the state court upon the letters patent by which the province was originally granted by the King of Great Britain is unquestionably entitled to great weight. If the words of the letters patent had been more doubtful, quaere if the decision of a state court on their construction, made with great deliberation and research, ought to be regarded as conclusive. The defendant in error, the lessee of William C. H. Waddell, instituted, to April term 1835, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of New Jersey, an action of ejectment against Merrit Martin and others for the recovery of certain land covered with water, situated in the Raritan Bay, below high-water mark in the State of New Jersey. The defendants appeared to the suit, and at April term 1837, the cause was tried by a jury, which found a special verdict on which judgment was afterwards entered for the plaintiff \\[Martin\\], from which judgment, the defendants prosecuted this writ of error. Cases Martin v. Waddell, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 367 (1842). Johnson & Graham's Lessee v. McIntosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823). Series Navigation Previous: The Monroe Doctrine (Part 6) | Next: President Teddy Roosevelt's Monroe Doctrine Corollary (Part 8) Copyright © Copyright Steven T. Newcomb, January 1, 2026"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/domination/mcgirt-oklahoma/",
    "title": "McGirt v. Oklahoma (U.S. Supreme Court, July 2020) - Domination Translator Series - Part 14",
    "publishedAt": "2026-01-14T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020) upheld Creek Nation jurisdiction while affirming federal plenary power based on the Doctrine of Discovery.",
    "tags": [
      "law",
      "religion",
      "Christianity",
      "domination",
      "domination-translator",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "The decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma is of major significance for a host of reasons. The syllabus of the case references the \"Major Crimes Act\" (MCA) that was adopted by the U.S. Congress in 1885. Some historical background for passage of the MCA seems to be called for. As Francis Paul Prucha states in Documents of United States Indian Policy (1990): \"When the Brulé Sioux chief Crow Dog was sentenced to death by the First Judicial Court of Dakota for the murder of Spotted Tail, he \\[Crow Dog] brought suit for release on the grounds that the federal court had no jurisdiction over crimes committed in the Indian country by one Indian against another. The \\[U.S.] Supreme Court upheld his petition and released him.\" The Major Crimes Act (MCA) provides that, within \"the Indian country,\" \"\\[a]ny Indian who commits\" certain enumerated offenses \"shall be subject to the same law and penalties as all other persons committing any of \\[those] offenses, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.\" 18 U. S. C. §1153(a). The Supreme Court added: \"Indian country\" includes \"all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government.\" emphasis added §1151. Petitioner Jimcy McGirt was convicted by an Oklahoma state court of three serious sexual offenses. He unsuccessfully argued in state postconviction proceedings that the State lacked jurisdiction to prosecute him because he is an enrolled member of the Seminole Nation and his crimes took place on the Creek Reservation. He seeks a new trial, which, he contends, must take place in federal court. Notice that the term \"Indian country\" contains the theme of domination: \"Indian country includes \"all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction \\[domination\\] of the United States Government \\[domination\\].\" Jurisdiction is typically understood as meaning \"to speak the law,\" but etymologically the word is also related to \"danger\" and \"dungeon,\" to be subject to the jurisdiction of someone else or some other entity is in danger of being taken captive, judged, and forced into a dungeon. In the main decision of McGirt, Justice Neil Gorsuch skillfully inserts background information  which provides insight into the centuries-old context for the case and the Court's decision. The federal government issued its own land patents to many homesteaders throughout the West. These patents transferred legal title and are the basis for much of the private land ownership in a number of States today. But no one thinks any of this diminished the United States's claim to sovereignty over any land. To accomplish that would require an act of cession, the transfer of a sovereign claim from one nation to another. \\[Vol.] 3 E. Washburn, American Law of Real Property \\[domination\\] 521--524. (emphasis added) And there is no reason why Congress cannot reserve land for tribes in much the same way, allowing them to continue to exercise governmental functions over land even if they no longer own it communally. My dear friend Peter d'Errico managed to find the correct volume of Emory Washburn's American Law of Real Property (1868). Interestingly, the digital file of Washburn's book opens up into a panorama of important information about the so-called Doctrine of Christian discovery and domination. 4\\. Upon the discovery and settlement \\[domination\\] of this country by … \\[Christian] Europeans, there was a kind of ownership of the territory recognized \\[posited as existing] in the native tribes, though there seems to have been no well - defined idea of individual property in lands on the part of the natives beyond, perhaps, the spot \\[notice the term of diminishment] under immediate occupation. 5\\. Nor has any title, beyond the right of occupation, been recognized \\[by us] in the native tribes by any of the European governments \\[dominations] or their successors, the Colonies \\[of domination\\], the States \\[of domination\\], or the United States. The law \\[of domination\\] in this respect seems to have been uniform with all the Christian \\[domi-\\] nations that planted colonies here. They recognized no seisin of lands on the part of the Indian dwellers upon it, and the Indian's deed was simply regarded as an extinguishment of his claim, and not as passing the soil or free hold. … It is accordingly true, that in none of the English patents making \\[purporting to make] grants of the country, is the Indian title excepted \\[out of the \"grant\"]; and even Penn had begun to fix his settlement under his patent before he conferred with the Indians as to the lands.[^1] The sovereignty \\[domination\\] and general property \\[domination\\] of the soil in the territory of the original English colonies, were claimed by and conceded to Great Britain, by right of discovery \\[and a claimed right of domination\\].[^2] Cases McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020). United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375 (1886). United States v. Mazurie, 419 U.S. 544 (1975). Johnson & Graham's Lessee v. McIntosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823). Series Navigation Previous: Onondaga Nation v. New York (Part 13) | Next: King Mountain and Beyond (Part 15) Copyright © Copyright Steven T. Newcomb, January 1, 2026 Footnotes [^1]: Original footnote from Washburn not provided in this excerpt. Cf. Washburn, Emory. A Treatise on the American Law of Real Property. United States: Little, Brown,, 1868. [^2]: Cites Johnson v. McIntosh, ."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/domination/president-teddy-roosevelts-monroe-doctrine-corollary/",
    "title": "President “Teddy” Roosevelt’s Monroe Doctrine Corollary - Domination Translator Series - Part 8",
    "publishedAt": "2026-01-08T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Teddy Roosevelt's 1904 Monroe Doctrine Corollary asserted U.S. imperial dominion over the Western Hemisphere and its indigenous peoples.",
    "tags": [
      "law",
      "religion",
      "Christianity",
      "domination",
      "domination-translator",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "In 1901, Vice-President Theodore Roosevelt became the 26^th^ President of the United States after President McKinley was assassinated. Roosevelt was not quite forty-three. He was the youngest person to become the U.S. President. He had been a member of the New York Assembly, and he was the author of a four-volume series Winning the West. At one point he had been a ranchman in the Dakota Territory. He spent time in the Badlands of the Oceti Sakowin (\"Sioux Nation\") territory. After the outbreak of the U.S. war with Spain, Roosevelt organized the Rough Riders and achieved fame at San Juan Hill in Puerto Rico. He was elected Governor of New York in 1898, and two years later he was inaugurated as President of the United States. He served in that capacity from 1901 to 1909. In 1904, in his fourth annual address, President Roosevelt delivered his foreign policy views on, among other things, the Monroe Doctrine. He stated the U.S.'s expectation that European powers would not attempt to carry out their foreign policy in this western hemisphere. They would not attempt to form colonies there or engage in colonial adventures. Interestingly, Roosevelt used a number of terms that refer to domination without ever using that specific word. Roosevelt wrote, for instance, \"Tyrants and oppressors \\[dominators\\] have many times made a wilderness and called it peace.\" Roosevelt's frame of reference was the statement by Roman historian Tacitus: \"They \\[the Romans\\] create a desert \\[by waging war\\] and call it peace.\" Roosevelt said that \"to treat our foreign policy, whether … to secure justice for others or justice for ourselves\" the U.S. must think about \"the attitude we are willing to take toward our Army, and especially toward our Navy.\" It is unwise and contemptible for any nation, \"as for an individual,\" to proclaim its purposes \"unsupported by potential force \\[domination\\], and then refuse to provide this force \\[domination\\]. He continued \"If there is no intention of providing and of keeping the force \\[domination\\] necessary to back up a strong attitude, then it is far better not to assume such an attitude.\" He continues: The peace of tyrannous terror \\[domination\\], the peace of craven weakness, the peace of injustice \\[domination\\], all these should be shunned as we shun unrighteous war. The goal to set before us as a nation, the goal which should be set before all mankind, is the attainment of the peace of justice, of the peace which comes when each nation is not merely safe-guarded in its own rights, but scrupulously recognizes and performs its duty toward others. If there is a conflict between and thus a choice to be made between peace and righteousness, \"then our fealty is due to the first cause of righteousness.\" Both unrighteous wars and unrighteous peace \"should be shunned.\" The right of to remain free, or what Roosevelt called the \"right of freedom\" and the exercise of that right \"can not be divorced.\" He then invoked the idea that it is because eternal vigilance \"is the price of liberty\" that a country must always remain vigilant and \"guard against outside foes.\" It is upon these general ideas that he claimed to base U.S foreign policy. As a truism President Roosevelt said that \"a nation has no more right to do injustice to \\[dominate\\] another nation, strong or weak, than an individual has \\[a right\\] to do injustice \\[dominate\\] to another individual.\" The \"same moral law applies in one case as in the other.\" He continues: But we must also remember that it is as much the duty of the Nation to guard its own rights and its own interests as it is the duty of the individual so to do. Within the Nation the individual has now delegated this right \\[to guard his or her own rights\\] to the State \\[of domination\\], that is, to the representative of all the individuals, and it is a maxim of the law that for every wrong there is a remedy. But in international law we have not advanced by any means as far as we have advanced in municipal law. There is as yet no judicial way of enforcing a right \\[among states\\] in international law. When one nation wrongs another or wrongs many others, there is no tribunal before which the wrongdoer can be brought. Either it is necessary supinely to acquiesce in the wrong, and thus put a premium upon brutality and aggression \\[domination\\], or else it is necessary for the aggrieved nation valiantly to stand up for its rights. Until some method is devised by which there shall be a degree of international control over offending \\[dominating\\] nations, it would be a wicked thing for the most civilized powers, for those with most sense of international obligations and with keenest and most generous appreciation of the difference between right and wrong, to disarm. If the great civilized nations of the present day should completely disarm, the result would mean an immediate recrudescence of barbarism in one form or another. Under any circumstances a sufficient armament would have to be kept up to serve the purposes of international duties and rights are far more advanced than at present, a nation desirous both of securing respect for itself and of doing good to others must have a force adequate for the work which it feels is allotted to it as its part of the general world duty. Therefore it allows that a self-respecting, just, and far-seeing nation should on the one hand endeavor by every means to aid in the development of the various movements which tend to provide substitutes for war, which tend to render nations in their actions toward one another, and indeed toward their own peoples, more responsive to the general sentiment of humane and civilized mankind; and on the other hand that it should keep prepared, while scrupulously avoiding wrongdoing itself, to repel any wrong, and in exceptional cases to take action which in a more advanced stage of international relations would come under the head of the exercise of the international police. A great free people owes it to itself and to all mankind not to sink into helplessness before the powers of evil \\[domination\\]. And after a brief discussion of his plans for treaties of arbitration, Roosevelt stated: It is not true that the United States feels any land hunger or entertains any projects as regards the other nations of the Western Hemisphere save such as are for their welfare. All that this country desires is to see the neighboring countries stable, orderly, and prosperous. Any country whose people conduct themselves well can count upon our hearty friendship. If a nation shows that it knows how to act with reasonable efficiency and decency in social and political matters, if it keeps order and pays its obligations, it need fear no interference from the United States. Then, with words that powerfully resonate today in light of U.S. foreign policy in South America by the current U.S. Commander-in-Chief (notably by an act of domination whereby the U.S. military has forcibly kidnapped the Venezuelan Head of State, which violently runs against international norms),  Roosevelt continued by saying that \"intervention by some civilized nation\" may be required \"in America\" and elsewhere if examples arise of chronic wrong-doing, or \"a general loosening of the ties of civilized society.\" If and when such an occasion arises, he said, the United States' adherence to the Monroe Doctrine may force the United States, however reluctantly in flagrant cases of such wrongdoing or impotence, to the exercise of an international police power.\" Roosevelt added: If every country washed by the Caribbean Sea would show the progress in stable and just civilization which with the aid of the Platt amendment Cuba has shown since our troops left the island, and which so many of the republics in both Americas are constantly and brilliantly showing, all question of interference by this Nation with their affairs would be at an end. Our interests and those of our southern neighbors are in reality identical. They have great natural riches, and if within their borders the reign of law and justice obtains, prosperity is sure to come to them. While they thus obey the primary laws of civilized society they may rest assured that they will be treated by us in a spirit of cordial and helpful sympathy. We would interfere with them only in the last resort, and then only if it became evident that their inability or unwillingness to do justice at home and abroad had violated the rights of the United States or had invited foreign aggression to the detriment of the entire body of American nations. It is a mere truism to say that every nation, whether in America or anywhere else, which desires to maintain its freedom, its independence, must ultimately realize that the right of such independence can not be separated from the responsibility of making good use of it. In asserting the Monroe Doctrine, in taking such steps as we have taken in regard to Cuba, Venezuela, and Panama, and in endeavoring to circumscribe the theater of war in the Far East, and to secure the open door in China, we have acted in our own interest as well as in the interest of humanity at large… The strong arm of the Government in enforcing respect for its just rights in international matters is the Navy of the United States. I most earnestly recommend that there be no halt in the work of upbuilding the American Navy. There is no more patriotic duty before us as a people than to keep the Navy adequate to the needs of this country's position… We continue steadily to insist on the application of the Monroe Doctrine to the western Hemisphere. Unless our attitude in these and all similar matters is to be a mere boastful sham we cannot afford to abandon our naval programme. Our voice is now potent for peace, and is so potent because we are not afraid of war. But our protestations upon behalf of peace would neither receive nor deserve the slightest attention if we were impotent to make them good \\[the lethal force that the U.S. military has the means of carrying out\\]. Some Thoughts Before We Continue From Martin v. Waddell (1842) to Tee Hit Ton Indians v. United States (1955) is a span of one hundred and thirteen years, which is roughly the same amount of time from 1912 to 2025. A massive array of events took place in Indian Country from the 1842 Waddell ruling to the Tee Hit Ton ruling, which we examine below. Some years ago, my friend Peter d'Errico and I were having a conversation about the 1955 Supreme Court ruling Tee Hit Ton Indians v. United States. Afterwards, he sent me an email with the legal briefs of the United States and the Tee Hit Ton people attached. When I opened the U.S. legal brief, which had been filed with the Supreme Court in October of 1954, I was shocked. The U.S. brief contained information Peter and I had been discussing for decades, such as the Christian/ heathen distinction in the Johnson v. McIntosh ruling, Genesis 1:28 from the Bible, a passage from the book of Psalms, and information about Vatican papal documents from the fifteenth century. It referenced a Vatican papal bull document from 1344. All these and other elements were compiled to build the argument that the Tee Hit Ton Band of the Tlingitt people should not receive monetary compensation for a taking of their timber in the Tlingit land upon which the United States government imposes the designation, \"The Tongass National Forest.\" Cases Johnson & Graham's Lessee v. McIntosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823). Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, 348 U.S. 272 (1955). Series Navigation Previous: Martin v. Waddell (Part 7) | Next: Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States (Part 9) Copyright © Copyright Steven T. Newcomb, January 1, 2026"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/domination/tee-hit-ton-indians-united-states/",
    "title": "Tee Hit Ton Indians v. United States (1955) - Domination Translator Series - Part 9",
    "publishedAt": "2026-01-09T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Tee Hit Ton v. U.S. (1955) denied Native peoples compensation for lands taken by the U.S. government under the Doctrine of Discovery.",
    "tags": [
      "law",
      "religion",
      "Christianity",
      "domination",
      "domination-translator",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Justice Stanley Reed delivered the decision for the majority. The opinion followed the legal brief of the U.S. Solicitor, Maryland judge Simon Sebeloff. That brief was centrally focused on the doctrine of discovery and domination, and the reasoning of the Johnson v. McIntosh ruling of 1823. The Court's Tee Hit Ton opinion was delivered on February 7, 1955. The syllabus of the case states: The Tee-Hit-Ton Indians, an identifiable group of American Indians belonging to the Tlingit Tribe of Alaskan Indians, held \\[by the Court to\\] not \\[be\\] entitled to compensation under the Fifth Amendment for the taking by the United States of certain timber from Alaskan lands in and near the Tongass National Forest allegedly belonging to the Tee-Hit-Ton Indians. Justice Reed further states: The Government \\[Domination\\] denies that petitioner has any compensable interest. It asserts that the Tee-Hit-Tons' property interest, if any, is merely that of the right to the use of the land at the Government's will; that Congress has never recognized any legal interest of petitioner in the land, and therefore, without such recognition, no compensation is due the petitioner for any taking by the United States. emphasis added Notice that the U.S. government asserts that the Tee Hit Ton people only possess \"the right to the use of the land at \\[subject to\\] the Government's will \\[dominating decision\\]\" and notice how this is related to what the Supreme Court said in its Cherokee Nation decision: \"They occupy a territory to which we assert a title \\[of domination\\] independent of their will.\" It was the \"will\" \\[dominating decision\\] of the U.S. government to \"assert a title\" to the land independent of \\[against\\] the Indians' will \\[wish or desire\\].\" A \"wish or desire\" is a definition of the word \"will\" that seems appropriate in this context. It was the wish, desire, or intention of the United States to assert a title of domination over and to the land where the Indians were living. One definition of \"domination\" is \"having to conform one's actions to a will external to one's own,\" and \"living under the arbitrary power \\[will\\] of another.\" Reed further stated: II. Indian Title. -- (a) The nature of aboriginal Indian interest in land and the various rights as between the Indians and the United States dependent on such interest are far from novel as concerns our Indian inhabitants. It is well settled that, in all the States of the Union, the tribes who inhabited the lands of the States held claim to such lands after the coming \\[invasion\\] of the white man, under what is sometimes termed original Indian title or permission from the whites \\[the dominators\\] to occupy. emphasis added That description means mere possession not specifically recognized as ownership by Congress. After conquest \\[domination\\], they \\[the Indians\\] were permitted to occupy portions of territory over which they had previously exercised \"sovereignty,\" as we use that term. This \\[permission to occupy the land\\] is not a property right, but amounts to a right of occupancy which the sovereign \\[dominator\\] grants and protects against intrusion by third parties, but which right of occupancy may be terminated and such lands fully disposed of by the sovereign itself without any legally enforceable obligation to compensate the Indians. emphasis added Reed continued: This position of the Indian has long been rationalized by the legal theory that discovery and conquest \\[domination\\] gave the conquerors \\[dominators\\] sovereignty \\[domination\\] over and ownership \\[domination\\] of the lands thus obtained. 1 Wheaton's International Law, c. V. The great case of Johnson v. McIntosh, 8 Wheat. 543, denied the power of an Indian tribe to pass their right of occupancy to another. It confirmed the practice of two hundred years of American history \"that discovery gave an exclusive right to extinguish the Indian title of occupancy, either by purchase or by conquest.\" 8 Wheat. at 21 U. S. 587. Later Reed states: No case in this Court has ever held that taking of \\[the\\] Indian title \\[of occupancy\\] or use by Congress required compensation. The American people have compassion for the descendants of those Indians who were deprived of their homes and hunting grounds by the drive of civilization \\[domination\\]. They \\[the American people\\] seek to have the Indians share the benefits of our society as citizens of this Nation. Generous provision has been willingly made to allow tribes to recover for wrongs as a matter of grace, not because of legal liability. The word \"grace\" in this context means, \"favor, kindness, mercy\" and, also, \"virtue, sense of right.\" To the extent that the United States has \"allowed\" Indian tribes to recover for wrongs committed against them, it has been a result of the kindness and mercy of the United States, based on some sense of doing right,\" but not as a legal liability or obligation for the U.S. Cases Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, 348 U.S. 272 (1955). Johnson & Graham's Lessee v. McIntosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823). Series Navigation Previous: President Teddy Roosevelt's Monroe Doctrine Corollary (Part 8) | Next: White v. University of California (Part 10) Copyright © Copyright Steven T. Newcomb, January 1, 2026"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/domination/the-monroe-doctrine/",
    "title": "The Monroe Doctrine (1823) - Domination Translator Series - Part 6",
    "publishedAt": "2026-01-06T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "The Monroe Doctrine (1823) extended U.S. claims of 'ultimate dominion' over the Western Hemisphere, following the Doctrine of Discovery.",
    "tags": [
      "law",
      "religion",
      "Christianity",
      "domination",
      "domination-translator",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "The Monroe Doctrine At the opening of the Johnson v. McIntosh ruling Chief Marshall makes a lengthy and rather cryptic opening statement we have previously quoted. In the statement, he provides a brief explanation of the thought process undertaken by the Court to come to a decision. The Court, he explains, has made a distinction between two different categories of nationhood. The first category is that of what he termed \"civilized nations.\" The nations in this category, he said, are \"acknowledged\" by the Court as possessing \"perfect independence,\" and these nations are deemed to deserve a specific kind of treatment based on aforementioned \"principles.\" By implication, Marshall was alluding to a second category of nations which were considered not \"civilized.\" Regarding these nations, Marshall said that another sector of the U.S. government had \"given\" the Court a different set of principles to use as what Marshall called, \"the rule for our decision.\" Here's the statement in its entirety: As the right of society to prescribe those rules by which property may be acquired and preserved is not and cannot be drawn into question, as the title to lands especially is and must be admitted to depend entirely on the law of the nation in which they lie, it will be necessary in pursuing this inquiry to examine not singly those principles of abstract justice which the Creator of all things has impressed on the mind of his creature man and which are admitted to regulate in a great degree the rights of civilized nations, whose perfect independence is acknowledged, but those principles also which our own government has adopted in the particular case and given us as the rule for our decision. The Supreme Court handed down the Johnson ruling during the presidential administration of James Monroe. What has been known as \"the Monroe doctrine\" was also expressed in 1823 by President Monroe during his second annual address. According to Monroe, the nations of the world were obligated to accept the entire western hemisphere as the geographical area of influence of the United States, which is accurately understood as having been founded as and maintained as the \"American empire.\" Presciently, in his 1789 book American Geography,Boston minister Jedidiah Morse expressed the view that the entire continent of North America rightfully belonged the people of the thirteen British colonies situated along the coastline of the North American continent. He said, for example, \"Judging upon probable grounds, the Mississippi was never designed as the western boundary of the American empire.\" Thirty-four years later, in 1823, President Monroe put the world on notice that he was extending this attitude of American political and imperial influence throughout the western hemisphere. It was the Monroe administration's view that the nations of Western Europe ought to regard the entire hemisphere across the Atlantic Ocean as off limits to European colonization. It would seem that the United States was thereby declaring a form of \"ultimate dominion\" \\[a claimed right of domination\\] in relation to, the entire hemisphere. In The Rising American Empire, Van Alstyne points out that in 1895, U.S. Secretary of State Richard Olney expressed \"the hidden purpose of the Monroe Doctrine, the assertion of a right of unlimited intervention in any issue concerning the two American continents.\" Van Alstyne added: \"The testiness of Olney, the Democrat, was meanwhile outmatched the very same year by Henry Cabot Lodge, the Republican.\" He further said: Recommending that the United States add Canada, the Nicaraguan canal, Hawaii and Samoa to its dominions, Lodge assumed a threatening attitude toward Britain because of her West Indian possessions. \"We should have among those islands at least one strong naval station, and when the Nicaraguan canal is built, the island of Cuba … will become to us a necessity.\" The American public during this decade was feeling its oats, and the pose struck by Olney and Lodge showed that the stream of imperialism was once more in full view and flowing along at a rapid pace. Here's the general idea of a specific U.S. foreign policy called \"The Monroe Doctrine.\" The United States was putting the major political powers of Western Europe on notice that the U.S. would not tolerate those powers interfering with the Western Hemisphere. The United States would not tolerate any European meddling in the affairs of the countries of this hemisphere. The Western Hemisphere is America's hemispheric zone of influence. Cases Johnson & Graham's Lessee v. McIntosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823). Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1 (1831). Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832). Series Navigation Previous: Worcester v. Georgia (Part 5) | Next: Martin v. Waddell (Part 7) Copyright © Copyright Steven T. Newcomb, January 1, 2026"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/domination/white-university-of-california-9th-circuit/",
    "title": "White v. University of California (9th Cir., 2014) - Domination Translator Series - Part 10",
    "publishedAt": "2026-01-10T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "UC professors attempted to prevent repatriation of Kumeyaay Nation ancestral remains, invoking tribal sovereignty immunity doctrines.",
    "tags": [
      "law",
      "religion",
      "Christianity",
      "domination",
      "domination-translator",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "For years ancestral human remains of significance to the Kumeyaay Nation were held at the Museum of Man in Balboa Park in that part of the Kumeyaay Nation territory now called \"San Diego.\" When at long last the University of California at San Diego decided to return ancestral remains to the Kumeyaay Nation, as represented by the Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee (KCRC), three UC professors—Timothy White, Margaret Schoeninger, and Robert Bettinger--sued the University of California system. They did so in a bid to prevent the human remains from being handed over to the Kumeyaay Nation. Because I worked at that time as the Indigenous Law Research Coordinator for the Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation, I was attending the KCRC meetings on the first Thursday of every month. I would meet regularly with KCRC Spokesperson Steve Banegas (Barona Band of the Kumeyaay Nation) and other members of the KCRC board. Since KCRC was the entity officially representing the twelve bands of the Kumeyaay Nation in all repatriation matters, and since KCRC was named as \"an indispensable party\" in the lawsuit against the University of California system, KCRC had to prepare its legal position. California Indian Legal Services (CILS) was representing KCRC. On a number of occasions, I spoke with the KCRC representatives and two CILS attorneys about the 1823 Johnson v. McIntosh ruling and its connection to the Vatican papal bulls of the fifteenth century and about the 1955 case Tee Hit Ton Indians v. United States. For whatever reason, they seemed rather disinterested in the information I was sharing with them. I also told Mr. Banegas that in my view it was crucial for the phrase \"Kumeyaay Nation\" to be included in the KCRC legal brief. And KCRC decided to insist on that specific phrase being used by California Indian legal Services in the drafting of KCRC's legal brief, and CILS honored that request. The attorney for the UC professors evidently did not realize that \"Indian tribes\" have \"sovereign immunity\" and thus cannot be sued unless they have waived their immunity. Because the UC professors had listed the Kumeyaay Nation as an indispensable party, the issue came down to the narrow question of whether the Kumeyaay Nation had waived its sovereign immunity, which it had not. If the court found that the Kumeyaay Nation's sovereign immunity remained unwaived, the UC professors would find themselves in an inescapable Catch-22: To go forward, the lawsuit woud need to have all indispensable parties participating in the case. However, if one of those indispensable parties—specifically, the Kumeyaay Nation—was immune from such a lawsuit, this would be fatal for the case if they chose onot to participate. And this is precisely what happened. When the decision was handed down by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the court felt it was necessary to address the connection between the explicit mention of \"the Kumeyaay Nation\" and the ancestral lands of that nation. It seems likely that the court recognized that the connection between a Native nation and its traditional lands raised a potential political implication that the court decided to address in passing in footnote number two of its ruling. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stated: The property on which the La Jolla \\[human\\] remains were discovered was aboriginally occupied by members of the Kumeyaay Nation, which consists of a number of federally recognized Indian tribes.[^1] The Kumeyaay, also known as the Ipai, Tipai, or the Dieguefio, aboriginally occupied areas of the southwestern United States and northwest Mexico. The Kumeyaay Nation currently occupies various lands extending from San Diego and Imperial Counties in California to 75 miles south of the Mexican border.[^2] At footnote \"1\" the court added: These tribes include the Barona Band of Mission Indians; Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians; the Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians; the Inaja--Cosmit Band of Mission Indians; the Jamul Indian Village; the La Posta Band of Mission Indians; the San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians; the Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel; the Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation; and the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians (collectively \"the Tribes\" or the \"Kumeyaay Nation\"). And, at footnote \"2\" the court harkened back to Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States and Johnson v. McIntosh: Aboriginal interest in land generally is described as a tribe's right to occupy the land. It is not a property right, but \"amounts to a right of occupancy which the sovereign grants and protects against intrusion by third parties.\" Tee--Hit--Ton Indians v. United States, 348 U.S. 272, 279 (1955). The right, which is residual in nature, comes from the legal theory that discovery and conquest gave conquerors the right to own the land but did not disturb the tribe's right to occupy it. See Johnson v. M'Intosh, 21 U.S. 8 Wheat 543, 588--91 (1823). It is worth pondering the fact that the court referred to the \"property on which the La Jolla remains were discovered\" emphasis added while citing two U.S. Supreme Court rulings based on which the Kumeyaay Nation is excluded from the category of \"property\" \\[an assumed right of domination\\] when it comes to the Kumeyaay Nation's relationship with and to its own immense traditional territory. The court referred to that relationship, as defined from the viewpoint of the United States, as an \"Aboriginal interest\" which, it explicitly said, \"is not a property right.\" \"Property\" is a term which, in the context of this Kumeyaay ancestral human remains case, the U.S. court system only applied to the interests of the non-Kumeyaay, American society at large. The justification for excluding the Kumeyaay Nation from the legal category of \"property\" \\[domination\\] is found in the court's following sentence, which obviously has been augmented by using Newcomb's Domination Translator : \"The right \\[of occupancy\\], which is residual in nature, comes from the legal theory \\[explanation\\] that discovery and conquest \\[domination\\] gave conquerors \\[dominators\\] the right to own \\[dominate\\] the land but did not disturb the tribe's right to occupy it. See Johnson v. McIntosh …\" Footnotes [^1]: These tribes include the Barona Band of Mission Indians; Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians; the Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians; the Inaja--Cosmit Band of Mission Indians; the Jamul Indian Village; the La Posta Band of Mission Indians; the San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians; the Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel; the Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation; and the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians (collectively \"the Tribes\" or the \"Kumeyaay Nation\"). [^2]: Aboriginal interest in land generally is described as a tribe's right to occupy the land. It is not a property right, but \"amounts to a right of occupancy which the sovereign grants and protects against intrusion by third parties.\" Tee--Hit--Ton Indians v. United States, 348 U.S. 272, 279 (1955). The right, which is residual in nature, comes from the legal theory that discovery and conquest gave conquerors the right to own the land but did not disturb the tribe's right to occupy it. See Johnson v. M'Intosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543, 588--91 (1823). The court had been waiting for a U.S. Supreme Court ruling decision in the Bay Mills Indian case in Michigan. The judged wanted to see whether the U.S. Supreme Court would overturn or somehow change the legal doctrine of \"tribal sovereign immunity.\" Because the Supreme Court upheld the sovereign immunity of \"Indian tribes,\" the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had no choice but to decide that the lawsuit filed by the UC professors could not move forward because one of the \"indispensable\" parties was immune from sued. Cases White v. University of California, 765 F.2d 1432 (9th Cir. 1985). Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, 348 U.S. 272 (1955). Johnson & Graham's Lessee v. McIntosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823). Series Navigation Previous: Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States (Part 9) | Next: Cayuga Indian Nation v. Pataki (Part 11) Copyright © Copyright Steven T. Newcomb, January 1, 2026"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/effectuating-renunciation-IUCN/",
    "title": "Effectuating Renunciation: An International Effort to Provide a Pathway to Repudiate the Doctrine of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2023-03-10T07:54:46Z",
    "description": "On September 8, 2021 the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) voted to renounce the Doctrine of Discovery by adopting Motion 048, now Resolution 119 for the Renunciation of the Doctrine of Discovery to Rediscover care for Mother Earth.",
    "tags": [
      "law",
      "repudiations",
      "IUCN",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "I. Introduction On September 8, 2021 the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) voted to renounce the Doctrine of Discovery (DoD) by adopting Motion 048, now Resolution 119 \"Renunciation of the Doctrine of Discovery to Rediscover care for Mother Earth.\"[^1] The IUCN is an international conservation organization, formed in 1948 to \"provide a neutral space in which governments, NGOs [Non-government organizations], scientists, businesses, local communities, indigenous peoples' organisations and others can work together to solve environmental challenges and achieve sustainable development.\"[^2] IUCN's membership comprises more than 1,400 members over 160 countries.[^3] Like other international organizations, the IUCN serves to gather, facilitate, and stabilize norms between its member nations, specifically in the sphere of nature conservation and biodiversity. The IUCN, exists an international organization separate from the United Nations (UN). However, the IUCN is only one of two environmental organizations that have observer status, which provides the organization with critical opportunities to engage with UN decision making.[^3] Apart from its significance in conserving nature, the IUCN's rejection of the DoD makes the organization among the first and largest secular organization to reject the DoD.[^5] Consequently, the IUCN is tasked with establishing a framework of repudiation in this space. With the support of its members, and in accordance with the IUCN Resolution 119, one anticipated pathway is for the IUCN to build a Truth and Reconciliation Working Group to repudiate the DoD and rediscover care for Mother Earth. II. DoD as International Law and Policy The DoD is first and foremost a product of globalization, and therefore is firmly a doctrine of international law and policy. The doctrine established early norms for how Christians, who were organized under religious and a secular banners, colonized non-Christian places and peoples. The Church relied on the concept of Natural Law which provided non-Christians a qualified sovereignty, subject to the Church's own spiritual directives.[^6] The Church employed this principle through its influence over monarchs who sought governing and colonizing authority from the Church.[^7] Eventually, the Catholic monarchies of the Spanish and Portuguese Empires relied on the DoD as expressed through the Inter Caetera for their colonizing efforts. As a Papal directive, the DoD facilitated the colonization of non-Christian lands amongst the Catholic empires. Consequently, the principle evolved as colonizing empires applied the DoD. Omitted Catholic empires of England and France employed their own interpretation of the Papal directive so that they too could colonize lands \"that had not yet been discovered by any other Christian prince.\"[^8] Eventually, independent secular nations starting with the United States in the 18 th and 19 th centuries adopted the DoD to justify political and legal supremacy over the colonized space.[^9] For centuries, influential institutions such as the Church and secular governments have implemented the DoD as an international principle that established colonizing norms from the top-down. Thus, it only makes sense that a critical place for repudiation are these same institutions. An institutional approach has already been employed by those who have done tremendous work on DoD's repudiation. For example, many faith communities have already repudiated the DoD such as the Episcopal Church, Presbyterian Church, and several Catholic organizations.[^10] As a religious principle, it is important for religious institutions to repudiate the doctrine, especially the Church to rescind the Papal Bulls that are currently active as Papal doctrine. Calls for the religious institutional repudiation has been at the forefront of many DoD repudiation movements.[^11] However, since the DoD is also a principle that is entrenched in secular society, it is also necessary for non-religious political bodies whose legal systems rely on the DoD to renounce the doctrine. As a result, the IUCN's DoD renunciation should be seen as a challenge to the secular institutions that employ and perpetuate the doctrine. However, to understand where the IUCN is situated in this process, one must look to the present state of international law beyond the once omnipresent Church. While international policy in the past has been established by the Church and independent governments that negotiated trade and military agreements, since the end of the First World War and the establishment of the League of Nations, international organizations have served as the primary platform to establish globalized norms on global security, trade, the environment, and many other transboundary issues. The United Nations, the World Trade Organization, and the IUCN are all examples of such international organizations. These international organizations exist to organize a set of norms on human rights standards, trade practices, and biodiversity. III. IUCN Repudiation Today's environmental issues provide opportunities to concentrate on significant, but often overlooked injustices. The rise in global temperatures, increase in natural disasters and the consequences on nature and people attracts close scrutiny. This is the primary theory behind the proposal for the IUCN to renounce the DoD, to repudiate a principle that is incompatible with the pressing need to conserve nature. If the IUCN as \"the global authority on the status of the natural world and the measures needed to safeguard it\" adopted a resolution renouncing the DoD, then it would be the first time the principle would be rejected by an international authority in the context of one of the most critical issues of today, climate change.[^12] The UN's adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in 2007 was a significant moment for the international recognition of Indigenous Peoples' rights. In the original vote, 143 member nations voted in favor of this document that supported the establishment of norms as it concerns UN member nations and Indigenous Peoples. However, UNDRIP neglected to explicitly repudiate the DoD and only made reference to colonization once in the 46-Article resolution. While falling short of an international adoption of the DoDs renunciation, it signaled that renunciation of the DoD may be possible within international organizations. Resultingly, an initiative to renounce the DoD at the IUCN started almost immediately. The initiative for IUCN renunciation was first started by Professor Nicholas Robinson of the Global Center for Environmental Legal Studies (GCELS) at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University. As a voting member of IUCN, GCELS was able to draft, propose, and vote on motions. In 2008, the IUCN held its first WCC since the UN's adoption of UNDRIP in 2007. At this WCC the IUCN officially endorsed UNDRIP and as a result \"regularly monitors and reports on its contributions to the implementation of the Declaration.\"[^13] In an attempt to build on the success of UNDRIP, GCELS submitted a motion to renounce the DoD, which was then rejected by the IUCN Council's Resolutions Working Group, claiming that DoD's renunciation was irrelevant to IUCN's mission.[^14] At the following WCC in 2012, the only mention of the DoD appeared in a preamble of a separate motion that sought to better implement UNDRIP throughout IUCN activities.[^15] The preambular language suggested that this motion pass in the context of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues' finding of no credibility in the DoD.[^16] Four years later, at the 2016 WCC, IUCN again did not bring a motion to renounce the DoD to vote. However, the IUCN did adopt a motion which granted Indigenous Peoples' Organizations (IPO) member voting status.[^17] This was significant as the 2020 WCC would be the first time IPOs could draft, propose, and vote on IUCN policy. Resultingly, leading up to the 2020 IUCN WCC, GCELS drafted a motion similar to the one proposed in 2008. Additionally, the motion gained several co-sponsors including Kuaʻāina Ulu ʻAuamo (KUA), an IPO, and the Environmental Law Program at the William S. Richardson School of Law (Richardson Law).[^18] Together, GCELS, KUA, and Richardson Law proposed Motion 048 and negotiated its text before it was brought to a vote before the IUCN membership. In the third sitting of the Members' Assembly, the IUCN voted to adopt Motion 048 as Resolution 119, \"Renunciation of the Doctrine of Discovery to Rediscover care for Mother Earth.\"[^19] In Resolution 119, the IUCN expressly renounces the DoD in all its manifestations, requests the establishment of a truth and reconciliation working group to develop best practices of environmental co-stewardship in the context of DoD renunciation, urges all states to embrace DoD repudiation, and invites religious institutions to repeal DoD proclamations.[^20] Simply, Resolution 119, has accomplished what other secular international organizations have been slow to achieve, the repudiation of the DoD. As such, the IUCN has become the first secular international organization to establish the DoD's repudiation as a global norm. IV. Repudiation and Reconciliation Repudiation of the DoD through an IUCN resolution, however, is of course meaningless without action. The IUCN Council now has the responsibility of implementing Resolution 119 in its practices, further defining the new norm of DoD repudiation in the secular space. Likewise it is the responsibility of the resolution's sponsors to ensure that the IUCN Council act. The anticipated method of action by the co-sponsors is through the establishment of a truth and reconciliation working group. The main purpose of a truth and reconciliation working group is to provide a space to investigate, record, acknowledge, and allocate responsibility for injustices.[^21] An establishment of such a group would ensure that the pronouncement of repudiation is followed by action. However, the establishment of truth and reconciliation commissions are far from uniform, each must be created and implemented by the affected parties. The co-sponsors of the resolution hope to continue working with IPOs within the IUCN and other Indigenous Peoples to build the structure and processes of the working group. There is no preestablished formula or guidelines that yet direct this initiative. There are some examples that provide insight to the ones involved with creating the working group such as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada.[^22] The IUCN's passage of Resolution 119 is not the end of a decades-long attempt to repudiate the DoD. As the co-sponsors and the DoD affected communities come together to establish a truth and reconciliation working group, the concepts of repudiation and reconciliation will continue to change. As a result, the best pathway forward is to begin a process in the creation of a space where the truth can be uncovered, repudiation of injustices can begin, and reconciliation can commence. Footnotes [^1]: IUCN, List of Motions, https://www.iucncongress2020.org/assembly/motions (last visited Dec. 30, 2022). [^2]: IUCN, About IUCN, https://www.iucn.org/about-iucn (last visited Dec. 30, 2022). [^3]: Id. [^4]: Id. [^5]: Indigenous Values Initiative, Repudiations by Faith Based Communities, Doctrine of Discovery Project (30 July 2018), https://doctrineofdiscovery.org/faith-communities/. [^6]: Robert J. Miller, et al., Discovering Indigenous Lands: The Doctrine of Discovery in the English Colonies 9-15 (2010). [^7]: See id. [^8]: Id. at 18. [^9]: See id. at 66-88. [^10]: Indigenous Values Initiative, supra note 2. [^11]: Stephanie Taylor, Papal Apology Sparks Calls to Renounce 500-Year-Old Doctrine of Discovery, Global News (July 30, 2022, 7:54 AM), https://globalnews.ca/news/9026698/papal-apology-renounce-doctrine-of-discovery/. [^12]: UN Environment Programme, The International Union for Conservation of Nature, https://www.unep.org/explore-topics/oceans-seas/what-we-do/working-regional-seas/partners/international-union#::text=IUCN%20is%20the%20global%20authority,management%2C%20and%20education%20and%20communication (last visited Dec. 30, 2022). [^13]: IUCN, Indigenous Peoples, https://www.iucn.org/our-work/topic/indigenous-peoples (last visited Dec. 30, 2022). [^14]: See Nicholas A. Robinson et al., Renouncing the \"Doctrine of Discovery\" at The IUCN World Conservation Congress, 3, https://law.pace.edu/sites/default/files/DoctrineofDiscovery.pdf. [^15]: IUCN, Resolutions and Recommendations: World Conservation Congress Jeju, Republic of Korea 6-15 September 2012, 139 (2012), https://2012congress.iucn.org/cmsdata.iucn.org.iucn.vm.iway.ch/downloads/resolutionsandrecommendations2012.pdf. [^16]: Id. [^17]: IUCN, IUCN Resolutions, Recommendations and other Decisions: World Conservation Congress Honolulu, Hawai'i, United States of America 6-10 September 2016, 22 (2016) https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/IUCN-WCC-6th-005.pdf. [^18]: See Robinson, supra note 14, at 2. [^19]: IUCN, List of Motions, https://www.iucncongress2020.org/assembly/motions (last visited Dec. 30, 2022). [^20]: IUCN, WCC-2020-Res-119-EN Renunciation of the Doctrine of Discovery to Rediscover care for Mother Earth, https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/resrecfiles/WCC2020RES119EN.pdf. [^21]: See MICHAEL LUND, Reckoning for Past Wrongs: Truth Commissions and War Crimes Tribunals, in DEMOCRACY AND DEEP-ROOTED CONFLICT: OPTIONS FOR NEGOTIATORS, 282 (1998) https://www.idea.int/sites/default/files/publications/democracy-and-deep-rooted-conflict.pdf. [^22]: See National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation, Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, https://nctr.ca/about/history-of-the-trc/truth-and-reconciliation-commission-of-canada/ (last visited Jan. 29, 2023)."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/embrace-indigenous-values/",
    "title": "Embrace Indigenous Values and Remove Iconic Fascist Memorials",
    "publishedAt": "2020-07-13T19:00:30Z",
    "description": "With the majority of the country now joining forces with the Black Lives Matter Movement, we have a chance to pause and revisit a very important time in history that took place here, during the founding of the United States, the Haudenosaunee Confederacy served to inspire America’s Founding Fathers to form a more perfect union of governance that would provide equity for all. Few know the history of these Indigenous Roots to American Democracy, and that this Great Binding Message of Peace, came to Onondaga Lake many thousands of years ago by the Peacemaker. We live in a very unique place where this spark ignited a light that would shine brightly around the world. Today the light is diminishing exponentially, taking with it the hope of a viable future, which espouses the great urgency to now take a stand. We should reclaim Onondaga as the center of American Democracy.  A stance of neutrality is no longer acceptable as we now stand witness to murders that happen before our eyes on the evening news. Today, being “non-racist” means to be passively complicit which allows for violence and injustice to continue. As anti-racists, we must now move to end racism. Mayor Walsh’s statement regarding to appoint an advisory panel to again study the Columbus statue, unfortunately further delays the inevitable. The Talking Circles were conducted by InterFaith Works , in the hopes of finding the “Common Ground” between those who honor Columbus—the perpetrator who introduced genocide to the Americas, and those who still suffer the oppression from what Columbus initiated. Since the Age of Discovery and the trans-Atlantic slave trade, Indigenous Peoples have been forced under the domination of the Church as a means to silence their voices, destroy their cultures, and convert them to Christianity. These religious institutions continue to perpetuate oppression and are no longer acceptable in determining when and how Indigenous Peoples should speak. As was stated by Resilient Indigenous Action Collective at the 27 June protest, healing can only begin when the Columbus Statue is removed. Now is the time to take bold and decisive action. The people have spoken on this issue. At the Skä·noñh—the  Great Law of Peace Center it was crucial that we present for the first time a clear Haudenosaunee voice, that was unhindered by the Jesuit narrative of conquest that for nearly 90 years had been communicated at the “French Fort.” We’ve all been inundated with colonial texts that served to control history by selectively omitting what actually happened, and by silencing the voices of those who survived. Indigenous Peoples need to reclaim their right to speak, and we need to listen. The Founding Fathers saw great potential in how borrowing from the Haudenosaunee’s Great Binding Peace could help form a more perfect union. We need to revisit these ancient teachings to once again help steer us toward a more equitable future for humankind and our relatives of the natural world. The debate on whether to remove Columbus from downtown Syracuse reflects the struggle of finding the soul of Syracuse. The choice for us is clear, we either fully embrace equitable democratic principles for everyone or we will reinforce the ongoing undercurrent of fascism that has been slowly seeping into our government since the late 18 th century.  We are at that critical edge right now. Italians have a strong presence in Syracuse, and their many contributions greatly enriched our American lives. Let’s celebrate that. But we mustn’t forget the discriminatory injustices held against Italian Americans just a few generations ago.  During the Great Migrations of the 19 th and 20 th centuries they were subjected to the same racial profiling and violence that many People of Color (POC) experience today.  In 1891 11 Italians were lynched in New Orleans , while in other parts of the country, they were aligning themselves to Columbus to legitimize their citizenship. Today, however, Italian Americans no longer experience these same threats of racism and oppression. We must now re-examine why Columbus, who has since been revealed as the iconic face of world domination, should remain celebrated a hero, especially when so many around the world still feel the oppression of what he represents: Columbus never visited what is now the United States. All 4 of his voyages were confined to what is now known as the Caribbean Islands and Central America. Columbus was arrested after his 3rd voyage for “tyranny and brutality” and was sent back to Spain in irons to serve his sentence. In 2006, a 48-page report was discovered of his crimes of brutality against Indigenous Peoples and other colonists. Following one slaughter of an Indigenous community, he paraded their dismembered bodies throughout the city streets.  Columbus was much more than a “flawed human being,” as was suggested by Governor Cuomo, but rather a mass-murderer—one not even tolerated by the standards of his time. Remember, the Spanish Crown was responsible for the bloody Spanish Inquisition! In 1934, the Columbus statue was gifted to the Italian community by Italian fascist dictator Benito Mussolini. He not only created the Fascist Movement, but also supported Adolph Hitler’s quickly rising Nazi party. Mussolini paid for shipping the statue, had the body enlarged and requested that the inscription “Columbo Cristobal Discoverer of America” be prominently displayed. Columbus was sailing under the auspices of what is now known as the Doctrines of Christian Discovery (DoCD), which was an extension of the 12 th century Christian Crusades. In a series of 15 th century Papal declarations, Christian explorers were mandated to seize and enslave non-Christians, take their lands and property for the express purpose of expanding the Christian Empire (Christendom). Portuguese and Spanish sailors set out to invade West Africa and the Americas, looking for gold, slaves and colonial outposts. These trips funded the Church’s exploits in their quest for world domination. The DoCD persists today as a fundamental aspect of law that continues to oppress Indigenous Peoples throughout the world. For some, Columbus might stand as a symbol of Italian-American liberation, but for others he stands as the bearer of Christian domination, loss of cultural identity, destruction and commodification of the land, and representative of brutal fascism, white supremacy and tyranny. He has no connection to the American Democratic ideals that are now under threat.  In opposition to Claudia Tenney ’s comments, this is precisely WHY Columbus needs to come down. His life, legacy and what he represents, inhibits our ability to function as an inclusive democratic society. The fact that Columbus is coming down all over the United States is a message of hope for all those whose lives were lost so others could live their American dream. The opinions of Betty Lyons and Milton Norman Franson suggest a more inclusive vision that returns to those Indigenous roots to American Democracy which would make us unique in the world, and stand as a monument to the Great Peacemaker in our city center.  When we built the Skä·noñh—Great Law of Peace Center it was to finally celebrate the Haudenosaunee and the contributions they have made.  Our cherished form of participatory Democracy, is the message that was delivered at the shore of Onondaga Lake over 1,000 years ago by the Peacemaker. We need to return to the Indigenous Values that inspired American Democracy, the early Suffragists, new sustainable ways of agriculture, lacrosse, & the values needed to truly know peace. Which legacy do you wish to leave your children?   (1238 words)   ### Philip P. Arnold | Associate Professor and Chair, Department of Religion, Syracuse University Skä·noñh—Great Law of Peace Center | Founding Director Indigenous Values Initiative   Sandy Bigtree | Mohawk Nation of Akwesasne | Skä·noñh—Great Law of Peace Center Collaborative | Indigenous Values Initiative",
    "tags": [
      "statues",
      "racism",
      "columbus",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "With the majority of the country now joining forces with the Black Lives Matter Movement, we have a chance to pause and revisit a very important time in history that took place here, during the founding of the United States, the Haudenosaunee Confederacy served to inspire America’s Founding Fathers to form a more perfect union of governance that would provide equity for all. Few know the history of these Indigenous Roots to American Democracy, and that this Great Binding Message of Peace, came to Onondaga Lake many thousands of years ago by the Peacemaker. We live in a very unique place where this spark ignited a light that would shine brightly around the world. Today the light is diminishing exponentially, taking with it the hope of a viable future, which espouses the great urgency to now take a stand. We should reclaim Onondaga as the center of American Democracy.  A stance of neutrality is no longer acceptable as we now stand witness to murders that happen before our eyes on the evening news. Today, being “non-racist” means to be passively complicit which allows for violence and injustice to continue. As anti-racists, we must now move to end racism. Mayor Walsh’s statement regarding to appoint an advisory panel to again study the Columbus statue, unfortunately further delays the inevitable. The Talking Circles were conducted by InterFaith Works, in the hopes of finding the “Common Ground” between those who honor Columbus—the perpetrator who introduced genocide to the Americas, and those who still suffer the oppression from what Columbus initiated. Since the Age of Discovery and the trans-Atlantic slave trade, Indigenous Peoples have been forced under the domination of the Church as a means to silence their voices, destroy their cultures, and convert them to Christianity. These religious institutions continue to perpetuate oppression and are no longer acceptable in determining when and how Indigenous Peoples should speak. As was stated by Resilient Indigenous Action Collective at the 27 June protest, healing can only begin when the Columbus Statue is removed. Now is the time to take bold and decisive action. The people have spoken on this issue. At the Skä·noñh—the  Great Law of Peace Center it was crucial that we present for the first time a clear Haudenosaunee voice, that was unhindered by the Jesuit narrative of conquest that for nearly 90 years had been communicated at the “French Fort.” We’ve all been inundated with colonial texts that served to control history by selectively omitting what actually happened, and by silencing the voices of those who survived. Indigenous Peoples need to reclaim their right to speak, and we need to listen. The Founding Fathers saw great potential in how borrowing from the Haudenosaunee’s Great Binding Peace could help form a more perfect union. We need to revisit these ancient teachings to once again help steer us toward a more equitable future for humankind and our relatives of the natural world. The debate on whether to remove Columbus from downtown Syracuse reflects the struggle of finding the soul of Syracuse. The choice for us is clear, we either fully embrace equitable democratic principles for everyone or we will reinforce the ongoing undercurrent of fascism that has been slowly seeping into our government since the late 18 th century.  We are at that critical edge right now. Italians have a strong presence in Syracuse, and their many contributions greatly enriched our American lives. Let’s celebrate that. But we mustn’t forget the discriminatory injustices held against Italian Americans just a few generations ago.  During the Great Migrations of the 19 th and 20 th centuries they were subjected to the same racial profiling and violence that many People of Color (POC) experience today.  In 1891 11 Italians were lynched in New Orleans, while in other parts of the country, they were aligning themselves to Columbus to legitimize their citizenship. Today, however, Italian Americans no longer experience these same threats of racism and oppression. We must now re-examine why Columbus, who has since been revealed as the iconic face of world domination, should remain celebrated a hero, especially when so many around the world still feel the oppression of what he represents: 1. Columbus never visited what is now the United States. All 4 of his voyages were confined to what is now known as the Caribbean Islands and Central America. 2. Columbus was arrested after his 3rd voyage for “tyranny and brutality” and was sent back to Spain in irons to serve his sentence. In 2006, a 48-page report was discovered of his crimes of brutality against Indigenous Peoples and other colonists. Following one slaughter of an Indigenous community, he paraded their dismembered bodies throughout the city streets.  Columbus was much more than a “flawed human being,” as was suggested by Governor Cuomo, but rather a mass-murderer—one not even tolerated by the standards of his time. Remember, the Spanish Crown was responsible for the bloody Spanish Inquisition! 3. In 1934, the Columbus statue was gifted to the Italian community by Italian fascist dictator Benito Mussolini. He not only created the Fascist Movement, but also supported Adolph Hitler’s quickly rising Nazi party. Mussolini paid for shipping the statue, had the body enlarged and requested that the inscription “Columbo Cristobal Discoverer of America” be prominently displayed. 4. Columbus was sailing under the auspices of what is now known as the Doctrines of Christian Discovery (DoCD), which was an extension of the 12 th century Christian Crusades. In a series of 15 th century Papal declarations, Christian explorers were mandated to seize and enslave non-Christians, take their lands and property for the express purpose of expanding the Christian Empire (Christendom). Portuguese and Spanish sailors set out to invade West Africa and the Americas, looking for gold, slaves and colonial outposts. These trips funded the Church’s exploits in their quest for world domination. The DoCD persists today as a fundamental aspect of law that continues to oppress Indigenous Peoples throughout the world. For some, Columbus might stand as a symbol of Italian-American liberation, but for others he stands as the bearer of Christian domination, loss of cultural identity, destruction and commodification of the land, and representative of brutal fascism, white supremacy and tyranny. He has no connection to the American Democratic ideals that are now under threat.  In opposition to Claudia Tenney’s comments, this is precisely WHY Columbus needs to come down. His life, legacy and what he represents, inhibits our ability to function as an inclusive democratic society. The fact that Columbus is coming down all over the United States is a message of hope for all those whose lives were lost so others could live their American dream. The opinions of Betty Lyons and Milton Norman Franson suggest a more inclusive vision that returns to those Indigenous roots to American Democracy which would make us unique in the world, and stand as a monument to the Great Peacemaker in our city center.  When we built the Skä·noñh—Great Law of Peace Center it was to finally celebrate the Haudenosaunee and the contributions they have made.  Our cherished form of participatory Democracy, is the message that was delivered at the shore of Onondaga Lake over 1,000 years ago by the Peacemaker. We need to return to the Indigenous Values that inspired American Democracy, the early Suffragists, new sustainable ways of agriculture, lacrosse, & the values needed to truly know peace. Which legacy do you wish to leave your children?   (1238 words)   \\### Philip P. Arnold \\| Associate Professor and Chair, Department of Religion, Syracuse University Skä·noñh—Great Law of Peace Center \\| Founding Director Indigenous Values Initiative   Sandy Bigtree \\| Mohawk Nation of Akwesasne \\| Skä·noñh—Great Law of Peace Center Collaborative \\| Indigenous Values Initiative"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/exorcism-junipero-serra/",
    "title": "An Exorcism, Junipero Serra, and the Papal Bulls",
    "publishedAt": "2020-10-31T14:54:46Z",
    "description": "Archbishop Cordileone said his ceremony was intended to drive out evil and defend the image of Serra.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "law",
      "federal-Indian-law",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Historian David Stannard, in American Holocaust (1992), called the missions “furnaces of death.” The reason is that the Native population of an estimated 300,000 Native people when Serra first arrived, collapsed fifty percent to 150,000 Native people by 1834, a period of a mere sixty five years. This death toll is the context for the toppling of the statue of Serra who entered the Kumeyaay Nation territory when he first arrived in 1769\\. From a Native viewpoint, that statue stood as a monument to the heinous tradition of the Spanish Catholic mission system which resulted in so much death and destruction.",
    "externalUrl": "http://originalfreenations.com/an-exorcism-junipero-serra-and-the-papal-bulls/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/gomeroi-native-title-living-shadow-terra-nullius-part-01/",
    "title": "Gomeroi Native Title - Living in the Shadow of Terra Nullius Part 01",
    "publishedAt": "2025-06-23T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "This article is presented as a two-part series examining the structural limitations of Australia’s native title system and its entanglement with colonial legal authority, extractive capitalism, and the denial of Indigenous sovereignty.",
    "tags": [
      "law",
      "religion",
      "values",
      "indigenous",
      "gomeroi",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Part 1 Gomeroi Native Title - Living in the Shadow of Terra Nullius [Santos NSW Pty Ltd and Another v Gomeroi People and Another [2025] NNTTA 12](https://www.nntt.gov.au/News-and-Publications/latest-news/Documents/NF20210003-0006%2019052025.pdf) Abstract Examining the Colonial Foundations of Australia's Native Title System This article is presented as a two-part series examining the structural limitations of Australia's native title system and its entanglement with colonial legal authority, extractive capitalism, and the denial of Indigenous sovereignty. Part 1 - Native Title and the Afterlife of Terra Nullius: Law as Containment, Not Recognition - examines the structural logic of native title as a continuation of settler-colonial domination rather than a pathway to Indigenous sovereignty. Through a critical reading of [Mabo v Commonwealth (No. 2) [1992] HCA 23](https://derechodelacultura.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Mabo-vs-Queensland.pdf), native title jurisprudence, and the doctrinal legacy of terra nullius, it argues that native title is not recognition but containment, a legal fiction that converts sovereignty into usufruct rights, enforced by state prerogative power. Drawing on thinkers like Carl Schmitt, Frantz Fanon, Edward Said, Patrick Wolfe, and Aileen Moreton-Robinson, it explores how Indigenous law is disfigured into cultural myth, and how recognition operates as a tool of regulation, not justice. Native title is exposed as the afterlife of terra nullius, the Crown's fallback position that cloaks sovereign denial in the language of inclusion. Part 2 - Gomeroi v Santos: Recognition Without Power, Law Without Sovereignty - applies the theoretical framework developed in Part 1 to the National Native Title Tribunal (NNTT) determination in[Santos NSW Pty Ltd and Another v Gomeroi People and Another [2025] NNTTA 12](https://www.nntt.gov.au/News-and-Publications/latest-news/Documents/NF20210003-0006%2019052025.pdf)(19 May 2025). The determination reveals how native title operates as a legal mechanism of containment, not empowerment. Despite the Gomeroi people's overwhelming opposition to Santos' Narrabri Gas Project, the National Native Title Tribunal authorised the licenses, demonstrating how cultural rights are acknowledged only to be overridden. The case exemplifies what scholars like Carl Schmitt, Giorgio Agamben, and Glen Coulthard describe: a legal system that recognises Indigenous presence while structurally excluding Indigenous power. Through concepts like prerogative sovereignty, the 'state of exception,' and the colonial logic of terra nullius, Part 2 shows that native title remains bound to a legal architecture designed to neutralise Indigenous law and uphold settler supremacy, even when cloaked in consultation and 'public interest.' Context As Shawnee/Lenape legal scholar Steven T. Newcombe puts it, this article is a view from the shores, not the view from the ship - contrasting Indigenous perspectives with the colonisers' vantage point from the vessel (Newcomb, 2024, p.1). In this sense, this series challenges the idea that native title is a progressive legal instrument, arguing instead that it is the continuation of terra nullius, hidden behind a façade of procedural recognition. Photo supplied by Gomeroi Elder, Polly Cutmore Part 1: Native Title and the Afterlife of Terra Nullius: Law as Containment, Not Recognition 1.1: the illusion of recognition The 19th of May 2025 decision by the National Native Title Tribunal (NNTT) to approve Santos' Narrabri Gas Project, despite persistent objections from the Gomeroi people is not a mere bureaucratic rubber-stamp. It is a clear reminder that native title has never been about sovereignty. Instead, native title, like its counterpart in the US - 'occupancy' - remains a strategic element of the Doctrine of Discovery and its overarching framework of domination. Both are calculated forms of 'legal' containment; constitutional inclusion is yet another. That is, they are mechanisms designed not only to spatially restrict Indigenous presence and authority, but also to psychologically and politically confine Indigenous sovereignty within the narrow boundaries of recognition defined by settler law. 1.2: historical foundations: from terra nullius to native title \"Land-appropriation [is] the primeval act of founding law ...the source of all further concrete order and all further law, ...the reproductive root in the normative order of history\" (Schmitt, 1950, cited in d'Errico, 2025, para. 2). Carl Schmitt's insight is critical for understanding the architecture of settler-colonial law. Law, in this context, does not begin with justice, but with seizure, with the violent act of claiming space as the foundation of order (Schmitt cited in Antaki, 2004, p.323). To understand the structural nature of this legal containment, we need to examine its historical origins. This framework of legalised subjugation (the Doctrine of Discovery) has its foundations not only in Catholic papal bulls but was later reinforced and secularised through the Protestant Act of Supremacy in 1534, which declared the English Crown as the supreme legal and spiritual authority (Cox, 2002, para. 5). By replacing the Pope with the Monarch, the Act ensured that the imperial logic of domination was no longer just ecclesiastical but now fully embedded in state power - a logic that still underpins settler legal systems like native title and/or constitutional inclusion today. What we see is the continuity of domination (superior over inferior) repackaged through state prerogative powers, and applied by courts and tribunal decisions, inevitably favoring extractive interests. This architecture of legal containment, founded in imperial theology and perpetuated by state-sanctioned legal fictions, finds its most enduring expression in the doctrine that continues to cast its long shadow over native title: terra nullius. 1.3: native title as a colonial fiction -- native title theory Native title is a manufactured, inferior form of land tenure; essentially the Crown's fallback position from terra nullius. This common law colonial gift - native title - suddenly emerged from the shadow of terra nullius, mirroring what Frantz Fanon describes in The Wretched of the Earth as the coloniser's 'false generosity': an offering not meant to liberate but to pacify, to restructure colonial domination in more palatable forms. Native title functions essentially as Fanon's 'compromise solution,' where the colonised are permitted symbolic rights in exchange for structural obedience (Fanon, 1963, pp. 53 - 55). This strategy can be understood as a modern extension of colonial diversion, symbolic concessions that serve to distract, divide, and delay genuine resistance. Originating from the so-called 'law of nature,' native title was rebranded in Mabo v Cth (No. 2) (1992) as a form of gift, suddenly 'discovered' in the common law, a 'bundle of rights' conferred on Indigenous peoples (Toohey J, para. 100) and codified in sections 211 and 223 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). But these gifts are not sovereign rights; they are usufruct rights, entitlements to the fruits of land owned by someone else, in this case, land 'owned' by the Crown. Though often subject to restrictions by Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUAs) (Part 2. Division 3, Subdivision B of Native Title Act 1993), these native 'usufruct' rights generally include a right to hunt and fish, to collect food or medicines, to conduct ceremonies, rituals and cultural practices, visit and protect sites of significance, teach law and customs, and access resources such as water, wood, and ochres. These rights must be exercised in accordance with traditional laws and customs. The Native Title Act 1993 section 31 (1)also grants a right to 'negotiate' or 'consult' on issues that may affect these user rights. It does not include a right to live, build, or own land outright. Even compensation is limited to the loss of this usufruct right, not for the loss of sovereignty, land, or resources, saving the Crown billions in the process (see [Commonwealth of Australia v Yunupingu [2025] HCA 6).](https://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2025/hca-6-2025-03-12.pdf) Native title continues to serve the Crown: providing free land, unlimited resources, and complete domination and power to make decisions such as these. Much like the historic gift of terra nullius, native title is merely another subtle form of sovereign denial that lives in its shadow as an illusion of recognition that diverts attention from the ongoing colonial dispossession and the structural inequalities embedded in the system. This symbolic gift functions as a diversionary tactic, redirecting Indigenous agency into limited legal recognition while the underlying colonial power relations remain unchallenged, thus delaying the possibility of genuine liberation. 1.4: outdated legal theories Grounded in outdated legal theories from the 1760s and beyond - most notably Blackstone's legal framework - imagined Indigenous peoples as 'occupants,' not 'owners'. Indigenous peoples could use the land but could never hold it against the sovereign's claim. As Aileen Moreton-Robinson argues, native title is 'predicated on the denial of Indigenous sovereignty and the continual reassertion of white possession' - a possession that masquerades as law while obscuring its colonial foundations (Moreton-Robinson, 2015, passim). The shadow of Blackstone, like that of terra nullius, continues to obscure any meaningful recognition of Indigenous land sovereignty. Blackstone described property as:  \"that sole and despotic dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in total exclusion of the right of any other individual in the universe\" (Blackstone (1765--1769), Commentaries on the Laws of England, Volume 2, Ch.1: Newcomb, 2016, para.3). This absolutist conception of ownership was not just legal, but theological - drawn directly from Genesis 1:28, where man is commanded to:  > \"subdue the earth and have dominion over every living thing.\" Blackstone envisaged this as divine authorisation for human dominion over the earth, which underpins legal justification for private property. This dominion is not stewardship, but control and exclusion - a justification for colonial ideas of land ownership. From this fusion of divine authority and English common law emerged a racialised legal architecture: a god-sanctioned right to dominate, under which Indigenous people could be written out of the story entirely (Newcomb, 2016, para.4 and in passim). In the United States, this logic hardened into precedent in Johnson v. McIntosh (1823) 21 US (8 Wheat), where the Supreme Court famously asserted that Native peoples had only a right of 'occupancy' that could be extinguished by the federal government, effectively denying their sovereignty and land title altogether. Crucially, these legal assertions were pre-emptive, establishing sovereignty long before any ship sailed, conflict erupted, or exploration occurred - decisions made within the realm of law to preempt Indigenous sovereignty from the outset. Cooks' instructions (1768) and Cabot's charters (1497) reveal this truth: lands were claimed in advance, before departure. The notion of pre-emptive claims is also embedded in the ideal of 'just wars' (Miller, 2006, pp. 16-17, 64-65). In Australia, some 167 years after Johnson v McIntosh, Blackstone's legal scaffolding - built on sovereign containment and occupancy - was reanimated in Mabo as 'native title.' Like constitutional inclusion, native title functions as a mechanism that subtly embeds state control through a progressive narrative that 'embodies and emboldens Crown sovereignty', cloaked in 'inclusive narratives' that obscure the persistence of underlying domination (d'Errico, 2025, email). Rather than dismantling the foundational framework, Indigenous sovereignty is merely dressed up in the language of rights - an attempt to legitimise and contain it within the very structures that denied it from the start. The underlying architecture remains intact: the Crown as the superior proprietary title, and Indigenous rights as an inferior proprietary title - an ongoing legacy of colonial sovereignty disguised as progress. This 18th-century Blackstonian muse of racial inequality, dressed up as rights for 'users,' was rebranded as equality and sold as an advancement of Indigenous peoples' human rights in Mabo. Yet beneath the veneer of progress lies the same fundamental framework, one that continues to subordinate Indigenous sovereignty to colonial authority. It is a position confined within the Crown's hierarchical menagerie of humanity - its zoo of human hierarchy - where Indigenous peoples are perpetually positioned as lesser beings within their ideals of a 'civilised' world. 1.5: the 'civilised' cage  This racialised enclosure echoes Fanon's 'zoological' gaze, where the colonised subject is not seen as a full human, but as a specimen (Fanon, 1967, p.71 and p.313). Native title, in this light, becomes not an instrument of recognition but a legal exhibit, displaying Indigenous presence only to regulate and contain it within the settler state's civilising schema. This legal fiction of native title and user rights creates an incremental, racialised ladder of humanity. At the bottom: the terra nullius subject -- unrecognised, invisible. With Mabo, Indigenous people were invited a rung higher: partially visible, partially human - users, not owners; occupants, not sovereigns. Captured somewhere between the settler's imagined barbaric 'heathen' and their idealised civilised self, we are frozen on their racialised scale of worth. This is not human rights. It is human wrongs masquerading as progress. The same principle that kept us out of the Constitution keeps us locked into native title: prerogative powers (to assert terra nullius), an act of supremacy. In this sense, native title is the Crown's fallback position after terra nullius collapsed under its own lie. It is a safety net - not for us, but for the state. A system that appears to offer reconciliation, while legally reinforcing dispossession. This case, the Gomeroi People v Santos, like the plethora of other native title cases, exemplifies how native title functions exactly as designed: not as a recognition of human rights, but as a manifestation of human injustice. It is a legal mechanism of limitation, operating within the very framework of human wrongs, serving to perpetuate dispossession rather than challenge it. This structural logic is concisely what Patrick Wolfe described as the enduring mechanism of settler colonialism, a system premised not on event but on structure, where invasion is a continuing project and elimination is not always genocidal, but administrative, epistemic, and legal (Wolfe, 2006, p.388). Native title operates within this structure as a mode of elimination-by-inclusion: Indigenous presence is acknowledged only to be controlled. It legalises a form of containment by converting sovereignty into user rights, spiritual law into cultural heritage, and ancestral obligation into land management. The settler legal regime thus maintains its authority not by denying Indigenous existence outright, but by redefining it in terms that safeguard settler jurisdiction. In Wolfe's terms, this is not recognition, but regulation, a transformation of living law into a 'permissible presence' under settler governance (Wolfe, 2006. pp.387- 409). Native title doesn't escape the logic of terra nullius; it is its afterlife that lives in its shadow. 1.6: legal theory This is not simply a legal issue; it is an epistemological project. The settler legal system does not just dominate through force; it dominates through knowledge. It defines what law is, what counts as evidence, and who is allowed to speak with authority. Here, native title becomes the site where Indigenous law is not just constrained, it is converted, translated, and disfigured. This flattening of law into 'cultural expression' reflects what Edward Said identified in Orientalism as the colonial authority's ability to define and domesticate the Other through knowledge (Said, 1978, p.243 and p.262). The Tribunal does not hear Gomeroi law as law; it interprets it through a settler epistemology that disfigures it into myth or sentiment, a discursive containment that renders sovereignty unintelligible. Carl Schmitt's theory of sovereignty reveals what is really at play: the sovereign is 'he who decides the exception' (Schmitt cited in Antaki, 2004, pp.323, 325, 327). In the 2024/5 Santos case, it is not the Gomeroi who decides the future of their land, water, culture, law, or stories. It is the Tribunal, backed by the state and corporate interests - sovereign power thinly veiled as procedural fairness and masked as a 'public or state/national interest'. When the state determines when your rights apply, and, more importantly, when they do not, those rights are not true rights at all; they are permissions. A permission can be revoked, suspended, or redefined at will, its existence depends not on your inherent status, but on the sovereign's tolerance. You are 'engaged' just enough to legitimise their theft. Similarly, native title law places Indigenous peoples into what is called the 'state of exception', inside the law but excluded from its full protections (Agamben in passim). You are recognised legally, but only insofar as that recognition does not interfere with the sovereign's goals. Your culture is acknowledged, but only if it remains frozen in pre-contact form. Your land is recognised, but only to the extent it is not needed. As Irene Watson reminds us, Aboriginal law is not merely culture but a system of governance in its own right - yet under settler law, it is 'rendered invisible' unless it conforms to colonial parameters (Watson, 2015, pp.56 - 63). This invisibility is reflected in how Aboriginal women's laws and stories are often marginalised or dismissed within the dominant legal framework (Watson, 2007, pp.97 - 103). Aboriginal law's sovereignty and authority are often ignored unless they are reshaped to fit the narrow recognition granted by colonial institutions. Recognising Aboriginal law as a legitimate governance system challenges the colonial narrative that seeks to confine Indigenous sovereignty within the limited boundaries of recognition and control. It calls for a rethinking of how law is understood, not as a set of cultural practices but as a powerful, governing force that sustains communities, relationships, and sovereignty on their own terms (Watson, 2007, pp.95 - 107). You are not truly sovereign; you are merely the exception ...recognised as a people, but only within the limits imposed by the sovereign, effectively excluding your sovereignty from the full rights of citizenship (Schmitt cited in Antaki, 2004, in passim; and Agamben, 1998, in passim)."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/gomeroi-native-title-living-shadow-terra-nullius-part-02/",
    "title": "Gomeroi Native Title - Living in the Shadow of Terra Nullius Part 02",
    "publishedAt": "2025-06-24T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "This article is presented as a two-part series examining the structural limitations of Australia’s native title system and its entanglement with colonial legal authority, extractive capitalism, and the denial of Indigenous sovereignty.",
    "tags": [
      "law",
      "religion",
      "values",
      "indigenous",
      "gomeroi",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Part 2 Gomeroi Native Title - Living in the Shadow of Terra Nullius [Santos NSW Pty Ltd and Another v Gomeroi People and Another [2025] NNTTA 12](https://www.nntt.gov.au/News-and-Publications/latest-news/Documents/NF20210003-0006%2019052025.pdf) Photo supplied by Gomeroi Elder, Polly Cutmore Abstract This article is presented as a two-part series examining the structural limitations of Australia's native title system and its entanglement with colonial legal authority, extractive capitalism, and the denial of Indigenous sovereignty. Part 1 - Native Title and the Afterlife of Terra Nullius: Law as Containment, Not Recognition - examines the structural logic of native title as a continuation of settler-colonial domination rather than a pathway to Indigenous sovereignty. Through a critical reading of [Mabo v Commonwealth (No. 2) [1992] HCA 23](https://derechodelacultura.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Mabo-vs-Queensland.pdf), native title jurisprudence, and the doctrinal legacy of terra nullius, it argues that native title is not recognition but containment, a legal fiction that converts sovereignty into usufruct rights, enforced by state prerogative power. Drawing on thinkers like Carl Schmitt, Frantz Fanon, Edward Said, Patrick Wolfe, and Aileen Moreton-Robinson, it explores how Indigenous law is disfigured into cultural myth, and how recognition operates as a tool of regulation, not justice. Native title is exposed as the afterlife of terra nullius, the Crown's fallback position that cloaks sovereign denial in the language of inclusion. Part 2 - Gomeroi v Santos: Recognition Without Power, Law Without Sovereignty - applies the theoretical framework developed in Part 1 to the National Native Title Tribunal (NNTT) determination in[Santos NSW Pty Ltd and Another v Gomeroi People and Another [2025] NNTTA 12](https://www.nntt.gov.au/News-and-Publications/latest-news/Documents/NF20210003-0006%2019052025.pdf)(19 May 2025). The determination reveals how native title operates as a legal mechanism of containment, not empowerment. Despite the Gomeroi people's overwhelming opposition to Santos' Narrabri Gas Project, the National Native Title Tribunal authorised the licenses, demonstrating how cultural rights are acknowledged only to be overridden. The case exemplifies what scholars like Carl Schmitt, Giorgio Agamben, and Glen Coulthard describe: a legal system that recognises Indigenous presence while structurally excluding Indigenous power. Through concepts like prerogative sovereignty, the 'state of exception,' and the colonial logic of terra nullius, Part 2 shows that native title remains bound to a legal architecture designed to neutralise Indigenous law and uphold settler supremacy, even when cloaked in consultation and 'public interest.' Part 2 -Gomeroi v Santos: Recognition Without Power, Law Without Sovereignty 2.1: background - the decision and its implications The Santos $3.6 billion Narrabri Gas Project starkly exposes the limitations of Australia's native title system. Despite a near-unanimous vote by the Gomeroi people - 162 against, only 2 in favor - to reject the proposal, the National Native Title Tribunal authorised the granting of four petroleum production licenses for coal seam gas mining in the culturally significant Pilliga Forest. The project will extract gas from coal seams between 300 and 1,200 metres below ground, using up to 850 wells, along with refining facilities, gas and water processing, and associated infrastructure. The leases for such cover 95,000ha (368 square miles) (Maxwell and Kirby, SBS, NITV, 2025). This decision highlights that native title does not confer a right to veto mining projects on Indigenous lands; rather, it offers a right to negotiate, which can be unilaterally overridden by the state if an agreement cannot be reached. Crucially, it confirms that 'user rights' under native title, such as maintaining cultural practices or caring for Country , cannot override extractive rights sanctioned by the settler state. Even when profound cultural significance is at stake, economic imperatives prevail. Native title, far from empowering traditional owners, often functions as a legal instrument of dispossession, masked by consultation but stripped of veto. 2.2: structural dispossession -- dismantling the pilliga The Gomeroi done everything settler law demands: they submitted detailed affidavits, mapped cultural information and impacts, bush food and medicine, recorded water knowledge and spiritual values, affirmed spiritual obligations to land and water, and explained complex cosmologies (judgement 19/05/2025 in passim). They have translated their sacred responsibilities into the procedural language of the Native Title Act. They even addressed scientific domains; greenhouse gases, agriculture, Waste Management, bushfire risk, and climate change impacts. They engaged in good faith (section 31 (1) (b) of Native Title Act 1993)%20However%2C%20the%20Government,a%20party%20to%20the%20agreement.&text=(b)%20if%20conditions%20under%20section,are%20parties%20to%20the%20agreement.), within a system not designed to hear them as lawful authorities, but merely as cultural informants; users of the land, not owners. The so-called 'right to negotiate' (section 31 (1) Native Title Act 1993)%20However%2C%20the%20Government,a%20party%20to%20the%20agreement.&text=(b)%20if%20conditions%20under%20section,are%20parties%20to%20the%20agreement.) functions not as a safeguard, but as a means of pacification, giving the appearance of dialogue while ensuring the ultimate authority remains with the state. Thus: Aboriginal law can be acknowledged but not enforced; Spiritual harm can be measured but not prohibited; Indigenous sovereignty can be spoken but not acted upon. This is exactly what Agamben describes: the production of bare jurisdiction, where law is reduced to participation without power (Agamben, 1998, pp. 71-74). 2.3: theoretical frameworks in action Here, Carl Schmitt's theory of sovereignty becomes painfully clear. Sovereign is he who decides the exception (Schmitt cited in Antaki, 2004, pp.323, 325, 327). The Gomeroi have no capacity to enforce their law; their law is not allowed to decide. It is recognised, but only within a structure where recognition is not power. The Tribunal, backed by the state, holds the sovereign prerogative to decide when Aboriginal law matters, and more importantly, when it doesn't. In this framework, Gomeroi law is permitted to speak, but never to compel. Every time Indigenous people get closer to touching that power, they move the goalposts. How many amendments have there been to the Native Title Act ...hundreds? The Tribunal acknowledges the magnitude and integrity of the Gomeroi's evidence. It affirms the complexity and sincerity of their cultural law - ancestral creation, gendered ceremony, intergenerational responsibility. But this affirmation is procedural, not juridical. Culture enters the record, but it does not shape the outcome. Giorgio Agamben described this exact condition: the Indigenous subject is placed in a 'state of exception', recognised by the law but excluded from its protection and power (Agamben, 2005). The Gomeroi are made visible, but only so their law can be neutralised. As Irene Watson articulates, Aboriginal law is not incomplete; rather, it is rendered invisible by the settler state, which 'recognises only what it can dominate' (Watson, 2015, pp. 56--57). Their evidence is heard, but its force is stripped away. Indigenous law is included only as a cultural presence, not as a legitimate legal authority. Similarly, Audra Simpson asserts that recognition without the right to refuse is not justice; it is a performative act of inclusion that 'requires Indigenous people to consent to their own dispossession' (Simpson, 2014, pp. 1-36). The Tribunal's procedures do not genuinely listen to Indigenous law; instead, they operate to nullify it through recognition devoid of meaningful consequence. This is the design of the system, not its failure. Under section 39(1)(a) of the Native Title Act 1993 (nor any other section), the Tribunal cannot uphold Gomeroi law. It cannot enforce it. It can only assess harm and weigh it against the perceived public interest - an interest defined by extractive logic and settler capital. There is no veto for spiritual desecration. No mechanism to say no, even when Gomeroi law has already said Gamil -- no (Maxwell, 2024). There is only a checklist of considerations, Gomeroi 'user' interests among them, balanced against commercial interests and State-sanctioned development, where Aboriginal law is heard only so that the settler state can reaffirm its right to override it. 2.4: sacred law and bureaucratic management - ontological and methodological conflicts This legal architecture gives rise to a fundamental absurdity: in Gomeroi law, Country is indivisible, alive, ancestral. In settler law, it is fragmented and alienable, with lease areas, exploration corridors and buffer zones. Where the Gomeroi sees a single cosmological entity, the settler state sees a map of impacts to be managed. As Achille Mbembe argues, modern sovereignty often operates through necropolitics; the power to decide whose life is grievable, whose harm is calculable, and whose sacred obligations can be disregarded (Mbembe pp.11-40). Here, Gomeroi law is not just excluded; it is nullified through bureaucratic deference to extractive logic. Country is treated not as a living being, but as collateral - managed, mitigated, and mourned after the fact. Here again, Agamben's insight is essential: the sacred is reduced to bare life, stripped of its lawfulness and treated as an object of bureaucratic administration. The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plan (ACHMP) (see judgement at paragraphs 231, 232, 236, 237, 413, 419)  becomes the system's answer to spiritual harm; an administrative spreadsheet applied to a cosmological wound that cannot be measured. The result is a collision of worldviews. Two fundamental problems follow: 1. Ontological conflict - The law of the Gomeroi is Country: spiritual, indivisible and alive; Settler law demands its spatial and functional fragmentation, surveyed and assessed for risk. It demands abstraction, division, and quantification. 2. Methodological failure - The legal system cannot 'see' what the Gomeroi see; it does not have the epistemic tools to comprehend, let alone protect, what it has already dissected, reducing stories, spirits, and responsibilities into 'cultural considerations' - items to be weighed, not upheld. The 'upside-down river' metaphor [[judgement at 81 and 208]](https://www.nntt.gov.au/News-and-Publications/latest-news/Documents/NF20210003-0006%2019052025.pdf) offered by the Gomeroi is not poetic embellishment, it is legal theory, and it is jurisprudence. It describes a world where water is not merely ecological, but sacred and juridical; where law flows not from the Crown, but from the land itself. The Gomeroi explained that these stories are not myths or beliefs - they are law. They encode ethical, legal, and territorial responsibilities. They mark restricted areas, gendered knowledge (judgement at 205), and ancestral presence (to name a few). Yet the Tribunal treats this material as symbolic, not juridical (judgement at 398 - 419). It is heard, but not authoritative. Sacred connections are acknowledged as culturally significant, but not as lawful limits on what the State or a developer may do. This is the colonial mechanism at work: to listen, but not yield; to include, but only in ways that disempower. This is the pattern native title was designed to follow. Even when Gomeroi law is articulated clearly, and cultural harm is deeply evidenced, the process privileges settler priorities. Decision makers absorb Indigenous knowledge into frameworks that are structurally incapable of acting on it. The Tribunal weighs spiritual desecration against extractive benefit and 'public interest' and finds a way for the project to proceed - generally with 'conditions' or 'offsets' that do nothing to protect what has already been spiritually breached.  Recognition becomes the mechanism of erasure. 2.5: recognition as erasure: the pattern of native title In short, the Gomeroi did everything the law asked of them; they met every burden imposed by the settler system. But the law was never built to protect what they offered. It was built to validate extraction. The Futures Act regime does not function as a space of justice, rather, it functions as a filter, allowing culture to be heard while ensuring that development proceeds. The result is a systemic pattern: sing the song, show the map, speak the law - and lose anyway. This is not a flaw in implementation; it is a feature of design. The Gomeroi evidence does not simply call for better outcomes within the existing system. It calls the system itself into question. It exposes a legal architecture that acknowledges without protecting, that hears without yielding, and that absorbs without transforming. It is a denial of sovereignty, and the lawful authority and obligations associated with it. What is required is not more consultation, more conditions, or more cultural heritage plans, but a rejection of the colonial logic that extraction is normal, and law is only what the Crown says it is. Until Aboriginal law can govern Country again, until it is not just heard but obeyed, there will be no justice. Only recognition without power and sovereignty deferred in perpetuity. 2.6: the high cost of energy: what law sacrifices for 'public interest' Climate change was discussed in detail as was the 'public interest' in all issues associated with the matter (judgement paragraphs 85, 86, 167-170, 338-445). Regarding climate change and the known and potential impacts, the Tribunal made it clear: It is not controversial that there is more than one source of greenhouse gas emissions, and more than one cause of global warming, and it would be an error for the tribunal to attribute every consequence of global warming to the proposed [Narrabri project] [[judgement paragraph 170]](https://www.nntt.gov.au/News-and-Publications/latest-news/Documents/NF20210003-0006%2019052025.pdf). This exemplifies capitalism at its most basic, dispersing responsibility while centralising power. Its language sanitises extraction, externalises harm, and erases moral and ecological accountability by reducing the world to mere data points. It embodies the logic of the market: everyone is responsible, yet ultimately, no one is. This mindset stands in stark opposition to Indigenous stewardship and law, which is grounded in obligation, care, and a sacred interdependence with Country. Moreover, the National Native Title Tribunal declared that:  the project is necessarily in the 'public interest', as all the gas recovered is for state domestic supply only.' (judgment paragraph 357) Here the state declares that it must act outside of normative legal regimes like native title or environmental protection because the situation demands it (e.g. energy crisis/economic need), and in doing so, renders Indigenous law and life exceptional, and outside the protection of rights (Agamben, 1998, Parts 2 and 3 in passim). For this to occur, Indigenous rights must be made invisible, so that something 'lawful' can happen. This isn't just a legal failing, it is modern day colonialism dressed up in bureaucratic language like 'public interest' or 'energy security.' This erasure is wrapped in the language of 'balance,' 'consultation,' and 'public interest', but the real interest being served is profit. The claim that mining in places like the Pilliga forest is in the 'public interest' is a farce. Imagine drilling beneath the Vatican or the Sistine Chapel for economic gain. It would be unthinkable. Yet sacred Aboriginal sites, repositories of thousands of years of spiritual and ecological knowledge, are treated as obstacles to be overcome, not sanctuaries to be protected. This is modern-day colonialism, cloaked in bureaucracy. What's really happening is that the law continues to function as a tool of dispossession and degradation, cloaked in the neutrality of 'balancing interests,' when in truth, Indigenous rights and beliefs are treated as subordinate and expendable. The so-called balance always tips in favour of extraction, profit, and settler priorities - a façade of justice masking what is, in effect, a sanctioned regime of legalised lawlessness, as Bruce McIvor describes it. 2.7: the source - an act of supremacy The Tribunal's decision is more than just a legal ruling - it is a manifestation of the prerogative powers of the state. These are not neutral administrative powers; they are colonial remnants of the Royal prerogative - vestiges of Crown authority imported into Australia through the assertions of res nullius (pre-emptive non-justiciable sovereignty) and later terra nullius (mode of acquisition/containment) and later again, the Constitution. Prerogative powers, an exercise of divine rights, flow from the Act of Supremacy (1534) when Henry VIII declared himself supreme authority. Similarly, the 'act of state' doctrine relied on in Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) is a modern-day reiteration of an 'act of supremacy', a non-justiciable prerogative power.  With regards to resources, this legal lineage can be traced back to the Case of Mines (1568), a foundational English case that confirmed the monarch's ownership of gold and silver and laid the groundwork for state control over sub-surface resources such as gas. This assumed pre-emptive prerogative sovereign right to minerals and land was never agreed to, never negotiated, and never subject to any form of treaty or consent. It arrived by force, embedded in the colonial constitutional framework, which itself was constructed on the fabricated legal fictions of res nullius and terra nullius. The sovereign's claim to land and subsoil wealth derives from the Royal prerogatives entrenched in the 1568 Case of Mines were imported wholesale to these shores, alongside terra nullius. These powers remain untouched by any true public reckoning, shielded from scrutiny by a veneer of legality, unquestionable - non-justiciable. The state still draws on that inherited power when it extinguishes or overrides Indigenous rights in the 'public and national interest.'  A unilateral imposition - a system built on erasure, not inclusion. As Glen Coulthard argues, settler recognition often functions not to include Indigenous peoples as sovereign equals, but to reinscribe their subordination within a legal-political framework that leaves the foundations of colonial authority untouched (Coulthard, 2014, Chapters 1, 4 and 5 in passim). Conclusion So, what did the 19 May Tribunal decision prove? That native title cannot stop extraction. It cannot protect Country. It cannot uphold Indigenous sovereignty. Because it was never meant to. Native title is not a step toward freedom; it is a cage of containment, constructed from law, dressed as justice, and maintained by the Crown. It is simply a modern extension of the same imperial logic embedded in the 1534 Act of Supremacy, which transferred spiritual and temporal domination from the Pope to the English Crown. The Tribunal's ruling is not a break from that tradition - it is a continuation. Just another act of supremacy, reissued under new legal terms and its mask of engineered consultation, to assert control over Indigenous lands and deny Indigenous law. Whilst the names may have changed, the structure of domination remains intact. Bibliography Antaki, M. (2004), Carl Schmitt's Nomos of the Earth. Osgoode Hall Law Journal 42.2: pp. 317-334 at Agamben, G. (1998) Translated by Daniel Heller Roazen, Homo Sacer, Sovereign Power and Bare Life, Stanford University Press at Agamben, G. (2005) Translated by Kevin Attell, State of Exception, University of Chicago Press at Alfred, T. Peace, Power, Righteousness: An Indigenous Manifesto (2009). Blackstone (1765--1769), Commentaries on the Laws of England, Volume 2, Ch.1 @ Coulthard, G. S. (2014). Red skin, white masks: Rejecting the colonial politics of recognition. University of Minnesota Press at Cox, Noel (2002, 2010) The Influence of the Common Law and the Decline of the Ecclesiastical Courts of the Church of England\" [2002] ALRS 1; (2001-2002) 3(1) Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion 1-4 at d'Errico, P. P. (2022) Federal Anti-Indian Law, the Legal Entrapment of Indigenous Peoples, Bloomsbury. d'Errico, P.P. (2025) Apache Oak Flat: Land is the Real Issue, Substack Article, at Fanon, F. (1963) The Wretched of the Earth, translated by Constance Farrington, Penguin Books, 1963 (originally published 1961), p. 54 at Fanon, F. (2004) The Wretched of the Earth, translated by Richard Philcox, Penguin Books, 2004 (originally published 1961) at pp. 71 and 313 at Maxwell, R. 2024 Gamil means no: Gomeroi call on Santos to leave Pilliga, the Canberra Times at Mbembe, Achille. \"Necropolitics.\" Public Culture, vol. 15, no. 1, 2003, at pp. 11--40 at Moreton-Robinson, A. (2015) The white possessive: Property, power, and Indigenous sovereignty. University of Minnesota Press, United States of America. Said, Edward W. (1978) Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books, at Simpson, A. (2014) Mohawk Interruptus: Political Life Across the Borders of Settler States, Duke University Press at . Watson, I. (2007) 'Aboriginal Women's Laws and Lives: How Might We Keep Growing the Law', The Australian Feminist Law Journal, vol. 26, pp. 95 - 109 at Watson, I. (2015) Aboriginal Peoples, Colonialism and International Law: Raw Law at Wolfe, P. \"Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native.\" Journal of Genocide Research 8, no. 4 (2006): 387--409 at Maxwell, R and Kirby, R (2025) Gomeroi people devastated by decision to allow Santos to mine coal seam gas in the Pilliga, SBS, NITV at Miller, R. (2006), Native America, Discovered and Conquered: Thomas Jefferson, Lewis & Clark, and Manifest Destiny, Preager Publishers. Newcomb, S. (2008). Pagans in the Promised Land: Decoding the Doctrine of Discovery. Fulcrum Publishing. Newcomb, S. (2016) Property as a Right of Despotic Domination at Newcomb, S. (2024) A View from the Shore, A Conversation with JoDe Goudy and editor Emily Sanna at"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/historical-ecology-of-onondaga-lake/",
    "title": "Historical Ecology of Onondaga Lake",
    "publishedAt": "2024-08-23T04:00:00Z",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "colonialism",
      "doctrine-of-discovery",
      "Onondaga",
      "blog"
    ],
    "externalUrl": "https://onondagalakehistoricalecology.weebly.com/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/human-rights-doctrine-discovery/",
    "title": "Stand for Human Rights for Indigenous Peoples and Renounce the 'Doctrine of Discovery'",
    "publishedAt": "2012-05-06T19:34:30Z",
    "description": "When the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues convenes on May 7th in New York, native peoples around the world will turn their eyes to the most important effort to renounce the Doctrine of Discovery , a 15th-century Papal bull that has been exploited for five centuries to deny the human rights of hundreds of millions of people who continue to be subject to its power. The Doctrine got its first expression in 1452, when Pope Nicholas V issued a papal bull to Portuguese King Alfonso V authorizing the King to “invade, capture, vanquish and subdue … all Saracens and pagans, and other enemies of Christ … to reduce such persons to perpetual slavery” and further “to take away all their possessions and property.” This bull was issued as Portuguese ships began colonizing areas of Africa occupied by millions of indigenous non-Christian peoples. Forty years later, soon after Christopher Columbus’ voyage across the Atlantic ignited an imperialist rush by European powers to control the so-called New World, Pope Alexander VI issued Inter Cetera . This new papal bull granted those European monarchs the right to claim sovereignty over these newly “discovered” lands occupied by non-Christian “barbarous nations.” Those non-Christians were what we now call American Indians, including my ancestors in the OnondagaNation, part of the confederacy of Indian nations we call Haudenosaunee, and Americans and Canadians call the Iroquois. It didn’t matter to the Christian invaders that we had lived here for millennia or that 500 years earlier, our forebearers ended generations of war by creating a peaceful confederacy that became a model for the United States government. All that mattered was that we – along with hundreds of millions of other indigenous peoples living in non-Christian lands across the globe – were living on land that the conquerors, and the colonists that followed, wanted for their own. It has been a long path to get the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues to confront the racist underpinnings of the Doctrine of Discovery, partly because the Papal Nuncio, the Vatican’s representative to the UN, has claimed it is ancient history and no longer relevant. But as recently as 2005 , the United States Supreme Court, relying on a series of Indian law cases going back to 1823, specifically cited the doctrine in its decision denying the right of the Oneida Indian Nation of New York to restore its right of sovereignty over land it owned within the footprint of territory set aside for the Nation under treaties dating back to the 18th century. “Under the Doctrine of Discovery … fee title to the land occupied by Indians when the colonists arrived became vested in the sovereign –first the discovering European nation and later the original States and the United States,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in the 2005 decision. It is glaring who is left out of that formulation – the people who lived here for thousands of years before the Europeans arrived. In fact, the Doctrine of Discovery is the basis for all Indian land law in this country, and it has imposed similar burdens on indigenous peoples all over the world – in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, in Africa, in Latin America and in the island nations of the Caribbean and Oceania. More than 500 million indigenous peoples around the globe live today with the effects of the Doctrine’s oppressive racism. We are encouraged that people of faith in this country and around the world have joined in the call for the Catholic Church to formally renounce the Doctrine to help heal the grievous injuries that its promulgation has released. Most recently, the World Council of Churches , at its meeting this past February in Switzerland, denounced the Doctrine “as fundamentally opposed to the gospel of Jesus Christ and as a violation of the inherent human rights that all individuals and peoples have received from God.” The World Council went on to urge governments “to dismantle the legal structures and policies based on the Doctrine of Discovery and dominance, so as to empower and enable Indigenous Peoples to identify their own aspirations and issues of concern.” This is not ancient history to Indians in this country or to Indigenous peoples around the world. It is a living insult to our rights as citizens of the world and must be renounced. We are on theEarth to heal the world. This wound must be healed.",
    "updatedAt": "2012-06-06T19:34:30Z",
    "tags": [
      "Haudenosaunee",
      "Indigenous-Peoples",
      "Human-Rights",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "When the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues convenes on May 7th in New York, native peoples around the world will turn their eyes to the most important effort to renounce the Doctrine of Discovery, a 15th-century Papal bull that has been exploited for five centuries to deny the human rights of hundreds of millions of people who continue to be subject to its power. The Doctrine got its first expression in 1452, when Pope Nicholas V issued a papal bull to Portuguese King Alfonso V authorizing the King to \"invade, capture, vanquish and subdue ... all Saracens and pagans, and other enemies of Christ ... to reduce such persons to perpetual slavery\" and further \"to take away all their possessions and property.\" This bull was issued as Portuguese ships began colonizing areas of Africa occupied by millions of indigenous non-Christian peoples. Forty years later, soon after Christopher Columbus' voyage across the Atlantic ignited an imperialist rush by European powers to control the so-called New World, Pope Alexander VI issued Inter Cetera. This new papal bull granted those European monarchs the right to claim sovereignty over these newly \"discovered\" lands occupied by non-Christian \"barbarous nations.\" Those non-Christians were what we now call American Indians, including my ancestors in the OnondagaNation, part of the confederacy of Indian nations we call Haudenosaunee, and Americans and Canadians call the Iroquois. It didn't matter to the Christian invaders that we had lived here for millennia or that 500 years earlier, our forebearers ended generations of war by creating a peaceful confederacy that became a model for the United States government. All that mattered was that we -- along with hundreds of millions of other indigenous peoples living in non-Christian lands across the globe -- were living on land that the conquerors, and the colonists that followed, wanted for their own. It has been a long path to get the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues to confront the racist underpinnings of the Doctrine of Discovery, partly because the Papal Nuncio, the Vatican's representative to the UN, has claimed it is ancient history and no longer relevant. But as recently as 2005, the United States Supreme Court, relying on a series of Indian law cases going back to 1823, specifically cited the doctrine in its decision denying the right of the Oneida Indian Nation of New York to restore its right of sovereignty over land it owned within the footprint of territory set aside for the Nation under treaties dating back to the 18th century. \"Under the Doctrine of Discovery ... fee title to the land occupied by Indians when the colonists arrived became vested in the sovereign --first the discovering European nation and later the original States and the United States,\" Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in the 2005 decision. It is glaring who is left out of that formulation -- the people who lived here for thousands of years before the Europeans arrived. In fact, the Doctrine of Discovery is the basis for all Indian land law in this country, and it has imposed similar burdens on indigenous peoples all over the world -- in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, in Africa, in Latin America and in the island nations of the Caribbean and Oceania. More than 500 million indigenous peoples around the globe live today with the effects of the Doctrine's oppressive racism. We are encouraged that people of faith in this country and around the world have joined in the call for the Catholic Church to formally renounce the Doctrine to help heal the grievous injuries that its promulgation has released. Most recently, the World Council of Churches, at its meeting this past February in Switzerland, denounced the Doctrine \"as fundamentally opposed to the gospel of Jesus Christ and as a violation of the inherent human rights that all individuals and peoples have received from God.\" The World Council went on to urge governments \"to dismantle the legal structures and policies based on the Doctrine of Discovery and dominance, so as to empower and enable Indigenous Peoples to identify their own aspirations and issues of concern.\" This is not ancient history to Indians in this country or to Indigenous peoples around the world. It is a living insult to our rights as citizens of the world and must be renounced. We are on theEarth to heal the world. This wound must be healed.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://www.huffpost.com/entry/indigenous-human-rights_b_1491528"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/inclusion-vs-self-determination/",
    "title": "Inclusion is not the same as Self-Determination — and may undermine it",
    "publishedAt": "2024-03-27T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "But questions nagged at me: When colonized people participate in the politics of their colonizer, does that signify the end of colonialism or its successful culmination? Does the appointment of a ‘Native American’ to high office in the US government signify the ultimate success of the assimilation project? What does such an appointment signify about the relationship between the US and Original peoples?",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "law",
      "inclusion",
      "soverignity",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "But questions nagged at me: When colonized people participate in the politics of their colonizer, does that signify the end of colonialism or its successful culmination? Does the appointment of a ‘Native American’ to high office in the US government signify the ultimate success of the assimilation project? What does such an appointment signify about the relationship between the US and Original peoples?",
    "externalUrl": "https://peterderrico.substack.com/p/inclusion-is-not-the-same-as-self/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/indigenous-consent-right-rooted-doctrine-discovery/",
    "title": "Indigenous Consent: A Right Rooted in the Doctrine of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2023-02-24T07:54:46Z",
    "description": "Consent is a fundamental Indigenous right that exists in a reciprocal relationship with all other Indigenous rights. However, the role of consent is especially critical in promoting and protecting Indigenous sovereign and territorial rights.",
    "tags": [
      "rights",
      "law",
      "indigenous",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Indians being the prior occupants, possess the right to the soil. It cannot be taken from them unless by their free consent.... To dispossess them in any other principle, would be a gross violation of the fundamental laws of nature\" (Henry Knox, Secretary of War, 1789).[^1] Consent is a fundamental Indigenous right that exists in a reciprocal relationship with all other Indigenous rights. However, the role of consent is especially critical in promoting and protecting Indigenous sovereign and territorial rights. While the above statement appears to recognize and honor that power of Indigenous consent, history soon exposed it as theatrics and mere deceit. By putting a stop to unrestrained settler incursions on Indigenous lands, the federal government used its consolidated power to induce Indigenous consent to massive land cessions, masquerading as treaty agreements. This formal 'Indian' policy, guided by the rationale of the Doctrine of Discovery combined with the façade of consensual relations, has laid the legal basis for the construction of the United States. Over the past three decades, there has been a consistent effort to reclaim the power of consent by Indigenous peoples, especially their capacity to say \"no\" to measures and projects that are inconsistent with their priorities and values, and, hence, jeopardize the exercise of their territorial, cultural, economic, and political rights. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), the most authoritative statement on Indigenous rights in international law, was adopted to fortify these efforts. Having linked Indigenous consent with the exercise of Indigenous self-determination (i.e., the right to freely determine their political status and pursue their economic, social and cultural development), UNDRIP expanded its scope as 'free, prior and informed consent' (FPIC) to add significant guardrails for protecting all other Indigenous rights, to help rebalance power relations, and to demand greater accountability from settler states.  As a powerful tool in Indigenous hands, FPIC has predictably faced numerous challenges in its conceptualization and application. This article seeks to shed light on some of the entrenched settler colonial practices that left deep-rooted legacies of misuse of Indigenous consent, or outright denial of their option to withdraw consent, to legitimize settler nation building on Indigenous territories. I will start this article by laying out the contemporary formulations of FPIC, followed by the discussion of the ongoing impact of the Doctrine of Discovery, which once implemented through preemption rights, continues to pose challenges to FPIC. FPIC in the Era of UNDRIP FPIC, as a consent-based framework, was specifically developed in relation to Indigenous peoples in the mid-1980s[^2], as the UN Working Group on Indigenous Populations (UNWGIP) began to assert Indigenous inherent rights in the process of drafting UNDRIP. Adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2007, UNDRIP, though a non-binding international instrument, established a minimum standard for the protection of Indigenous rights, accompanied by corresponding duties for the States engaging with Indigenous nations based on cooperation and mutual respect. At the heart of UNDRIP is the assertion of Indigenous collective, inherent rights, and especially, the right to self-determination, which, in turn, is anchored in Indigenous consent rights, FPIC. Therefore, out of all the international mechanisms, UNDRIP, in six out of forty-six articles, most explicitly and comprehensively addresses the States' duty to consult in order to obtain FPIC from Indigenous nations impacted by: forced relocations (Art. 10); theft of cultural, intellectual, religious and spiritual property (Art. 11.1); proposed legislative and administrative measures (Art. 19); confiscation, occupation or damage of lands, territories and natural resources (Art 28); disposal of hazardous materials (Art. 29); or proposed natural resource development projects (Art. 32). Collectively, these articles not only make the States' duty to consult a requirement, but also frame 'good faith' consultations as a necessary step to obtaining FPIC, whether a State or a non-State is involved as a negotiating party. However, where UNDRIP falls short is on qualifying what constitutes 'consent' and how it should be achieved. First, UNWGIP (2004), followed by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, James Anaya (2009), and, most recently, the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2018) sought to bring clarity to the definition of consent and its three qualifying principles of 'free,' 'prior' and 'informed.' They explain that 'free consent' is achieved without coercion, manipulation or intimidation; while 'prior' refers to an early commencement of negotiations in advance of issuing authorizations or permits, preferably at the project conceptualization stages with sufficient time for consideration and/or amendment. Further, 'informed consent' implies that information made available provides sufficient qualitative and quantitative data (i.e., various impact assessment studies) that are objective, clear, and accurate, and are presented in the manner that is understandable to and requested by the impacted Indigenous peoples. Since there is no accepted definition of 'consent,' it proves most difficult to capture. According to Anaya, it is far from \"a freestanding device of legitimation\" or a shorthand for \"yes\" to a predetermined decision.[^3] Instead, it can only be achieved when it is free, prior and informed and when there is an explicit agreement to proceed. Consent should emerge out of effective consultations, pursued in good faith, and as a result of collaboration and meaningful engagement with appropriate Indigenous political and legal institutions. Achieved agreements should not be considered final, but rather include mechanisms for ongoing reviews and renewals at any stage of proposed projects, including withdrawal of consent itself. As an integral element of self-determination, consent also constitutes a collective participatory right, where Indigenous stakeholders not only have a voice in consultations but are the decisionmakers themselves. The application of FPIC, understandably, seeks to raise the standards for engaging with Indigenous peoples. This need emerges from the lessons of history that continue to pose challenges to Indigenous peoples' full enjoyment of their rights. Doctrine of Discovery and the Function of Indigenous Consent: FPIC was hardly the framework that European States relied on, when, in the 15 th , and 16 th centuries, they began carving up the Americas into their exclusive spheres of influence. At best, proclamations were read in foreign languages to empty shores, missing the mark on informed consent. Even when more direct consent was attempted, it was hardly prior.[^4] A theologically-derived international law guided by the Doctrine of Discovery, vested European States with absolute dominion and ownership in Indigenous territories, even before they set foot there. Crucially, under this legal framework, a State could preempt other European States from interfering with their territorial claims and trade monopolies solely on the basis of first discovery; hence, without any regard for Indigenous peoples already living there.[^5] Having emerged from the Doctrine of Discovery, preemption rights helped implement this foundational, yet fabricated, legal doctrine in North America, this time, relying on Indigenous consent to operate. With the establishment of settled colonies, preemption was employed as an exclusive right of first purchase of Indigenous lands, subject only to Indigenous occupancy. However, as an incomplete (or future) proprietary right, it required Indigenous consent to extinguish their own territorial rights for preemption to become a full proprietary, or fee simple, title.[^6] Over time, the pressure on Indigenous nations to grant consent became so intense that any semblance, dignity or respect, characteristic of originally conceived, consensual treaty relations between Indigenous nations and settler colonies began to erode. As a tool of colonial expansion, preemption redefined Indigenous consent in three significant and interrelated ways that have left a lasting imprint on the exercise of FPIC today. First, preemption depended on establishing and maintaining unequal power relations for its existence and effectiveness.  Indigenous right to withdraw consent was progressively superseded by the Euro-American right to buy and replace Indigenous land relations with settler colonial proprietary rights. However, doing so by means of purchase helped conceal the true nature of this power dynamic, implying mutual, fair, and legal agreements, where, in theory, each partly benefited equally from such transactions.[^7] Second, in order for preemption to operate, it required (a) Indigenous lands to be translated into a marketable commodity; (b) Indigenous land relations redefined as a proprietary title; and (c) Indigenous nations acknowledged as owners and sellers of their lands, capable of passing legally recognizable titles onto non-Indigenous buyers. As a result, it generated a lucrative market where preemption was bought and sold as exclusive licenses to land speculators, permitting them to negotiate with Indigenous nations for the sale of their lands. A preemption holder, as a sole investor, would purchase Indigenous lands at a minimal cost and resell them at a high profit margin. Hence, it was in the interest of that preemption holder to secure Indigenous consent by any means necessary, including coercion, fraud, deceit, manipulation, or even force, gradually leading to a general dissatisfaction among Indigenous nations.[^8] In response, the Royal Proclamation of 1763 was passed to restore and centralize the exercise of preemption as an executive privilege of the British Crown, a structure that was later replicated by the U.S. federal government.[^9] While it established additional protective measures against fraudulently obtained land agreements through the 1790 Trade and Intercourse Act, the federal government continued to diminish the power of Indigenous consent, resorting to similar tactics that land speculators used to obtain land cessions under the guise of consensually-negotiated treaties.[^10] Finally, preemption is inscribed into U.S. law as a complementary, though not equal, title to the one held by Indigenous nations following the Supreme Court decision in Johnson v M'Intosh (1823). Even though Indigenous nations were not party to this lawsuit, their title becomes formally incorporated into the unitary, western land tenure system (as opposed to distinctly operating ones by virtue of their distinct sovereignties).[^11] According to this decision, preemption, still exercised as an incomplete and exclusive right in Indigenous lands held by the federal government, creates an impairment on Indigenous land title, now referred to as an 'Indian title.' This impairment removes the right of free alienability from Indigenous nations, or simply put, the ability to choose a buyer and hold sovereign-to-sovereign relations with other nations.[^12] The legitimacy of this structure, where neither title is complete nor can exist without the other, hinges on Indigenous consent to validate negotiated land transfers. To put it bluntly, Indigenous consent is used as a permission to realize preemption into a fee simple title and, in the process, erase Indigenous possession and presence from the land. Consequently, this manipulation and erosion of Indigenous consent rights as a mere function of this fabricated land tenure system leads the Supreme Court in Cherokee Nation v Georgia (1831) to proclaim Indigenous peoples as \"domestic dependent nations,\" which, in turn, leads Congress to unilaterally end Indigenous-U.S. treaty relations in 1871, eradicating the nearly 100-year-old tradition of sovereign-to-sovereign, consent-based diplomacy.[^13] Doctrine of Discovery's Long Shadow over FPIC: Deep asymmetries of power, where preemption, though an incomplete right, redefined Indigenous land relations into a subordinate 'Indian title,' continue to pose barriers to Indigenous full and meaningful participation in decisions impacting their sovereign and territorial rights. When power imbalance is built into political relations, consent can hardly be free, hence failing to meet the first principle of FPIC. Even when coercion, manipulation or intimidation are absent, Indigenous nations are left to contend with greater risks than benefits of proposed actions, measures, or projects. This is especially true of development projects, seeking to extract natural resources from Indigenous territories. Compared to the States and industry, Indigenous nations operate with more limited access to technical expertise and financial resources or are subject to restrictive timelines that make it difficult to reach informed, collective decisions. Neither are there established processes for conducting fair consultations, accepting Indigenous decisions to withhold consent, or submitting grievances to mitigate adverse by-products of proposed actions.[^14] Building on the persistence of the deep power asymmetries that eventually locked the exercise of 'Indian title' within a single land tenure system, preemption rights have accelerated the process of stripping Indigenous consent of its authority, thus, making it easier for the United States to justify its rejection of FPIC. This rejection was most clearly voiced in response to Indigenous framing of their right to self-determination in the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (1994). To safeguard Indigenous self-determination, the Draft Declaration contains strong and straightforward language on the requirement of consent, asserting that \"States shall obtain free and informed consent\" (Art. 20 and Art. 30) or outright prohibits certain actions, such as storage of hazardous materials on Indigenous territories (Art. 28). Over the course of negotiating the Draft Declaration, States consistently tried to weaken that language by adding qualifying words like 'merely' to their duty to consult or 'significant' in describing impact of proposed actions in an effort to limit the scope of their responsibility. Although UNDRIP's final version did not include these terms, the language they settled on is intentionally ambiguous, cautious, and less restrictive, requiring States to 'consult in order to obtain consent' (Articles 19 and 32).[^15] In doing so, they prioritize consultation, while leaving consent as an aspirational goal, and not a requirement, of that process. In addition to these efforts, the requirement of Indigenous consent was forcefully condemned by the United States as anti-democratic and discriminatory, analogous to an Indigenous veto power over the interest of the Nation. While supporting \"the full participation of Indigenous peoples in democratic decision-making process,\" the United States declared that it \"cannot accept the notion of a subnational group having a 'veto' power over the legislative process.\"[^16] This sentiment is echoed in the last-minute addition of Article 46 to UNDRIP, by which the States prohibit any action by Indigenous nations that could impair their \"territorial integrity or political unity,\" whereby, implying Indigenous nations constitute part of that unity. In the end, the United States' commitment to the consultation-only approach in negotiations with impacted Indigenous nations prevailed. In its 2010 endorsement of UNDRIP, \"the United States recognizes the significance of the Declaration's provisions on free, prior and informed consent, which... [it] understands to call for a process of meaningful consultation with tribal leaders, but not necessarily the agreement of those leaders, before the actions addressed in those consultations are taken.\"[^17] This clearly articulated, non-consensual approach and commitment to maintaining power imbalance continues to define federal Indian law and policy and was recently rearticulated in President Biden's 2021 Memorandum on Tribal Consultation and Strengthening Nation-to-Nation Relationships.[^18]  The United States' response to Indigenous resurgence of consent rights through the Draft Declaration and UNDRIP warrants further clarification. The common thread that runs through these reactions demonstrates that the framework established by the Doctrine of Discovery continues to provide the scaffolding for the legal standing of setter nations, such as the United States. This framework redefined Indigenous territorial rights into an incomplete 'Indian title' that is not only subordinate to the future interest of the United States but is also built into the United States' legal system to protect its own interest.[^19] Therefore, any power to withhold consent that is inconsistent with that interest, even if harmful to Indigenous nations, is negated and condemned as a veto power, the same power that each member of the international community readily claims when an action or an agreement is harmful to their interests. Simply put, full recognition of Indigenous consent rights, the very rights that safeguard all other Indigenous rights, poses a threat to the United States authority and integrity. The same sense of threat kept the United States from signing the 1989 International Labor Organization's (ILO) Convention #169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, a binding international instrument that imposes on State signatories a duty to consult with an objective of achieving agreement on measures impacting Indigenous peoples. Neither does the United States avail itself to be bound by the FPIC-focused decisions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which not only affirmed the States' 'duty to consult' and their responsibility for any inadequacies in the consultation and decision-making process in protecting Indigenous human rights, but also made Indigenous consent a requirement in large-scale development projects.[^20] Consequently, both international instruments are only partially successful in their advocacy of Indigenous consent rights, as neither makes it an unnegotiable requirement. This trend points to a broader failure in respecting and upholding Indigenous rights, which was on full display in the 2016 Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) protests. Energy Transfer LP refused to respect the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's decision to withdraw their consent from the project, let alone, include them in a meaningful consultation process. Those non-consensual practices, together with a lack of federal oversight of the company's actions, left the citizens of the Tribe and their supporters exposed to harassment, intimidation, and violence. This case also revealed that U.S. courts, which litigated this case, lacked the understanding of 'meaningful and good faith consultations,' much less FPIC, by accepting a mere transfer of partial information as such. Today, extractive industries together with legislation and legal decisions of the United States government pose the most serious challenges to FPIC. It is also where UNDRIP's language in Articles 19 and 32 was significantly compromised to diminish the requirement of Indigenous consent. Even though DAPL was eventually ordered to cease, the oil was left to flow through the pipelines without further repercussions.[^21] Conclusions: Indigenous consent rights are critical to the full realization of Indigenous right to self-determination. Therefore, it is important that FPIC is not treated as a blanket agreement and includes a meaningful range of choices that are consistent with each Indigenous nation's priorities and values. It should insist on consensus, rather than compromise-seeking procedures among equally empowered decision-makers.[^22] These are precisely the terms of a centuries old Two Row Wampum Treaty, entered between the Haudenosaunee and each of the colonial powers, where each party were considered as equals, promising not to interfere with each other's affairs but rather respect each other's sovereign and territorial rights.  Understanding how Indigenous consent was captured and redefined to fit the purposes of the colonial powers can serve as one of many steps towards reclaiming this power in relations with settler states, the power that already exists in these nations and communities but is impacted by those historical roadblocks on their way to being fully realized. Bibliography: Banner, Stuart. How the Indians Lost their Land: Law and Power on the Frontier. Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2005 Barelli, Mauro. \"Free, Prior, and Informed Consent in the UNDRIP Articles 10, 19, 29(2), and 32(2),\" in The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: A Commentary, edited by Jessie Hohmann and Marc Weller, 247-269. Oxford University Press, 2018 Blumm, Michael C. \"Retracing the Discovery Doctrine: Aboriginal Title, Tribal Sovereignty, and their Significance to Treaty-Making and Modern natural Resources Policy in Indian Country,\" Vermont Law Review 28\\. (2004): 713-777. Accessed at: Brillman, Marina. \"Consenting to Dispossession: The Problematic Heritage and Complex Future of Consultation and Consent of Indigenous Peoples,\" Columbia Human Rights Law Review 49, no. 2 (Winter 2018): 1-72. Accessed at: Fredericks, Carla F. \"Operationalizing Free, Prior, and Informed Consent,\" Albany Law Review 80, no. 2 (2016-2017): 429-482. Accessed at: Iseli, Claudia. \"The Operationalization of the Principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent: A Duty to Obtain Consent or Simply a Duty to Consult?\" UCLA Journal of Environmental Law and Policy 38, no. 2 (2020): 259-275. Accessed at: Kades, Eric. \"The Dark Side of Efficiency: Johnson v. M'Intosh and the Expatriation of American Indian Lands,\" University of Pennsylvania Law Review 148, (2000): 1065-1190. Accessed at: Kinnison, Akilah Jenga, \"Indigenous Consent:  Rethinking U.S. Consultation Policies in Light of the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,\" Arizona Law Review 53 (2011): 1301-1332. Accessed at: Lindley, M. F. The Acquisition and Government of Backward Territory in International Law: Being a Treatise on the Law and Practice Relating to Colonial Expansion. New York: Negro Universities Press, 1969. McNeill, Kent. Common Law Aboriginal Title. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989 \"Self-Government and the Inalienability of Aboriginal Title\" McGill Law Journal 47, (2002): 473-510. Accessed at: Miller, Robert J. Discovering Indigenous Lands: The Doctrine of Discovery in the English Colonies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010 Morales, Sarah. \"Braiding the Incommensurable: Indigenous Legal Traditions and the Duty to Consult,\" in Braiding Legal Orders: Implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, edited by Oonagh E. Fitzgerald, John Borrows, and Larry Chartrand, 65-81. Center for International Governance Innovation Press, 2019 O'Sullivan, Dominic. 'We Are All Here to Stay:' Citizenship, Sovereignty and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. ANU Press, 2020\\ Owen, John R. and Deanna Kemp. \"'Free, Prior and Informed Consent,' Social Complexity and the Mining Industry: Extablising a Knowledge Base,\" Resources Policy 41 (2014): 91-100. Accessed at: Piasta-Mansfield, Urszula. \"Seneca Nation's Lands and the Preemption Rights Doctrine: Exploring the Agency of the in-between Space of the Two Rows of Guswentah.\" Order No. 3541148, State University of New York at Buffalo, 2012. . Prucha, Francis Paul., ed. Documents of United States Indian Policy. 3Rd ed. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2000 Robertson, Lindsay G. Conquest By Law: How the Discovery of America Dispossessed Indigenous Peoples of their Lands. New York: Oxford UP. 2005 Taylor, Alan. The Divided Ground: Indians, Settlers, and the Northern Borderland of the American Revolution. New York: Vintage Books, 2006 The Sanding Rick Sioux Tribe's Litigation on the Dakota Access Pipeline. EarthJustice. Accessed at: Ward, Tara. \"The Right to Free, Prior, and Informed Consent: Indigenous Peoples' Participation rights within International Law.\" Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights 10, no. 2 (2011): 54-84. Accessed at: Weaver, John C. The Great Land Rush and the Making of the Modern World, 1650-1900. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queens UP, 2003 Wilkins, David E. \"Deconstructing the Doctrine of Discovery.\" Indian Country Today, September 12, 2018, Accessed at: Wilkins, David E. and Hank Adams. \"Nothing Less than Consent: Consultation and the Diminishment of Indigenous Rights.\" Indian Country Today, April 8, 2019 (updated). Accessed at: Williams, Robert A. \"Jefferson, the Norman Yoke, and American Indian Lands.\" Arizona Law Review 29, no. 2. (1987): 165-194. Accessed at:  The American Indian in Western Legal Thought: The Discourses of Conquest. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990 Wolfe, Patrick. \"Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native.\" Journal of Genocide Research 8, no. 4 (2006): 387-409 Court Rulings, Declarations, Conventions, and other Government Documents: Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. 1 (1831). Accessed at: Draft United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UN Commission on Human Rights, Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, 46 th Session, UN doc. E/CN.4/Sub. 2/1994/30. Accessed at: Economic and Social Council, Impact on Indigenous Peoples of the International Legal Construct Known as the Doctrine of Discovery, which served as the Foundation of the Violation of their Human Rights, UN Doc. E/C19/2010/13 (April 19-30, 2010) (by Tonya Gonnella Frichner) Accessed at: George, R. III, Royal Proclamation of 1763. Accessed at: Human Rights Council, Free Prior and Informed Consent: A Human Rights-Based Approach, Study of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UN Doc. A/HRC/39/62 (10 August 2018). Accessed at: International Labor Organization, Convention (No. 169) Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, Geneva, 76 th ILC session, adopted June 27, 1989. Accessed at: Johnson v. M'Intosh, 21 U.S. 543 (1823). Accessed at: Memorandum on Tribal Consultation and Strengthening Nation-to-Nation Relationships, Federal Registrar 86, (January 29, 2021): 7491-7492. Accessed at: Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Promotion and Protection of All Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Including the Right to Development: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous People, UN Doc. A/HRC/12/34 (July 15, 2009) (by S. James Anaya) Accessed at: Guswentah or the Two-Row Wampum: UN Commission on Human Rights, Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, Report of the Working Group on Indigenous Populations on its 22nd Session, 56th sess, UN Doc E/CN.4/Sub.2/2004/28 (3 August 2004). Accessed at: UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, September 13, 2007. G.A. Resolution 61/295, U.N. Doc. A/RES/61/295 (2007). Accessed at: U.S. Department of State. \"Announcement of U.S. Support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples\" (January 12, 2011). Accessed at: U.S. Laws, States, Etc. \"An Act to Regulate Trade and Intercourse with the Indian Tribes...\" June 23d, 1790. Philadelphia. Printed by John Fenno. Accessed at: Footnotes [^1]: [1] in Prucha 2000, 12. [^2]: Fredricks 2017, 430-1; Ward 2011, 55-59; [^3]: Anaya in Human Rights Council 2018, 9 §23; [^3]: All arguments laid out in this section can be examined in more detailed in my dissertation: Piasta-Mansfield, Urszula. \"Seneca Nation's Lands and the Preemption Rights Doctrine: Exploring the Agency of the in-between Space of the Two Rows of Guswentah.\" 2012. [^5]: Miller 2010, 3-21; Williams 1990, 152-183; Lindley 1969, 24-44, 124-135; Economic and Social Council 2010, 6-10; Wilkins 2018. [^6]: Miller 2010, 2-7, 28-9; Kades 2000, 1075-1080; Banner 2005, 20-24, Blumm 2004, 715-716; [^7]: Kades 2000, 1105-7, 1118-25; Weaver 2003, 152-153, 139-140; Banner 2005, 15, 69-79; [^8]: Multiple sources speak to the way, the 'land market' operated and the role of land speculation in it. Here are a few of them: Weaver 2003, 53-65, 69-121, 141-175; Banner 2005, 18-19, 49-84; Taylor 2006, 15-45; Miller 2010, 28-30; [^9]: Banner 2005, 85-113, 161; Williams 1990, 236-238; Williams 1987, 170-172, 175-7; Kades 2000, 1115-1116; Miller 2010, 2-9; Weaver 2003, 142-143, 154-156; [^10]: Prucha 2000, 45, 143; Miller 2010, 31-34, 44; Banner 2005, 114-142; [^11]: Johnson v. M'Intosh, 1823; McNeil 1989, 216-229, 244-267; McNeil 2002, 502-505; Weaver 2003, 66, 180-1; Williams 1990, 312-313; Kades 2000, 1098, 1188; [^12]: Johnson v. M'Intosh, 1823; Blumm 2004, 738-741, 745-746; McNeil 1989, 221-235; McNeil 2002, 497-498, 501-502; Kades 2000, 1074, 1096-1097; Miller 2010, 54-56; Williams 1987 168, 191-2; Williams 1990, 312-316; Robertson 2005, 96-100; [^13]: Cherokee Nation v Georgia, 1831; McNeil 1989, 247, 252-253, 262; Banner 2005, 247-253; Blumm 2004, 744-745, 748-751, 761-766; Lindley 1969, 342; Wilkins and Adams 2019; [^14]: Brillman 2018, 34-38, 66-71; Iseli 2020, 272-275; Kinnison 2011, 1328-9; Owen and Kemp 2014; [^15]: Barelli 2018, 251-256 [^16]: O'Sullivan 2020, 73; on veto and prioritization of consultation over consent, see also: Fredricks 2016-2017, 439-41; Brillman 2018, 32-35; Kinnison 2011, 1326-1328; Morales 2019, 77 [^17]: U.S. Department of State, 2011; see also: Kinnison 2011, 1325-1326 [^18]: Memorandum on Tribal Consultation..., 2021; see also: Fredricks 2016-2017, 467-469 [^19]: For discussion on subversion of consent-based relationships, see: Wolfe 2006; Brillman 2018, 14; Wilkins and Adams 2019 [^20]: Brillman 2018, 20-27; Bareli 2018, 257-258; Ward 2011, 59-65, 83-84; [^21]: EarthJustice; Fredricks 2016-2017, 472-477 [^22]: Morales 2019, 80"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/indigenous-sacredness/",
    "title": "Indigenous Sacredness, Christendom and the Doctrine of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2024-05-08T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "The conversation I am much more interested in, and that I feel is important to have – is an open, and frank conversation about the role Christianity has played, and still plays in colonisation, the impacts of that history, how it continues to draw privilege from colonialism, how it reckons with these facts, and what its place should be in an anticolonial future.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "doctrine-of-discovery",
      "christianity",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "The conversation I am much more interested in, and that I feel is important to have – is an open, and frank conversation about the role Christianity has played, and still plays in colonisation, the impacts of that history, how it continues to draw privilege from colonialism, how it reckons with these facts, and what its place should be in an anticolonial future.",
    "externalUrl": "https://tinangata.com/2024/05/03/indigenous-sacredness-christendom-and-the-doctrine-of-discovery/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/indigenous-sovereignty-colonial-frameworks-aotearora-australia/",
    "title": "Indigenous Sovereignty and Colonial Frameworks: A Comparative Analysis of Aotearoa (New Zealand) and Australia",
    "publishedAt": "2024-11-21T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Indigenous resistance to colonial frameworks in settler-colonial states like Aotearoa (New Zealand) and Australia reveals an enduring tension between the desire for self-determination and the constraints of colonial structures.",
    "tags": [
      "featured",
      "doctrineofdiscovery",
      "australia",
      "aotearora",
      "new-zealand",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": ".embed-container { position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.25%; height: 0; overflow: hidden; max-width: 100%; } .embed-container iframe, .embed-container object, .embed-container embed { position: absolute; top: 0; left: 0; width: 100%; height: 100%; } Indigenous Sovereignty and Colonial Frameworks: A Comparative Analysis of Aotearoa (New Zealand) and Australia ============================================================================================================== Indigenous resistance to colonial frameworks in settler-colonial states like Aotearoa (New Zealand) and Australia reveals an enduring tension between the desire for self-determination and the constraints of colonial structures. Key Indigenous Members of Parliament like Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke in Aotearoa and Senator Lidia Thorpe in Australia serve as vocal symbols of this resistance, inspiring future generations to question and challenge the systems of governance that have historically marginalized them.[^1] This paper explores their actions, critiques the Voice to Parliament in Australia comparatively, and examines Indigenous parliamentary representation in Aotearoa, analysing how colonialism continues to shape Indigenous engagement with state structures.[^2] The Doctrine of Discovery and Its Legacy The Doctrine of Discovery was a legal and philosophical principle used by European colonial powers in the 15th century to justify the domination and dehumanization of non-European lands and peoples.[^3] Its application remains deeply embedded in contemporary legal systems in both Aotearoa and Australia, where Indigenous peoples continue to navigate state-sanctioned structures that undermine their sovereignty.[^4] In Aotearoa, Crown sovereignty asserted through the Treaty of Waitangi (English version) has often marginalized Māori self-determination, as seen in cases like Wi Parata v Bishop of Wellington (1877). In Australia, the doctrine underpinned terra nullius for over 200 years, and later challenged by Mabo v Queensland (1992)[^5] (hereafter Mabo), which recognized Native Title but upheld Crown sovereignty. Both Native Title and the Voice to Parliament demonstrate how colonial legacies (from the Doctrine) persist in modern frameworks, granting limited recognition but withholding true sovereignty. For example: a. Native Title in Australia The Mabo decision (1992) provided a legal basis for Native Title by recognizing the pre-existing land rights of Indigenous peoples. However, this recognition is limited, as it operates within the colonial framework that insists on the Crown's sovereignty.[^6] The doctrine's continued influence on land rights laws reinforces Indigenous peoples' status as subjects under settler rule, rather than as independent sovereign entities.[^7] b. Voice to Parliament The Voice to Parliament proposal in Australia represents another example of colonial logic. Its purpose - to provide Indigenous people with an advisory role - frames Indigenous voices as subordinate to the existing colonial state.[^8] Critics, including Lidia Thorpe, argue that such measures perpetuate colonial inferior thinking, offering inclusion but no meaningful sovereignty. Instead of empowering self-determination, the Voice risks becoming a token gesture that reinforces the power of the Crown and the Australian Constitution, which were both shaped by colonial doctrines.[^9] State systems founded on colonial doctrines prioritize Western legal frameworks over Indigenous laws, limiting self-determination.[^10] Calls for change focus on recognizing Indigenous sovereignty, integrating Indigenous governance, and dismantling colonial structures. Indigenous peoples continue to face significant challenges as they engage with legal, political, and social systems that were historically designed to entrench colonial dominance.[^11] These systems often perpetuate unequal power dynamics by prioritizing the interests of the state and settler populations while simultaneously denying Indigenous communities meaningful self-determination, decision-making authority, and control over their lands, cultures, and futures. This dynamic forces Indigenous peoples to operate within frameworks that inherently limit their autonomy and reinforce systemic inequalities. Maipi-Clarke's Protest: The Limits of Working Within Colonial Systems Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke's protest in Aotearoa is a vivid expression of the limitationsIndigenous peoples face when attempting to engage with colonial frameworks.[^12] As the youngest member of Aotearoa's Parliament, Maipi-Clarke symbolized hope for Māori political representation. Yet her powerful response, tearing up the Treaty Principles Bill and performing the haka (with others), was a rejection of a legislative proposal that, in her view, continued to undermine Māori sovereignty.[^13] The Treaty of Waitangi, originally intended as a covenant between Māori and the Crown, has been consistently undermined by the Crown's actions.[^14] Despite its promises of partnership and respect for Māori autonomy, the Treaty has been manipulated to justify colonial control over Māori land, culture, and governance.[^15] Maipi-Clarke's protest was not just a response to the specific bill but a broader critique of the entire colonial system that Māori continue to be subjected to within Aotearoa's political structures. Her actions echo the resistance of Indigenous people globally, who also protest against agreements that ostensibly recognize their rights while maintaining systemic inequalities that favour dominant colonial powers. Lidia Thorpe's Protest: Rejecting Colonial Sovereignty Lidia Thorpe's protest against King Charles III during his visit to Australia in 2024 serves as a powerful symbolic act of resistance.[^16] Thorpe, a prominent advocate for the Blak Sovereign Movement, yelled at the King, declaring, \"You are not our sovereign, it is not your land\", amongst other demands.[^17]  This undaunting statement directly challenges the colonial authority of the British Crown, which remains a symbol of continued colonial domination in Australia.[^18] Thorpe's actions underscore her rejection of the Voice to Parliament, which she sees as another form of colonial control.[^19] In her view, the Voice does not offer Indigenous peoples true self-determination; rather, it provides a platform for consultation without the power to enact change. Thorpe's critique of the Voice, like the broader Indigenous push for sovereignty, reflects a demand for equality and autonomy that challenges colonial systems designed to maintain dominance.[^20] Indigenous Parliamentary Representation: Aotearoa's (New Zealand) Reserved Seats vs. Australia's Voice A significant point of comparison between Aotearoa and Australia lies in the political structures that represent Indigenous peoples. Aotearoa has long allowed Māori representation in Parliament through reserved Māori seats, which were first established in 1867.[^21] These seats provide Māori MPs with the full powers of parliamentary representation, including the ability to vote on and shape legislation. While the seats remain part of a colonial framework, they offer a tangible form of political power within the system, allowing Māori to directly influence laws that affect them.[^22] In contrast, the Voice to Parliament in Australia offers Indigenous peoples an advisory role but no legislative power.[^23]  The proposal reflects a colonial mindset that views Indigenous peoples as subjects of consultation rather than as full participants in governance.[^24] Both situations illustrate how systems of governance built on colonial frameworks perpetuate inequality by denying Indigenous people's full sovereignty and political agency. Indigenous Sovereignty Both Maipi-Clarke's protest and Thorpe's rejection of the Voice and denouncing of the King, reflect a broader movement calling for Indigenous sovereignty, the right of Indigenous peoples to govern themselves according to their own laws, traditions, and practices, free from colonial domination.[^25] Sovereignty is not just a path to self-determination; it is also a demand for sovereign recognition, challenging systems that grant symbolic recognition while maintaining structural inequalities. These actions highlight the ongoing resistance to the Doctrine of Discovery, which remains a cornerstone of colonial legal and political frameworks.[^26] True decolonization requires dismantling these structures and embracing Indigenous governance systems that respect and uphold Indigenous worldviews.[^27] By calling for sovereignty, leaders like Maipi-Clarke and Thorpe inspire future generations of Indigenous youth, to assert their rights and resist colonial power. The protests by Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke and Lidia Thorpe offer critical insights into the limitations of working within colonial frameworks. Both leaders challenge the idea that true justice for Indigenous peoples can be achieved by merely participating in or being consulted by colonial systems. Instead, they advocate for a complete rethinking of governance that centres Indigenous sovereignty and self-determination. The Voice to Parliament, like Native Title, offers inclusion without power, and as such, it risks perpetuating colonial dominance. By rejecting these systems, Maipi-Clarke and Thorpe call for a future where Indigenous peoples - and all those resisting colonial oppression - are free to govern their own lands and lives. Bibliography Alfred, T. (2009). Peace, power, righteousness: An Indigenous manifesto (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. Bargh, M. (2023). Aotearoa and Indigenous politics: Challenges and possibilities. Wellington: Huia Publishers. Briskman, L., & McDonald, C. (2019). Colonial continuities: Indigenous governance and the limits of reconciliation. Social Alternatives, 38(1), 29-34. Cocks, K. (2020). The enduring shadow of the Doctrine of Discovery in Australian law and politics. Indigenous Law Bulletin, 12(1), 15-19. Fitzmaurice, A. (2010). Sovereignty, property, and empire, 1500--2000. Cambridge University Press. McIvor, B. (2020). Stories of Indigenous sovereignty: Law, politics, and resistance. Vancouver: UBC Press. Moreton-Robinson, A. (2021). The white possessive: Property, power, and Indigenous sovereignty. University of Minnesota Press. Newcomb, Steven T, (2008), Pagan in the Promised Land: Decoding the Doctrine of Christian Discovery, Fulcrum Publishing. Newcomb, Steven T (Sept 2018) Indigenous sovereignty and Political Subordination of our Nations, at Reynolds, H. (2021). Truth-telling: History, sovereignty, and the Uluru Statement. New South Publishing. Shaw, J. (2023). Treaty justice: Māori resistance and the future of the Treaty of Waitangi. Auckland University Press. Thorpe, L. (2023). Black sovereignty: A manifesto for change. Melbourne: Black Books Press. Thorpe, L. (2024). Public protest during King Charles III's visit to Australia. The Guardian Australia. Retrieved from Tully, J. (2007). Public philosophy in a new key: Democracy and civic freedom. Cambridge University Press. Watson, Irene (2015) Aboriginal Peoples, Colonialism, and International Law: Raw Law, Routledge. Ward, A. (2012). A show of justice: Racial 'amalgamation' in nineteenth century New Zealand. Auckland University Press. Webb, Jill (2002) Indigenous Peoples and the Right to Self-determination, Journal of Indigenous Policy -- Issue 13 at Works Cited [^1]: Tully, 2007. [^2]: Alfred, 2009; McIvor, 2020. [^3]: Newcomb 2008; Fitzmaurice, 2010. [^4]: Cocks, 2020. [^5]: Mabo v Queensland (No 2) [1992] HCA 23; (1992) 175 CLR 1. [^6]: Reynolds, 2021. [^7]: Watson 2015: Briskman & McDonald, 2019. [^8]: Thorpe, 2023. [^9]: Moreton-Robinson, 2021; Alfred, 2009. [^10]: Webb 2002. [^11]: Newcombe 2018. [^12]: Bargh, 2023. [^13]: Shaw, 2023. [^14]: Ward, 2012. [^15]: Shaw, 2023. [^16]: Thorpe, 2024. [^17]: Thorpe, 2024. [^18]: Alfred, 2009. [^19]: Moreton-Robinson, 2021. [^20]: Thorpe, 2023. [^21]: Ward, 2012. [^22]: Shaw, 2023. [^23]: Briskman & McDonald, 2019. [^24]: Moreton-Robinson, 2021. [^25]: Alfred, 2009; McIvor, 2020. [^26]: Fitzmaurice, 2010. [^27]: Alfred, 2009."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/ipdfestival24/",
    "title": "Indigenous People’s Day Festival",
    "publishedAt": "2024-09-26T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Onondaga Nation – On Sunday, October 13, 2024, join Onondaga community members, Tsha’ Thoñ’nhes management, We of Italian and Syracuse Heritage in CNY, and Neighbors of the Onondaga Nation/Syracuse Peace Council for this year’s Indigenous Peoples’ Day Festival on unceded Onondaga Nation land, at Tsha’ Thoñ’nhes, 3370 Route 11A, Onondaga Nation.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Onondaga Nation – On Sunday, October 13, 2024, join Onondaga community members, Tsha’ Thoñ’nhes management, We of Italian and Syracuse Heritage in CNY, and Neighbors of the Onondaga Nation/Syracuse Peace Council for this year’s Indigenous Peoples’ Day Festival on unceded Onondaga Nation land, at Tsha’ Thoñ’nhes, 3370 Route 11A, Onondaga Nation.",
    "externalUrl": "https://www.onondaganation.org/events/2024/indigenous-peoples-day-festival/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/jcreor/link/jcreor-bankruptcy/",
    "title": "The Bankruptcy of the Category of Religion: A Decolonizing Approach",
    "publishedAt": "2025-03-06T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Abstract This article takes as its point of departure the 2022 Interim Report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, entitled “Indigenous Peoples and the Right to Freedom of Religion or Belief.” The report recommends “collaborat[ing] with indigenous spiritual leaders and influencers to support conservation efforts and the sustainable development of traditional lands  through a human rights-based approach .” We ask what a human-rights-based approach to the conservation and sustainable development of traditional Indigenous lands looks like. More specifically, would such an approach be in line with the worldviews of the Indigenous peoples potentially affected by such conservation or development? We consider these questions both legally and theologically. We acknowledge that the protection of human rights is better than their violation, but we also take seriously critiques of this standard human rights discourse. We argue that case studies such as Oak Flat, Lake Titicaca, and the Klamath River call us away from abstract affirmations of the human right to religious freedom and toward a rights-of-nature framework – even as we consider critiques of this framework as well. Ultimately, both Western legal discourse and Western religious studies discourse reduce Indigenous cosmologies (which are metaphysical systems) into cultural debates, thus erasing the sovereignty of Indigenous lands and peoples. A decolonizing approach therefore requires a rethinking of the sacred. Author Biographies Cecilia Titizano, Santa Clara University Maria Cecilia Titizano La Fuente earned an MS in International and Agricultural Development from UC-Davis and an M.T.S. in Theological Studies from the Franciscan School of Theology. A native of Bolivia, Titizano recently completed her Ph.D. in Systematic and Philosophical Theology from Graduate Theological Union. Her transdisciplinary research focuses on indigenous philosophies and spiritualities, feminist epistemology, and decoloniality. Currently, she is working on indigenous feminist theologies and decolonial intercultural hermeneutics. Titizano is a constructive comparative theologian. She specializes in Indigenous thought and Christian theology with an emphasis on Trinitarian pneumatology, feminist and liberationist theologies. She currently serves as a Board Member for Memoria Indígena, a Latin American organization dedicated to “recognize and remember indigenous Christians’ memories in Abya Yala,” and is member of the Comunidad de Teólogas Indígenas del Abya Yala.  Dana Lloyd, Villanova University Dana Lloyd, PhD, joined Villanova University as assistant professor of Global Interdisciplinary Studies in fall 2021. A scholar of law, religion, and indigeneity, she has an article, “ Storytelling and the High Country: Reading Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association ,” in the forthcoming issue of  Journal of Law and Religion , as well as an article “ Law, Religion, and Paradoxes of Sovereignty ,” which serves as an introduction to a symposium she guest-edited, in the forthcoming issue of  Political Theology . She also has two chapters in the forthcoming edited volume  Indigenous Religious Traditions in Five Minutes  (Equinix, 2022): “Is Indigenous Law Religious?” and “What is a Land-Based Religious Tradition?” Her recent public scholarship includes “ Native American Religious Freedom After Trump ,” “ Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Nonhuman Environment ” and “ The Coloniality of Wilderness. ” She is the curator of a forthcoming symposium on Kathleen Sands’  America’s Religious Wars .",
    "tags": [
      "Law",
      "religion",
      "values",
      "indigenous",
      "journal",
      "jcreor",
      "featured",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "Abstract This article takes as its point of departure the 2022 Interim Report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, entitled \"Indigenous Peoples and the Right to Freedom of Religion or Belief.\" The report recommends \"collaborat[ing] with indigenous spiritual leaders and influencers to support conservation efforts and the sustainable development of traditional lands through a human rights-based approach.\" We ask what a human-rights-based approach to the conservation and sustainable development of traditional Indigenous lands looks like. More specifically, would such an approach be in line with the worldviews of the Indigenous peoples potentially affected by such conservation or development? We consider these questions both legally and theologically. We acknowledge that the protection of human rights is better than their violation, but we also take seriously critiques of this standard human rights discourse. We argue that case studies such as Oak Flat, Lake Titicaca, and the Klamath River call us away from abstract affirmations of the human right to religious freedom and toward a rights-of-nature framework -- even as we consider critiques of this framework as well. Ultimately, both Western legal discourse and Western religious studies discourse reduce Indigenous cosmologies (which are metaphysical systems) into cultural debates, thus erasing the sovereignty of Indigenous lands and peoples. A decolonizing approach therefore requires a rethinking of the sacred. Author Biographies Cecilia Titizano, Santa Clara University Maria Cecilia Titizano La Fuente earned an MS in International and Agricultural Development from UC-Davis and an M.T.S. in Theological Studies from the Franciscan School of Theology. A native of Bolivia, Titizano recently completed her Ph.D. in Systematic and Philosophical Theology from Graduate Theological Union. Her transdisciplinary research focuses on indigenous philosophies and spiritualities, feminist epistemology, and decoloniality. Currently, she is working on indigenous feminist theologies and decolonial intercultural hermeneutics. Titizano is a constructive comparative theologian. She specializes in Indigenous thought and Christian theology with an emphasis on Trinitarian pneumatology, feminist and liberationist theologies. She currently serves as a Board Member for Memoria Indígena, a Latin American organization dedicated to \"recognize and remember indigenous Christians' memories in Abya Yala,\" and is member of the Comunidad de Teólogas Indígenas del Abya Yala.  Dana Lloyd, Villanova University Dana Lloyd, PhD, joined Villanova University as assistant professor of Global Interdisciplinary Studies in fall 2021. A scholar of law, religion, and indigeneity, she has an article, \"Storytelling and the High Country: Reading Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association,\" in the forthcoming issue of Journal of Law and Religion, as well as an article \"Law, Religion, and Paradoxes of Sovereignty,\" which serves as an introduction to a symposium she guest-edited, in the forthcoming issue of Political Theology. She also has two chapters in the forthcoming edited volume Indigenous Religious Traditions in Five Minutes (Equinix, 2022): \"Is Indigenous Law Religious?\" and \"What is a Land-Based Religious Tradition?\" Her recent public scholarship includes \"Native American Religious Freedom After Trump,\" \"Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Nonhuman Environment\" and \"The Coloniality of Wilderness.\" She is the curator of a forthcoming symposium on Kathleen Sands' America's Religious Wars.",
    "externalUrl": "https://creor-ejournal.library.mcgill.ca/article/view/116"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/jcreor/link/jcreor-comments/",
    "title": "Comments Delivered to the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief",
    "publishedAt": "2025-03-05T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Comments delivered as part of the “Virtual Consultation on Legal Framework: Indigenous Peoples and the Right to Freedom of Religion or Belief,” held June 22, 2022. For details on the Special Rapporteur’s report, see Ahmed Shaheed, “Interim Report of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief. Indigenous Peoples and the Right to Freedom of Religion or Belief” (New York: United Nations, October 10, 2022), https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/a77514-interim-report-special-rapporteur-freedom-religion-or-belief .",
    "tags": [
      "Law",
      "religion",
      "values",
      "indigenous",
      "journal",
      "jcreor",
      "featured",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "Comments delivered as part of the “Virtual Consultation on Legal Framework: Indigenous Peoples and the Right to Freedom of Religion or Belief,” held June 22, 2022. For details on the Special Rapporteur’s report, see Ahmed Shaheed, “Interim Report of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief. Indigenous Peoples and the Right to Freedom of Religion or Belief” (New York: United Nations, October 10, 2022), .",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcreor/essay2/comments/",
    "externalUrl": "https://creor-ejournal.library.mcgill.ca/article/view/114"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/jcreor/link/jcreor-from-indigenous-religions-to-indigenous-values/",
    "title": "Editorial Address & Advisory Board",
    "publishedAt": "2025-03-01T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Abstract The second issue of volume five of the  Journal of the Council for Research on Religion  (JCREOR) is a special issue,   From   Indigenous ‘Religions’ to Indigenous Values . Planned and realized in collaboration with Philip P. Arnold (Syracuse University), the Indigenous Values Initiative (IVI), and the American Indian Law Alliance (AILA), this volume offers a collection of responses and articles that speak to the themes and tensions noted in the Report on Indigenous Religious Freedom or Belief, presented by the United Nation’s Office of the External Special Rapporteur on Religious Freedom or Belief, which we have gained special permission to republish here in full. This issue provides input on the report but also examines the restrictions and limitations imposed by the categories of religion and/or belief when working with Indigenous nations and communities. The responses to Special Rapporteur Ahmed Shaheed’s report discuss not only the usefulness of the categories of religion and belief but also their limitations, which hinder much-needed discussions about Indigenous values and sovereignty. The articles address the historical injustices faced by Indigenous nations and communities in the name of religious freedom, the need for decolonial approaches to the study of religion, and the colonial tensions created by the categories of religious freedom and belief and their relationship to the Doctrine of Christian Discovery. The issue concludes with a reflection by the Special Rapporteur.",
    "tags": [
      "Law",
      "religion",
      "values",
      "indigenous",
      "journal",
      "jcreor",
      "featured",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "Abstract The second issue of volume five of the Journal of the Council for Research on Religion (JCREOR) is a special issue,  From Indigenous 'Religions' to Indigenous Values. Planned and realized in collaboration with Philip P. Arnold (Syracuse University), the Indigenous Values Initiative (IVI), and the American Indian Law Alliance (AILA), this volume offers a collection of responses and articles that speak to the themes and tensions noted in the Report on Indigenous Religious Freedom or Belief, presented by the United Nation's Office of the External Special Rapporteur on Religious Freedom or Belief, which we have gained special permission to republish here in full. This issue provides input on the report but also examines the restrictions and limitations imposed by the categories of religion and/or belief when working with Indigenous nations and communities. The responses to Special Rapporteur Ahmed Shaheed's report discuss not only the usefulness of the categories of religion and belief but also their limitations, which hinder much-needed discussions about Indigenous values and sovereignty. The articles address the historical injustices faced by Indigenous nations and communities in the name of religious freedom, the need for decolonial approaches to the study of religion, and the colonial tensions created by the categories of religious freedom and belief and their relationship to the Doctrine of Christian Discovery. The issue concludes with a reflection by the Special Rapporteur.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcreor/essay1/editorial/",
    "externalUrl": "https://creor-ejournal.library.mcgill.ca/article/view/107"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/jcreor/link/jcreor-intellectual/",
    "title": "Intellectual Acknowledgement in Favour of Religious Freedom and Justice: Comparative History of Religions and Ideas as Methodology for Education",
    "publishedAt": "2025-03-08T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Abstract This succinct essay addresses the issue of freedom of religion for Indigenous cultures. Freedom of belief cannot subsist without justice, i.e. equal recognition. By ignoring the intellectual achievements of Indigenous and other non-Western philosophies and non-Christian religions, scholarship (in the humanities and social sciences, as well as in interrelated education in schools, colleges, and universities) constitutes an important reason for the depreciation of freedom of religious beliefs and, thereby, injustice. I argue that the scientific and pedagogical methodology of the comparative history of religions (developed by theorists of the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries and continued and elaborated by non-Indigenous and Indigenous scholars and educators) should be included in education at schools, colleges, and universities to combat this structural inequity. A historical consciousness of intellectual culture worldwide would not only have an impact on contemporary Indigenous cultures, but also on cultures with an Indigenous heritage (as, for instance, Latino and Chicano cultures of the United States), and would contest antisemitism and prejudice against Islam. To exemplify the history of intellectual and religious multiplicity and complexity, I mention traditions of (ritual) time, writing and semiotic systems, moral ideas, political principles, and the (constitutional) governance of a few selected Indigenous cultures of the American continent to be further researched by Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars, and to be taught in schools and academia. Finally, I offer concrete recommendations for what is to be done for this new historiography. Author Biography Lars Kirkhusmo Pharo, Nord University Lars Kirkhusmo Pharo (Magister Artium and Doctor Artium) is a historian of religions and ideas with special interests in the American continent. He is professor of religions and ethics at Nord University and Research Associate at The Raphael and Fletcher Lee Moses Mesoamerican Archive and Research Project (MMARP), under the direction of Professor Davíd Carrasco, currently residing at Harvard University.",
    "tags": [
      "Law",
      "religion",
      "values",
      "indigenous",
      "journal",
      "jcreor",
      "featured",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "Abstract This succinct essay addresses the issue of freedom of religion for Indigenous cultures. Freedom of belief cannot subsist without justice, i.e. equal recognition. By ignoring the intellectual achievements of Indigenous and other non-Western philosophies and non-Christian religions, scholarship (in the humanities and social sciences, as well as in interrelated education in schools, colleges, and universities) constitutes an important reason for the depreciation of freedom of religious beliefs and, thereby, injustice. I argue that the scientific and pedagogical methodology of the comparative history of religions (developed by theorists of the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries and continued and elaborated by non-Indigenous and Indigenous scholars and educators) should be included in education at schools, colleges, and universities to combat this structural inequity. A historical consciousness of intellectual culture worldwide would not only have an impact on contemporary Indigenous cultures, but also on cultures with an Indigenous heritage (as, for instance, Latino and Chicano cultures of the United States), and would contest antisemitism and prejudice against Islam. To exemplify the history of intellectual and religious multiplicity and complexity, I mention traditions of (ritual) time, writing and semiotic systems, moral ideas, political principles, and the (constitutional) governance of a few selected Indigenous cultures of the American continent to be further researched by Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars, and to be taught in schools and academia. Finally, I offer concrete recommendations for what is to be done for this new historiography. Author Biography Lars Kirkhusmo Pharo, Nord University Lars Kirkhusmo Pharo (Magister Artium and Doctor Artium) is a historian of religions and ideas with special interests in the American continent. He is professor of religions and ethics at Nord University and Research Associate at The Raphael and Fletcher Lee Moses Mesoamerican Archive and Research Project (MMARP), under the direction of Professor Davíd Carrasco, currently residing at Harvard University.",
    "externalUrl": "https://creor-ejournal.library.mcgill.ca/article/view/124"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/jcreor/link/jcreor-interim-report/",
    "title": "Interim Report of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief",
    "publishedAt": "2025-03-03T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "In the present report, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Ahmed Shaheed, initiates a critical conversation within the United Nations system and beyond on obstacles and opportunities facing indigenous peoples’ freedom of religion or belief – a largely overlooked subject. Understanding indigenous peoples and their diverse religions or beliefs is impossible without acknowledging historical and ongoing experiences of discrimination, violence and hostility, which threaten their spiritual, cultural and physical survival. The Special Rapporteur explores “indigenous spirituality” as a typically nature-based “way of life”, documents experiences of affected rights holders – from forced displacement to environmental destruction – and provides recommendations to protect and promote the freedom of religion or belief of indigenous peoples, consistent with international law.",
    "tags": [
      "Law",
      "religion",
      "values",
      "indigenous",
      "journal",
      "jcreor",
      "featured",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "In the present report, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Ahmed Shaheed, initiates a critical conversation within the United Nations system and beyond on obstacles and opportunities facing indigenous peoples’ freedom of religion or belief – a largely overlooked subject. Understanding indigenous peoples and their diverse religions or beliefs is impossible without acknowledging historical and ongoing experiences of discrimination, violence and hostility, which threaten their spiritual, cultural and physical survival. The Special Rapporteur explores “indigenous spirituality” as a typically nature-based “way of life”, documents experiences of affected rights holders – from forced displacement to environmental destruction – and provides recommendations to protect and promote the freedom of religion or belief of indigenous peoples, consistent with international law.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcreor/essay2/interim/",
    "externalUrl": "https://creor-ejournal.library.mcgill.ca/article/view/110"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/jcreor/link/jcreor-ivi-aila/",
    "title": "Indigenous Values Initiative Together with the American Indian Law Alliance Submits this Report: The Territorial Integrity of Mother Earth, Indigenous Peoples, and the Right to Freedom of Religion or Belief",
    "publishedAt": "2025-03-04T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "The present report is the input provided by the Indigenous Values Initiative (IVI) and American Indian Law Alliance (AILA) in response to the new report drafted in 2022 by Ahmed Shaheed, the Special Rapporteur on Religious Freedom or Belief.",
    "tags": [
      "Law",
      "religion",
      "values",
      "indigenous",
      "journal",
      "jcreor",
      "featured",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "The present report is the input provided by the Indigenous Values Initiative (IVI) and American Indian Law Alliance (AILA) in response to the new report drafted in 2022 by Ahmed Shaheed, the Special Rapporteur on Religious Freedom or Belief.",
    "externalUrl": "https://creor-ejournal.library.mcgill.ca/article/view/113"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/jcreor/link/jcreor-learning-looking/",
    "title": "Learning From Reflection and Looking to the Future",
    "publishedAt": "2025-03-10T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Two Years on from the UN Report on Freedom of Religion or Belief and Indigenous Peoples",
    "tags": [
      "Law",
      "religion",
      "values",
      "indigenous",
      "journal",
      "jcreor",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "Abstract The following article discusses the UN Special Interim Report and its significance to the rights of Indigenous Peoples. The article reviews how the UN Special Interim Report of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief has been used as a critical tool for promoting and protecting the rights of Indigenous Peoples globally by emphasizing the need for meaningful engagement with Indigenous individuals and communities in decision-making processes, notably on issues that affect their traditional lands, waters and resources and their spiritual practices. The article also discusses how the UN Special Interim Report was developed through extensive consultations with Indigenous Peoples, community groups, and various stakeholders with the scope of revealing the challenges faced by Indigenous Peoples. Finally, the article will reflect upon the positive responses generated by the Report and the ongoing discourse to encourage further engagement with the findings. Author Biographies Ahmed Shaheed, University of Essex Dr. Shaheed is Professor of International Human Rights Law in the School of Law and Human Rights Centre at the University of Essex. He directs the Human Rights Centre's Religion and Equality Project, Project on Mobilising A Global Alliance to Counter islamophobia, and the Essex Summer School on Human Rights Research and Practice. He serves as an adviser on 'hate speech' to the United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and is a member of the Panel of Experts on Freedom of Religion or Belief convened by the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe. He served as the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief from 2016 to 2022 having previously served as the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in Iran from 2011 to 2016. Hailing from the Maldives, Ahmed served as Foreign Minister of Maldives between 2005 and 2010, member of the Constitutional Assembly from 2004 to 2007, and led the government's efforts to fast-track human rights and governance reforms between 2003 and 2007, which led to the transition to democracy in 2008. He is the founding chair of the Geneva-based think-tank, Universal Rights Group and is a Senior Fellow of the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights in Montreal. Jennifer Tridgell, University of Cambridge Jennifer Tridgell is an Australian public international lawyer, with particular expertise in human rights, international dispute settlement and diplomacy. She works as an Independent Consultant and a PhD Candidate at the University of Cambridge as a prestigious Ramsay World Postgraduate Scholar. Previously, Jennifer served as Senior Legal Advisor to the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief (External Office), Dr Ahmed Shaheed, where she advised on activities that increased impact and visibility of his global mandate and led on research and development of his official reports, including on Indigenous Peoples. Jennifer is well-versed in human rights and other international law issues across different jurisdictions, having worked for leading international firms, international and domestic judges, National Human Rights Institutions and several human rights organisations across the Asia-Pacific region, including those furthering rights of Indigenous Peoples.",
    "externalUrl": "https://creor-ejournal.library.mcgill.ca/article/view/126"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/jcreor/link/jcreor-limits/",
    "title": "On the Limits of the Concept of Religious Freedom in Indigenous Communities",
    "publishedAt": "2025-03-07T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Abstract In this essay, we will argue that firstly, the international and national legal framings of religion or belief are limited in scope, and one must ask not only religious freedom  for whom  but also  from whom . Secondly, we will underscore the continued limitations of international human rights-based discourse. Why are Indigenous nations consistently excluded from rights-based discourses? We have the UN Declaration on Human Rights (UNDHR), the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNPFII), the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (EMRIP), this new report, and so many other reports. We will ask at what stage we move from declarations and reports to protecting and supporting Indigenous nations and peoples. Thirdly, building on the limitations of rights-based reporting, we will highlight what this report gets right and invite activists, lawyers, scholars, and all folks to take up and read the report and follow up on the elements we believe to be most salient. Finally, we will conclude by offering an alternative to declarations that support Indigenous nations and peoples’ inherent right to sovereignty. Our conclusion emphasizes Faithkeeper Lyons’ urgent message, “The Ice is Melting in the North,” and provides a framework for how people could respond by explaining the Two Row Wampum treaty and the Two Row Wampum Method. Author Biographies Adam DJ Brett, Syracuse University Adam DJ Brett earned his PhD in Religious Studies from Syracuse University. He is an Operations Manager and International Research Associate with the American Indian Law Alliance (AILA). Additionally, he is the grant and event coordinator for the Doctrine of Discovery Project at Syracuse University with Professor Philip P. Arnold, who is the Principal Investigator. The project is funded in part by the Henry Luce Grant “200 Years of Johnson v. McIntosh.” Betty Hill (Lyons), American Indian Law Alliance Betty Lyons, President & Executive Director of the American Indian Law Alliance (AILA), is an Indigenous and environmental activist and citizen of the Onondaga Nation. Betty has worked for the Onondaga Nation for over 20 years. Ms. Lyons serves as a member of the Haudenosaunee External Relations Committee and has been an active participant at the annual United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) since the first session in 2001 as a delegate of the Onondaga Nation. Betty attended Cazenovia College and is a Bryant Stratton College Graduate of the Paralegal Program. In 2023 she received an honorary degree from Onondaga Community College (OCC) in honor of her advocacy. In 2024 she received a lifetime achievement award from the NYC Bar Association for her work advocating for Indigenous nations and peoples.",
    "tags": [
      "Law",
      "religion",
      "values",
      "indigenous",
      "journal",
      "jcreor",
      "featured",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "Abstract In this essay, we will argue that firstly, the international and national legal framings of religion or belief are limited in scope, and one must ask not only religious freedom for whom but also from whom. Secondly, we will underscore the continued limitations of international human rights-based discourse. Why are Indigenous nations consistently excluded from rights-based discourses? We have the UN Declaration on Human Rights (UNDHR), the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNPFII), the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (EMRIP), this new report, and so many other reports. We will ask at what stage we move from declarations and reports to protecting and supporting Indigenous nations and peoples. Thirdly, building on the limitations of rights-based reporting, we will highlight what this report gets right and invite activists, lawyers, scholars, and all folks to take up and read the report and follow up on the elements we believe to be most salient. Finally, we will conclude by offering an alternative to declarations that support Indigenous nations and peoples' inherent right to sovereignty. Our conclusion emphasizes Faithkeeper Lyons' urgent message, \"The Ice is Melting in the North,\" and provides a framework for how people could respond by explaining the Two Row Wampum treaty and the Two Row Wampum Method. Author Biographies Adam DJ Brett, Syracuse University Adam DJ Brett earned his PhD in Religious Studies from Syracuse University. He is an Operations Manager and International Research Associate with the American Indian Law Alliance (AILA). Additionally, he is the grant and event coordinator for the Doctrine of Discovery Project at Syracuse University with Professor Philip P. Arnold, who is the Principal Investigator. The project is funded in part by the Henry Luce Grant \"200 Years of Johnson v. McIntosh.\" Betty Hill (Lyons), American Indian Law Alliance Betty Lyons, President & Executive Director of the American Indian Law Alliance (AILA), is an Indigenous and environmental activist and citizen of the Onondaga Nation. Betty has worked for the Onondaga Nation for over 20 years. Ms. Lyons serves as a member of the Haudenosaunee External Relations Committee and has been an active participant at the annual United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) since the first session in 2001 as a delegate of the Onondaga Nation. Betty attended Cazenovia College and is a Bryant Stratton College Graduate of the Paralegal Program. In 2023 she received an honorary degree from Onondaga Community College (OCC) in honor of her advocacy. In 2024 she received a lifetime achievement award from the NYC Bar Association for her work advocating for Indigenous nations and peoples.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcreor/essay2/limits/",
    "externalUrl": "https://creor-ejournal.library.mcgill.ca/article/view/117"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/jcreor/link/jcreor-preface-introduction/",
    "title": "Preface and Introduction: From Indigenous Religions to Indigenous Values Vol. 5 No. 2",
    "publishedAt": "2025-03-02T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Abstract The Office of the External Special Rapporteur on Religious Freedom or Belief contacted Philip P. Arnold, the Indigenous Values Initiative (IVI), and the American Indian Law Alliance (AILA), and asked us to join a call to give input on a new report on Indigenous Religious Freedom or Belief. Numerous Indigenous NGOs, Indigenous nations, and leaders were on the call. The Special Rapporteur Ahmed Shaheed and his staff were most receptive to the feedback given and received. In this special issue, you will find a copy of the report and a copy of the input provided by the IVI and AILA, as well as from our friends and colleagues Michael McNally, Lars Pharo, Dana Lloyd and Cecilia Titizano. This is a representative sample of the inputs collected for the report.",
    "tags": [
      "Law",
      "religion",
      "values",
      "indigenous",
      "journal",
      "jcreor",
      "featured",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "Abstract The Office of the External Special Rapporteur on Religious Freedom or Belief contacted Philip P. Arnold, the Indigenous Values Initiative (IVI), and the American Indian Law Alliance (AILA), and asked us to join a call to give input on a new report on Indigenous Religious Freedom or Belief. Numerous Indigenous NGOs, Indigenous nations, and leaders were on the call. The Special Rapporteur Ahmed Shaheed and his staff were most receptive to the feedback given and received. In this special issue, you will find a copy of the report and a copy of the input provided by the IVI and AILA, as well as from our friends and colleagues Michael McNally, Lars Pharo, Dana Lloyd and Cecilia Titizano. This is a representative sample of the inputs collected for the report.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcreor/essay1/intro/",
    "externalUrl": "https://creor-ejournal.library.mcgill.ca/article/view/108"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/jcreor/link/jcreor-remarks/",
    "title": "Remarks on the Freedom of Religion or Belief Report",
    "publishedAt": "2025-03-09T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Abstract Remarks delivered at the forum “Freedom of Religion or Belief for Indigenous Peoples: The 2022 UN Report,” at the Center for Earth Ethics at Union Theological Seminary on October 26, 2022. This forum discussed human rights questions, including alternative approaches for improving the effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.",
    "tags": [
      "Law",
      "religion",
      "values",
      "indigenous",
      "journal",
      "jcreor",
      "featured",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "Abstract Remarks delivered at the forum \"Freedom of Religion or Belief for Indigenous Peoples: The 2022 UN Report,\" at the Center for Earth Ethics at Union Theological Seminary on October 26, 2022. This forum discussed human rights questions, including alternative approaches for improving the effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcreor/essay2/remarks/",
    "externalUrl": "https://creor-ejournal.library.mcgill.ca/article/view/115"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/johnson-v-mcintosh-short-video/",
    "title": "Johnson v McIntosh & the Mental World of Domination A Brief Video by Steven Newcomb and William Laronal, Jr.",
    "publishedAt": "2024-02-25T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Transcript PDF",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "video",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Transcript PDF",
    "externalUrl": "https://stevennewcomb.substack.com/p/johnson-v-mcintosh-and-the-mental"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/kind-colonialism/",
    "title": "Dismantling ‘kind’ colonialism",
    "publishedAt": "2024-06-17T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "“Kind colonialism” operates on the false idea that colonisation is necessary, beneficial, and inevitable. The reason it became the dominant form of colonisation in Aotearoa is because we were the most expensive place for Britain to colonise, being so far away. It’s damned expensive to keep sending troops and ships and guns and cannons from the other side of the world. Colonisation by military force was simply not economically sustainable, and our tīpuna, to my enduring pride, wouldn’t stop playing up. And so the Crown had to come up with other ways of carrying out the colonial project. Enter “kind” colonialism. “Kind” colonialism rests on three actions: First, convince the local populations that colonialism is beneficial, necessary, and inevitable. Second, rapidly and aggressively assimilate them. Third, recruit local populations to carry out colonial work.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "colonialism",
      "doctrine-of-discovery",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "“Kind colonialism” operates on the false idea that colonisation is necessary, beneficial, and inevitable. The reason it became the dominant form of colonisation in Aotearoa is because we were the most expensive place for Britain to colonise, being so far away. It’s damned expensive to keep sending troops and ships and guns and cannons from the other side of the world. Colonisation by military force was simply not economically sustainable, and our tīpuna, to my enduring pride, wouldn’t stop playing up. And so the Crown had to come up with other ways of carrying out the colonial project. Enter “kind” colonialism. “Kind” colonialism rests on three actions: First, convince the local populations that colonialism is beneficial, necessary, and inevitable. Second, rapidly and aggressively assimilate them. Third, recruit local populations to carry out colonial work.",
    "externalUrl": "https://e-tangata.co.nz/history/dismantling-kind-colonialism/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/land-theft-landback/",
    "title": "From Land Theft To Land Back The OAS And The Onondaga Nation Land Rights Action",
    "publishedAt": "2024-03-26T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "From Land Theft To Land Back The OAS And The Onondaga Nation Land Rights Action This panel, including Tadodaho Sidney Hill, will review the history of intentional land thefts of Onondaga and Haudenosaunee homelands from the 1780s to the 1820s; the shameful dismissal of the Onondaga’s Land Rights Action in the federal court, which was based upon the doctrine of Christian discovery and domination; and the Nation’s successful effort to accuse the U.S. of human rights violations in the OAS Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Last May, the Nation achieved a historic ruling by the Commission as the first Indigenous nation to achieve the merits stage in the Commission, which will result in a substantive ruling on the human rights failures by the U.S. Event Flyer Details: Tuesday,  16 April, 5:00—7:00pm UN Church Center, 10th Floor Conference Room Panelists: Tadodaho Sid Hill Joe Heath Jake Edwards",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "UN",
      "UNPFII",
      "WeAreIndigenous",
      "OAS",
      "landback",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "From Land Theft To Land Back The OAS And The Onondaga Nation Land Rights Action This panel, including Tadodaho Sidney Hill, will review the history of intentional land thefts of Onondaga and Haudenosaunee homelands from the 1780s to the 1820s; the shameful dismissal of the Onondaga's Land Rights Action in the federal court, which was based upon the doctrine of Christian discovery and domination; and the Nation's successful effort to accuse the U.S. of human rights violations in the OAS Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Last May, the Nation achieved a historic ruling by the Commission as the first Indigenous nation to achieve the merits stage in the Commission, which will result in a substantive ruling on the human rights failures by the U.S. Event Flyer Details: Tuesday,  16 April, 5:00---7:00pm UN Church Center, 10th Floor Conference Room Panelists: Tadodaho Sid Hill Joe Heath Jake Edwards",
    "externalUrl": "https://aila.ngo/from-land-theft-to-land-back/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/law/acknowledging-doctrine-christian-discovery/",
    "title": "Acknowledging the Doctrine of Christian Domination",
    "publishedAt": "2021-07-27T14:54:46Z",
    "description": "Since the doctrine of discovery has been institutionalized in U.S. Indian law and policy for generations, including by the U.S. Supreme Court, the question arises whether the recommendation to have the U.S. government strike the phrase 'the doctrine of discovery' from its 'vocabulary' is a form of denial.",
    "tags": [
      "Domination",
      "Discovery",
      "Onondaga-Nation",
      "Indigenous-Peoples",
      "Indian-Law",
      "featured",
      "blog",
      "Law"
    ],
    "textContent": "In 2014, at Indian Country Today, Dr. David Wilkins (Lumbee) published an essay titled, “Deconstructing the Doctrine of Discovery.” (here) In the article, he takes issue with the way that the doctrine of discovery has been interpreted and discussed in recent years. He says that many people have been discussing the doctrine in a manner that is “historically inaccurate” and thus less than helpful. I responded after the article was first published (here), and now I’d like to add to my previous commentary. In his article, Wilkins calls the discovery doctrine “one of the most important tenets of federal Indian law.” He points out that it has “gained general acceptance.” But he cautions that the doctrine has been “misused to distort perceptions of past and present oppressions.” Yet rather than provide a clear means of arguing against the doctrine and challenging it, he says that U.S. government officials should never mention or write about the doctrine. Since the doctrine of discovery has been institutionalized in U.S. Indian law and policy for generations, including by the U.S. Supreme Court, the question arises whether the recommendation to have the U.S. government strike the phrase “the doctrine of discovery” from its “vocabulary” is a form of denial. Wilkins’ recommendation appears to be based on the idea that if the U.S. government no longer uses the phrase “the doctrine of discovery,” and never mentions it, that this will enable us to pretend the doctrine no longer exists, even though the phrase and the reasoning based on the phrase is still written into Supreme Court rulings. Importantly, Wilkins’ acknowledgment of “past and present oppression,” provides us with an entry point for discussing the “past and present domination” of Native nations and peoples. Unfortunately, nowhere in his essay does Wilkins examine the patterns of domination found in the Vatican papal bulls of the fifteenth century and in U.S. federal Indian law. Perhaps this is because he seems to believe that, with regard to the papal bulls, those patterns were rejected by theologian Francisco de Vitoria during his lectures in the 1530’s. As a result of his presumption that there is no connection between what Wilkins calls “the papal version of the doctrine of discovery” and present day U.S. federal Indian law, he never asks to what extent, if any, the system of ideas called U.S. federal Indian law was created from the conceptual patterns found in those 15 th -century Vatican documents. At one point in his essay, Professor Wilkins does mention “Christian domination.” However, he never makes that topic a specific focus of his overall analysis. Nor does he clarify that “discovery” refers to the ancient effort by the Christian nations of Europe to seek out and find non-Christian places over which a right of Christian domination had not yet been claimed. He also fails to mention that the United States currently purports to be the successor to the first claim of a right of Christian domination asserted by the monarchies of, for example, England, Spain, and France. This is spelled out by Chief Justice John Marshall in the Johnson v. McIntosh ruling of 1823, in his discussion of “ascendancy” (at 573) and “ultimate dominion.” (at 574). Instead of informing his readers about the well-documented intention of the Christian world to claim a right of Christian domination over non-Christian lands (the lands of heathens, pagans, and infidels), Wilkins says “[d]iscovery, as originally conceived in papal bulls of Pope Alexander VI, granted the Spanish exclusive interests in the Americas.” The term “interests,” which not a theme found in the papal bulls, is a euphemism for the patterns of domination that are found in the four papal documents issued in 1493 (Davenport, pp. 56-83) , as well as the patterns of domination found in other papal documents dating back to at least 1452\\. (Davenport, p. 23). The fourth and last document in the series of Vatican documents issued in 1493, shortly after Columbus returned from his first voyage, is dated September 26, 1493\\. (Davenport, pp. 79-83). Language from that document quoted below identifies the claim of a right of domination that the pope purported to “gave, conveyed, and assigned forever” to the monarchs of Castile and Aragon-Leon. (Davenport, p. 82) In European Treaties Bearing on the History of the United States, published by the Carnegie Institution in 1917, the English language version of the papal bull dated September 26, 1493 refers to: “all islands and mainlands whatsoever, discovered and to be discovered, that were not under the actual temporal domination of any Christian dominators.” (Ibid.) The original Latin language version of that sentence reads: “omnes et singulas, insulas et terra firmas, inventas et invendiendas versus occidentem et meridiem, que sub actuali dominio [domination] temporali aliquorum dominorum Christianorum [Christian dominators] constitute non essent. . .” (p. 80) (emphasis added) In other words, the pope purported to grant to Queen Isabel, of Castile, and King Ferdinand, of Aragon-Leon, the right to claim a right of domination over any “islands and mainlands that were not yet constituted or established under the domination (“dominio”) of any Christian dominators” (“dominorum Christianorum”) [emphasis added]. The same wording is found in the earlier papal bull of May 3, 1493\\. (Davenport, p. 64-70) And that language forms a central part of the foundation of Spanish crown law everywhere on the planet where Spain engaged in colonization. This claim of a right of domination was also made by all other countries that sent colonizing voyages in search of distant non-Christian lands. And that intention to establish domination over “heathen” and “infidel” lands forms a key part of the foundation of U.S. federal Indian law! One has to wonder whether Wilkins has ever read the above language from the papal bulls of May 3 and September 26, 1493, as well as theologian Luis Rivera-Pagán’s A Violent Evangelism (1992), and whether he has had the opportunity to factor that information into his thinking. For he goes on to make the odd assertion that, “In reality, the absolute denial of Native land rights was replaced less than fifty years later” meaning during the time of Francisco de Vitoria. Does this mean Wilkins believes that the Spanish crown’s claim of a right of domination was also replaced and ended? Or is the issue of domination simply not part of his analysis? If Wilkins is under the impression that the “absolute denial of Native land rights” was a result of the claim of a right of domination by the colonizing powers, we have to ask: When was that claim of a right of domination ended? The historical record shows that it never was. Wilkins claims that the denial of Native land rights was ended as a result of ideas expressed by the theologian Francisco de Vitoria. He accurately describes Vitoria as “a prominent theologian” who was asked by Emperor Charles V to explain, from a legal, moral, and theological view, “what rights the Spanish could legally and morally claim in the New World.” And Wilkins points out that Vitoria expressed the view that the Indians “were the true owners of their lands.” And this is evidently the source of confusion on Professor Wilkins’ part. This may be the result of him conflating two separate issues. The first issue is whether the Spanish crown eventually regarded the Indians as the “true owners” of their lands existing under the crown’s claim of a right of domination. And the second issue is whether, after Vitoria’s lectures, Spain and other Christian powers continued to claim a right of domination over non-Christian lands, and over the original non-Christian nations living there. Wilkins stays narrowly focused on the question of whether, as a result of Francisco de Vitoria’s lectures, the Spanish crown accepted the view that the Indians were “the true owners” of their lands. One question Wilkins does not address, however, is whether, even after Vitoria’s lectures, Spain continued to claim a right of domination over those Native nations, on the basis of the papal bulls of 1493\\. He also does not deal with the issue of whether the U.S. government, by means of the Johnson v. McIntosh ruling, claimed, and still claims, to be the rightful successor to the first claim of a right of domination made by Great Britain, France, and Spain. According to Wilkins, Vitoria argued that “the Spanish could not claim title through discovery because this action could only be justified where property was ownerless.” Rivera-Pagán notes that Immanuel Kant “at the end of the eighteenth century, had set his eye on the concept of ‘the discovery of America’.” (p. 11). Rivera-Pagán then quotes Kant: “When America was discovered. . . it was considered to without owners since the inhabitants were considered as nothing.” To this Rivera-Pagán adds: “They were considered ‘as nothing’ for they were not Christian.” (original emphasis). So, what is meant by the word “title” in this context? The question arises: Did Vitoria express the view that Spain did not claim a title of domination over the Indians and their lands because those lands had non-Christian “owners”? Rivera-Pagán points out that “Pedro Mártir de Anglería, noted humanist and member of the Council of the Indies,” “defended European hegemony over every place in the New World that is ‘empty of Christians’.” To this he adds: “The discussion became theoretically more complex later in the century as seen in Vitoria’s De indis, but the result was the same: namely, the supremacy of the rights of the Christians over that of the indigenous ‘infidels’.” (Ibid.) Certainly there is no caveat or exception to be found in the papal bulls of 1493, stating that the “barbarous nations” were the “true owners” of their lands. Quite the opposite. It was widely assumed by the monarchs of Castile and Aragon-Leon, and explicitly stated by Pope Alexander VI, that the crowns of Castile and Aragon-Leon, as “dominorum Christianorum” (Christian dominators) had the perfect right to claim a right of domination (“dominio”) in relation to any lands, “discovered and to be discovered,” where non-Christians were living. This is entirely consistent with the language of the papal bulls, especially the Latin language versions of those documents. Wilkins ought to have acknowledged that Vitoria premised his lectures on the idea, which he explicitly stated, that the Indians had already been forced under the “sway” (dicio, in Latin) of the Spanish crown. (I obtained Vitoria’s use of the Latin word dicio from Anthony Pagden, one of the world’s foremost authorities on this subject). The term sway traces to “a preponderating force or pressure : a controlling influence : sovereign power : DOMINION “The ability to exercise influence or authority : DOMINANCE.” In other words, Vitoria began his lectures on “the Indies,” on the basis of the presumption that the Indians were already existing under Spanish sway or domination, and the question was, How shall Spain treat the Indians who are presumed to be living under the Spanish system of domination. According to Rivera-Pagán: It should be recognized that, according to Vitoria, in order to justify Castilian domination over the New World, that domination must be “just.” The problem is that in his analysis the determination of justice should not have remained . . . at the theoretical level, without clarifying the events. The quaestio iuris cannot be separated from the quaestio facti. The juridical question is based on the supposition, clearly sketched in the first part of the lecture, of the irreversible reality of the Spanish empire[‘s domination]. (p. 83) Rivera-Pagán continues: “Contrary to the anti-imperialist interpretation of Vitoria made by Teófilo Urdanoz, I consider more correct the observations made by Luciano Pereña: “Francisco de Vitoria never . . . questioned the legitimacy of the conquest [domination]. It [Spanish domination] was a proposition that he took for granted. This axiom was his [Vitoria’s”] starting point.” (p. 84) Rivera-Pagán further quotes Pereña : Vitoria delivers his lectures on the Indies at Salamanca not to attack the emperor nor open a discussion of his right but rather to justify him against attacks being made by Frances I of France . . . to defend the Spanish monopoly against the protests of the French king. (Ibid.) And Rivera-Pagán further adds: “Pereña then generalizes with respect to the school of Salamanca and the disciples of Vitoria”: From 1534 to 1573, the teachers at the School. . . unanimously condemned the abuses of the conquerors. . . The abuses were condemned without reserve from Vitoria to Acosta. But . . . the personal or individual behaviors [of the conquistadors] did not invalidate the fundamental right of the Crown to Spanish domination. [emphasis added] They did not even doubt the legitimacy of the Spanish presence in the Indies. . . . They never questioned the conquest [the claim of a right of domination] by considering it from a global perspective. They supposed it was legitimate. (Ibid.) Given this information about the claim of a right of domination, why does Wilkins remain narrowly focused on whether “the absolute denial of Native land rights was replaced less than fifty years later” by the ideas of Francisco de Vitoria. According to the findings of Rivera-Pagán, the claim of a right of Spanish domination over the original Native nations and their lands was taken for granted and never questioned, not even by Vitoria. We have evidence that the claim of a right of domination was still being maintained by Spain in the 1680’s. Rivera-Pagán points out: In the juridical area, the Alexandrian bulls maintained their authorized character, as shown by the first sentence in the first law of the first chapter of the third book of “The Compilation of the Leyes de Indias” (1680), which recognizes them as the first foundation for the possession in perpetuity of the Americas by the Crown of Castilla. (p. 32) He then quotes the following language from the Emperor in “the Laws of the Indies” from 1680: By donation from the Apostolic Holy See . . . we are Lord of the Western Indies, isles and mainlands of the Ocean Sea, discovered and to be discovered and incorporated into our Royal Crown of Castilla. . . . [so that] they may always remain united for their greater perpetuity and firmness, we forbid their being taken away. And we give our faith and royal word, and the kings our successors, so that they [the isles and mainlands] can never be taken away or separated, in all or in part, for any reason or cause whatsoever. (Ibid.) Even if we were to assume that fifty years after 1493 the Spanish crown decided to no longer engage in an “absolute” denial of Native land rights, because of the powerful lectures of Vitoria, it does not follow that the Spanish crown ever gave up or relinquished its claim of a right of Christian domination over the lands where the Native nations were living. Whatever “Native land rights” the Spanish crown was willing to acknowledge, were regarded, from the viewpoint of the crown, as “Native land rights” that were existing under and subject to the Spanish system of domination, which was eventually passed on the other political successor states. This conclusion is consistent with “the letter of Carlos V, dated November 10, 1539, to the prior of the Dominican faculty at Salamanca, forbidding discussion of the legitimacy of Spanish dominion [domination] over the New World and ordering him [the prior] to gather all dissertation copies treating this theme, a clear reference to Vitoria’s theological lectures about the Indians.” (Rivera-Pagan, p. 84) That was two years after Pope Paul III issued the papal bull Sublimis Deus in 1537\\. In that document, the pope declared Indians to be “truly men” who should not be enslaved, and should not be deprived of their property. (Hanke, 1959, p. 19) But as Rivera-Pagan observes with regard to that wording: “Well and good, but their concrete predominant experience is defeat, suffering, decimation, and subjugation.” (Rivera-Pagán, 202) Additionally, under pressure from Emperor Charles V, the pope withdrew any ecclesiastical penalties attached to Sublimis Deus. This meant the document had no “teeth” and no means of enforcement. There were no penalties to impose on those who violated the papal decree of 1537\\. (Hanke, 1937, p. 88-91) In other words, Sublimis Deus must be read and interpreted in the context of the assumption of Spanish domination over the Indies, which was claimed on the basis of the papal bulls from 1493\\. And that assumption was so taken for granted by Emperor Charles V that he forbade scholars to even discuss that assumed right of domination. Yet despite the theme of domination being such an important part of the historical record, Wilkins makes the strange assertion that the “papal doctrine of discovery was discarded early on in favor of [Francisco de] Vitoria’s view of Indigenous property rights.” However, as Dr. Luis Rivera-Pagan notes: “The Spanish empire produced eloquent apologists who defended the military conquest of the Americas, the forced servitude imposed upon the nations, and the coerced Christianization of its peoples.” (p. 271) Rivera-Pagán continues: The elegant style and clarity of thought of Juan Ginés Sepúlveda is an obvious example. Spain also produced eminent thinkers who, like Francisco de Vitoria, dealt theoretically with the complex issue of building a “just dominion,” an empire built upon law and faith, but also upon expropriation of land and slave labor. (Ibid) When the representatives of a particular monarch were able to identify the geographical location of non-Christian lands, a place where a right of domination (“dominio”) had not already been claimed by Christian dominators (“dominorum Christianorum”), they were able begin the brutal and dehumanizing process of establishing a system of domination in that place. The Christian world presumed that the locating Christian monarch, and his or her “heirs and successors,” had the right to claim a right of Christian domination over the vast area that had been newly located. The Spanish crown never rejected this framework or this premise. Wilkins says “historical reality clearly show[s]” that “the papal version of the doctrine of discovery was not used in any practical way by subsequent colonizers after Vitoria’s writings.” But this is contradicted by the Laws of the Indies from 1680, quoted above. Wilkins evidently does not realize, that in the Johnson v. McIntosh ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court relied upon “the papal version” of the doctrine of domination, which Justice Joseph Story admitted in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833). In Chapter 1 of Volume 1 of his Commentaries, in §5, footnote 7, Story quotes Latin language from the May 4, 1493 papal bull (“ac barbarae nationesdeprimantur,” i.e., “and barbarous nations be reduced”) and then connects that Latin quote to the principle of discovery found in the Johnson ruling: “that discovery gave title to the government, by whose subjects and by whose authority it was made, against all other European governments.” Story did so without quotation marks and without reference to the Johnson ruling. This made it nearly impossible for scholars to identify that text in Story’s Commentaries. It’s a finding I stumbled upon in 1991 after a decade spent obsessing over the Johnson ruling and Story’s text. In any case, it appears that Wilkins is avoiding a central fact: Both before and after Vitoria’s writings, the Christian European colonizers, and their successors, continued to claim a right of domination over Native nations and their lands. And even today countries such as the United States and Canada, and many other state governments (i.e., countries), are continuing to claim a right of domination over and against our nations and peoples. In the Johnson v. McIntosh ruling, that claim is called “ultimate dominion,” and the Indian title of “occupancy” expressed by Marshall is considered subject to the colonizers’ claimed right of sovereignty and dominion. Marshall deflects attention away from this point when he says that the assertion of “ultimate dominion” is “subject to the Indian right of occupancy,” which means it is “subject to” next to nothing. In Canada, the dominating concept of dominion is expressed as “the Crown’s assertion sovereignty,” which is to be “reconciled” with the pre-existing fact of the original Native cultures and societies of the continent, and with “Indigenous sovereignty.” This is to be accomplished in large part by the phrase “honour [sic] of the Crown,” a term of rhetorical art which places the concept of “Crown” at the top of a hierarchy with original nations subordinated beneath “the Crown.” Wilkins says that treaty-making “between tribal nations and Europeans, and later the U.S. affirmed that Native peoples were recognized as land-owning nations on par with any other political power.” (emphasis added) But “ownership” is a term of domination, and the U.S. Supreme Court invented the concept of an “Indian right of occupancy” as a means of refusing, based the Bible and Christianity, to recognize Native nations as having any right of domination (property) in relation to their traditional lands, for a Native nation right of domination would permanently bar the colonizers from the territories of Native nations. In White v. University of California, a Kumeyaay ancestral remains case which Wilkins references in his article, the court explicitly says in footnote 2 that the Kumeyaay nation only has an “aboriginal interest” in its traditional territory, but “this is not a property right.” Land owning Indigenous nations “on par with any other political power,” as Wilkins posits, would have a recognized property right in their lands, meaning a right of domination that would be both exclusive and absolute, as stated in the Johnson v. McIntosh ruling of 1823. To this, Wilkins adds the assertion that “Had Pope Alexander’s original sweeping decree of unlimited Christian domination held sway, there would have been no reason for colonizers to bother with treaties.” But when we think about it, it’s the interpretation of the treaties that is most critical. To undercut those treaties with Native nations, it was only necessary for the United States to interpret them in a manner consistent with the U.S. claim of a right of domination over native nations and over and to their territories. And this is exactly how the United States has interpreted all Indian treaties. There is evidence of the U.S. government interpreting Indian treaties in a manner consistent with the U.S. claim of a right of domination over Native nations. Take, for example, Volume VII of the congressional Statutes At Large, “Treaties Between the United States and the Indian Tribes.” The volume was published in 1842, and was edited by Richard Peters, the fourth reporter for the U.S. Supreme Court, who served in that role for fifteen years from 1828 to 1843. Who would be better suited to know the true significance of the Johnson v. McIntosh ruling in relation to U.S. treaties with Native nations than an attorney who served for a decade- and-a-half as the reporter for the U.S. Supreme Court? At the opening of Volume VII of the Statutes At Large, Peters replicates the Johnson v. McIntosh ruling in its entirety. In Richard Peter’s introduction to the Johnson ruling in Volume VII of the Statutes At Large, he indicates that the Johnson ruling is the framework within which all Indian treaties have been and will continue to be interpreted by the United States government. The treaties will, in other words, will be interpreted in a manner that is in sync with the U.S. claim of a right of domination (“sovereignty”) over and to the continent. Toward the end of his essay, Wilkins states: “To accept a dumbed-down version of history is to relegate our people to the role of victim. It is to accept that we have been conquered. . . ” However, when we forthrightly oppose and challenge the claim of a right of Christian domination in U.S. federal Indian law, or in Canadian law, to cite just two examples, this is the opposite of considering ourselves to be “victims” who have been “conquered.” The word victim is related to the word victory; a victim is on the receiving end of a victory. However, to claim a right of domination is no victory, for such a claim is premised on that which is not valid and never will be. The dominator claims the right to deprive free and independent nations and peoples, by various means of despotism, of the very ability to retain and maintain a free existence. Wilkins seems to be suggesting that those of us who have dared to delve deeply into the historical record, and use our findings to explicitly challenge the claim of a right of Christian domination by the various monarchies of Christendom, and by the United States and Canada as the political successor to those colonial claims, are doing something that is highly detrimental to Native nations and peoples. As if to say, “If we admit that a right of Christian domination has been claimed, and is still being claimed against our nations and peoples, then we are giving into and reverting to what Wilkins calls “the long ago discredited papal version of the doctrine of discovery.” He adds: “To simplistically explain away loss of territory as the fault of the doctrine of discovery is to ignore our own retained land rights and forget that our ancestors were determined, intelligent, and politically astute people who defended their sovereign territories through strength and reason.” How so? It is certainly possible to not shy away from and accurately explain the manner in which our lands and territories have been overrun on the basis of the Christian world’s claim of a right of domination over all non-Christians and their descendants (namely, our generation). This is called “fighting the good fight,” and we are able to do so without casting any aspersions on our ancestors, or questioning their strength, determination, and intelligence. As a matter of fact, one would think that our ancestors would honored to know that after decades of diligent research and a review the massive amount of information in the historical record, we are now challenging the claim of a right of Christian domination over our nations and our territories, while keeping foremost in mind the original free and independent existence of our nations and peoples. All Our Relations. Sources Johnson & Graham’s Lessee v. McIntosh 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823). Lewis Hanke, “Pope Paul III and the American Indians,” Harvard Theological Review, 30:65-102, 1937. Lewis Hanke, Aristotle and the American Indians: A Study in Race Prejudice in the Modern World, (Bloomington: Indiana University Press), 1959. Richard Peter’s, Statutes At Large, Vol. VII, Treaties Between the United States and the Indian Tribes (Washington: Government Printing Office). Dr. Luis Rivera-Pagán, A Violent Evangelism: The Political and Religious Conquest of America, 1992, (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press). Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Vol. I, (Boston: Hilliard, Gray and Company), 1933\\. https://lonang.com/library/reference/story-commentaries-us-constitution/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/law/commentary-on-mcgirt/",
    "title": "The McGirt decision upholds a principle of US domination of Native Nations",
    "publishedAt": "2020-08-12T19:00:30Z",
    "description": "Download PDF The McGirt decision upholds a principle of US domination of Native Nations By Steven T. Newcomb and Peter d’Errico Commentary after the McGirt v. Oklahoma decision has split between those who praise it as a victory for “tribal sovereignty” and those who bemoan the “jurisdictional complexity” left in its wake. These perspectives ignore the fundamental reasoning of the decision—affirmation of US “plenary power” over Native nations premised on a claim of “Christian discovery.” Justice Gorsuch’s eloquent evocation of historical events encouraged those who praise the decision. From his opening sentence – “On the far end of the Trail of Tears was a                   promise.”— through his acknowledgement that land allotment and other federal actions “represented serious blows to the Creek,” to his concluding condemnation of “brazen and longstanding injustices,” he offered a tone of solicitude for Native nations. Those who bemoan the McGirt decision prefer the perspective of the dissenters, who insisted without qualm that “Congress…eliminated the foundation of tribal sovereignty … [and] extinguish[ed] the Five Tribes’ territory.” Missing from both streams of commentary is awareness that the majority and dissent both rest their arguments on the foundational federal Indian law principle of US domination over Native nations and peoples. That principle, variously called “plenary power,” “guardianship,” and “trust relation,” is rooted in the 1823 US Supreme Court decision, Johnson v. McIntosh . There the court adopted the 15^th^ century doctrine that a “discovery” of “heathens” by “Christian people” resulted in a US title of “ultimate dominion” to all Native lands. Johnson said that the Indian “natives, who were heathens” were “merely occupants” in their lands, subject to the US power of domination as the assumed “sovereign” owner of the lands. The Johnson decision has never been overruled. Indeed, the principle was reaffirmed in 1955, in Tee-Hit-Ton v. US , only a year after the equally abhorrent doctrine of “separate but equal” was overturned in Brown v. Board of Education . Cold War pressures for the US to renounce its legalized racism extended only to the doctrine affecting Blacks. Indeed, the doctrine proclaiming a right of domination over Natives based on the idea of a “discovery” of the lands of “heathens and infidels” by “Christian nations” was explicitly argued in the 1954 US legal brief in Tee-Hit-Ton . Following from the foundational premise of US domination, the McGirt decision said the Creek Nation remains under the jurisdiction of the federal Major Crimes Act. That 19^th^ century law was enacted by Congress using its so-called “plenary power” over “Indians.” The Act excluded Native jurisdiction and imposed US criminal jurisdiction over certain offenses committed by a Native person against another Native person in “Indian country.” The only difference between majority and dissent in McGirt is that the majority said Congress has not “extinguished” the Creek Nation’s reservation and it is therefore “Indian country,” while the dissent found clear extinguishment in a series of federal actions. The majority and dissent each affirm the “overriding power” of Congress over Native nations and peoples. As Gorsuch said in conclusion, “If Congress wishes to withdraw its promises, it must say so.” Neither Gorsuch nor the dissent say clearly on what basis it is claimed Congress has such overriding power. Gorsuch alluded to the Christian discovery presumption this way: “This Court long ago held that the Legislature wields significant constitutional authority when it comes to tribal relations, possessing even the authority to breach its own promises and treaties. Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock (1903). But that power, this Court has cautioned, belongs to Congress alone. Nor will this Court lightly infer such a breach….” Gorsuch’s citation of Lone Wolf leads to the original case, Johnson v. McIntosh , and his focus on “Congressional intent” derives from that root. Gorsuch invoked Christian discovery in a covert way in a cryptic citation purporting to explain why the US can “allow non-Indian settlers to own land on [a] reservation.” Gorsuch wrote, “It isn’t so hard to see why.” He explained that federal homesteader patents “transferred legal title” to Creek land, but “no one thinks … this diminished the United States’s claim to sovereignty. To accomplish that would require an act of cession, the transfer of a sovereign claim from one nation to another.” He then cited “3 E. Washburn, American Law of Real Property 521– 524.” This reference is to a chapter in Emory Washburn’s 1868 A Treatise on the American Law of Real Property discussing “title by public grant.” The chapter begins with a discussion of “the discovery and settlement of this country by Europeans” and says, “Nor has any title, beyond the right of occupation, been recognized in the native tribes by any of the European governments or their successors, the Colonies, the States, or the United States. The law in this respect seems to have been uniform with all the Christian nations that planted colonies here. They recognized no seisin [ownership] of lands on the part of Indian dwellers upon it.” Washburn then says, “The sovereignty and general property of the soil …were claimed …by right of discovery.” This sentence carries a footnote to Johnson v. McIntosh . Gorsuch’s use of a nineteenth century law treatise to reference “discovery” by “Christian nations” is subtle, more subtle by far than Justice Ginsburg, whose opinion in City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of N. Y. (2005) rejected Oneida land title by saying, “Under the ‘doctrine of discovery,’ fee title to the lands occupied by Indians when the colonists arrived became vested in the sovereign—first the discovering European nation and later the original States and the United States.” (Ginsburg avoided saying “Christian discovery.”) Simply put, the contemporary presumption that Congress has the right to unilaterally breach US Treaty obligations rests on the argument that a “discovery” by “Christian people” of lands inhabited by “natives who were heathens,” as Chief Justice John Marshall put it in Johnson , results in an assumed power of “ultimate dominion,” forever. The fact that McGirt ruled in favor of the Creek Nation provides an excuse for not looking into the doctrinal basis of the decision. Make no mistake; McGirt rests on the fundamental US claim of a right of Christian domination over the existence of “heathens and infidels.” Steven T. Newcomb is co-founder and director of the Indigenous Law Institute and author of Pagans in the Promised Land: Decoding the Doctrine of Christian Discovery (Fulcrum, 2008). Peter d’Errico is Professor of Legal Studies Emeritus, University of Massachusetts / Amherst. Copyright, 2020",
    "tags": [
      "Law",
      "Event",
      "Conference",
      "Education",
      "Resources",
      "US-Law",
      "US-Indian-Law",
      "Indigenous-Peoples",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Download PDF The McGirt decision upholds a principle of US domination of Native Nations By Steven T. Newcomb and Peter d'Errico Commentary after the McGirt v. Oklahoma decision has split between those who praise it as a victory for \"tribal sovereignty\" and those who bemoan the \"jurisdictional complexity\" left in its wake. These perspectives ignore the fundamental reasoning of the decision---affirmation of US \"plenary power\" over Native nations premised on a claim of \"Christian discovery.\" Justice Gorsuch's eloquent evocation of historical events encouraged those who praise the decision. From his opening sentence -- \"On the far end of the Trail of Tears was a                   promise.\"--- through his acknowledgement that land allotment and other federal actions \"represented serious blows to the Creek,\" to his concluding condemnation of \"brazen and longstanding injustices,\" he offered a tone of solicitude for Native nations. Those who bemoan the McGirt decision prefer the perspective of the dissenters, who insisted without qualm that \"Congress...eliminated the foundation of tribal sovereignty ... [and] extinguish[ed] the Five Tribes' territory.\" Missing from both streams of commentary is awareness that the majority and dissent both rest their arguments on the foundational federal Indian law principle of US domination over Native nations and peoples. That principle, variously called \"plenary power,\" \"guardianship,\" and \"trust relation,\" is rooted in the 1823 US Supreme Court decision, Johnson v. McIntosh. There the court adopted the 15^th^ century doctrine that a \"discovery\" of \"heathens\" by \"Christian people\" resulted in a US title of \"ultimate dominion\" to all Native lands. Johnson said that the Indian \"natives, who were heathens\" were \"merely occupants\" in their lands, subject to the US power of domination as the assumed \"sovereign\" owner of the lands. The Johnson decision has never been overruled. Indeed, the principle was reaffirmed in 1955, in Tee-Hit-Ton v. US, only a year after the equally abhorrent doctrine of \"separate but equal\" was overturned in Brown v. Board of Education. Cold War pressures for the US to renounce its legalized racism extended only to the doctrine affecting Blacks. Indeed, the doctrine proclaiming a right of domination over Natives based on the idea of a \"discovery\" of the lands of \"heathens and infidels\" by \"Christian nations\" was explicitly argued in the 1954 US legal brief in Tee-Hit-Ton. Following from the foundational premise of US domination, the McGirt decision said the Creek Nation remains under the jurisdiction of the federal Major Crimes Act. That 19^th^ century law was enacted by Congress using its so-called \"plenary power\" over \"Indians.\" The Act excluded Native jurisdiction and imposed US criminal jurisdiction over certain offenses committed by a Native person against another Native person in \"Indian country.\" The only difference between majority and dissent in McGirt is that the majority said Congress has not \"extinguished\" the Creek Nation's reservation and it is therefore \"Indian country,\" while the dissent found clear extinguishment in a series of federal actions. The majority and dissent each affirm the \"overriding power\" of Congress over Native nations and peoples. As Gorsuch said in conclusion, \"If Congress wishes to withdraw its promises, it must say so.\" Neither Gorsuch nor the dissent say clearly on what basis it is claimed Congress has such overriding power. Gorsuch alluded to the Christian discovery presumption this way: \"This Court long ago held that the Legislature wields significant constitutional authority when it comes to tribal relations, possessing even the authority to breach its own promises and treaties. Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock (1903). But that power, this Court has cautioned, belongs to Congress alone. Nor will this Court lightly infer such a breach....\" Gorsuch's citation of Lone Wolf leads to the original case, Johnson v. McIntosh, and his focus on \"Congressional intent\" derives from that root. Gorsuch invoked Christian discovery in a covert way in a cryptic citation purporting to explain why the US can \"allow non-Indian settlers to own land on [a] reservation.\" Gorsuch wrote, \"It isn't so hard to see why.\" He explained that federal homesteader patents \"transferred legal title\" to Creek land, but \"no one thinks ... this diminished the United States's claim to sovereignty. To accomplish that would require an act of cession, the transfer of a sovereign claim from one nation to another.\" He then cited \"3 E. Washburn, American Law of Real Property 521--524.\" This reference is to a chapter in Emory Washburn's 1868 A Treatise on the American Law of Real Property discussing \"title by public grant.\" The chapter begins with a discussion of \"the discovery and settlement of this country by Europeans\" and says, \"Nor has any title, beyond the right of occupation, been recognized in the native tribes by any of the European governments or their successors, the Colonies, the States, or the United States. The law in this respect seems to have been uniform with all the Christian nations that planted colonies here. They recognized no seisin [ownership] of lands on the part of Indian dwellers upon it.\" Washburn then says, \"The sovereignty and general property of the soil ...were claimed ...by right of discovery.\" This sentence carries a footnote to Johnson v. McIntosh. Gorsuch's use of a nineteenth century law treatise to reference \"discovery\" by \"Christian nations\" is subtle, more subtle by far than Justice Ginsburg, whose opinion in City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of N. Y. (2005) rejected Oneida land title by saying, \"Under the 'doctrine of discovery,' fee title to the lands occupied by Indians when the colonists arrived became vested in the sovereign---first the discovering European nation and later the original States and the United States.\" (Ginsburg avoided saying \"Christian discovery.\") Simply put, the contemporary presumption that Congress has the right to unilaterally breach US Treaty obligations rests on the argument that a \"discovery\" by \"Christian people\" of lands inhabited by \"natives who were heathens,\" as Chief Justice John Marshall put it in Johnson, results in an assumed power of \"ultimate dominion,\" forever. The fact that McGirt ruled in favor of the Creek Nation provides an excuse for not looking into the doctrinal basis of the decision. Make no mistake; McGirt rests on the fundamental US claim of a right of Christian domination over the existence of \"heathens and infidels.\" Steven T. Newcomb is co-founder and director of the Indigenous Law Institute and author of Pagans in the Promised Land: Decoding the Doctrine of Christian Discovery (Fulcrum, 2008). Peter d'Errico is Professor of Legal Studies Emeritus, University of Massachusetts / Amherst."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/law/doctrine-of-discovery/domination-translator-series-press-release/",
    "title": "PRESS RELEASE: Launch of The Domination Translator Series - A Comprehensive Analysis of U.S. Supreme Court Rulings and the Doctrine of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2026-01-19T14:00:00Z",
    "description": "The Doctrine of Discovery Initiative announces the launch of a 15-part extended essay examining how the Doctrine of Discovery has shaped U.S. legal history through landmark Supreme Court cases and policy decisions.",
    "tags": [
      "press-release",
      "doctrine-of-discovery",
      "law",
      "supremecourtcases",
      "domination-translator",
      "indigenous-rights",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE The Doctrine of Discovery Project Launches The Domination Translator Series A 15-Part Extended Essay Analyzing How U.S. Courts Have Applied the Doctrine of Discovery Syracuse, New York — January 19, 2026 — The Doctrine of Discovery Project is pleased to announce the launch of The Domination Translator Series by Steven T. Newcomb, a comprehensive 15-part extended essay examining the historical and ongoing impact of the Doctrine of Discovery on United States legal jurisprudence. About The Domination Translator Series The Domination Translator Series provides an in-depth analysis of how the Doctrine of Discovery—a medieval principle of Christian supremacy used to justify European colonization—has shaped American law from the founding of the republic to the present day. Through detailed examination of landmark Supreme Court cases, presidential doctrines, and legal precedents, the series demonstrates how this doctrine continues to underpin federal Indian law and property rights. Series Overview The 15-part series begins with an introduction and proceeds chronologically through key legal decisions: 1. Introduction: The Domination Translator Series — An overview of the series and its methodology 2. Fletcher v. Peck (1810) — The first Supreme Court case to reference the Doctrine of Discovery 3. The Marshall Trilogy: Johnson v. McIntosh (1823) — Chief Justice John Marshall's foundational ruling establishing discovery doctrine as U.S. law 4. The Marshall Trilogy: Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) — Defining indigenous nations as \"domestic dependent nations\" 5. The Marshall Trilogy: Worcester v. Georgia (1832) — Affirming tribal sovereignty while maintaining discovery doctrine supremacy 6. The Monroe Doctrine (1823) — Extending discovery principles to hemispheric policy 7. Martin v. Waddell (1842) — Applying discovery doctrine to property rights and tidelands 8. President \"Teddy\" Roosevelt's Monroe Doctrine Corollary — The expansion of imperial authority based on discovery principles 9. Tee Hit Ton Indians v. United States (1955) — Denying aboriginal title under discovery doctrine 10. White v. University of California (9th Circuit, 2014) — Modern application of discovery doctrine in higher education policy 11. The Haudenosaunee Cases: Cayuga Indian Nation v. Pataki (2005) — Examining discovery doctrine in contemporary land claims 12. The Haudenosaunee Cases: Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida (2010) — Persistent barriers to indigenous sovereignty rooted in discovery doctrine 13. The Haudenosaunee Cases: Onondaga Nation v. New York (2012) — Environmental justice and the limits of discovery-based law 14. McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020) — A landmark decision recognizing the Creek Nation's reservation despite discovery doctrine precedent 15. U.S. v. King Mountain Tobacco Co., Inc. (9th Circuit, 2012) — Tribal sovereignty and the limits of federal authority Significance This series makes a critical contribution to understanding how the Doctrine of Discovery—initially a tool of medieval European colonization—became embedded in American constitutional law and continues to affect indigenous peoples and their rights today. By tracing these cases from 1810 to the present, the analysis reveals both the persistence of discovery doctrine and emerging legal challenges to its legitimacy. Comprehensive Legal Citation Resources Each post in the series includes a Cases section with hyperlinks to full case texts via Cornell Law School, Oyez.org, or Justia. Citation files for each article by Newcomb are provided in RIS and CSL-JSON formats are available for import into Zotero, Mendeley, Pandoc, and other citation management systems. Access the Series All posts are available at doctrineofdiscovery.org/blog/domination/ and are indexed in the Law section of the website, alongside related scholarly articles, amicus briefs, and policy statements. Funding Thank you to the Henry Luce Foundation for funding in part the creation of this important series. A Note of Thanks to Steven T. Newcomb We wish to express our deep gratitude to Steven T. Newcomb for his scholarship, advocacy, and vision in creating The Domination Translator Series. His groundbreaking work documenting and analyzing how the Doctrine of Discovery has shaped American law and policy continues to advance our understanding of the deep historical roots of indigenous dispossession and the ongoing struggle for indigenous sovereignty and rights. Please consider purchasing Pagans in the Promised Land and/or The Doctrine of Discovery: Umasking the Domination Code film Steven T. Newcomb's scholarly work and public engagement can be found through: Domination Chronicles Podcast — Audio essays and discussions exploring the Doctrine of Discovery and related topics Steven Newcomb Substack — Regular commentary and analysis on indigenous issues and law Indigenous Law Institute — Research and educational resources on indigenous legal traditions and sovereignty Original Free Nations — Exploration of indigenous governance and the original principles of free nations Desecrating the Sacred — Documentary film examining the Doctrine of Discovery's impact Steven Newcomb's Website — Professional portfolio and publications About the Doctrine of Discovery Initiative The Doctrine of Discovery Initiative is an educational project created and supported by the Indigenous Values Initiative dedicated to researching, documenting, and disseminating information about the Doctrine of Discovery and its impact on indigenous peoples, religious institutions, and public policy. The Initiative works to promote the repudiation of the Doctrine of Discovery and to advance reconciliation, justice, and respect for indigenous sovereignty and rights. For more information, visit doctrineofdiscovery.org Media Contact Philip P. Arnold, Ph.D. Indigenous Values Initiative P.O. Box 336 DeWitt, New York 13214-9211 indigenousvalues.org For interview requests, fact sheets, or additional information, please contact us through doctrineofdiscovery.org."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/law/international-law-of-colonialism/",
    "title": "The International Law of Colonialism: Johnson v. M'Intosh and the Doctrine of Discovery Applied Worldwide",
    "publishedAt": "2024-09-26T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Miller, Robert J. “The International Law of Colonialism: Johnson v. M’Intosh and the Doctrine of Discovery Applied Worldwide.”  Tribal Law Journal  23, 1 (2024). https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/tlj/vol23/iss1/5",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "article",
      "featured",
      "land-theft",
      "doctrineofdiscovery",
      "law",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Miller, Robert J. \"The International Law of Colonialism: Johnson v. M'Intosh and the Doctrine of Discovery Applied Worldwide.\" Tribal Law Journal 23, 1 (2024).",
    "externalUrl": "https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/tlj/vol23/iss1/5"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/lecture-doctrine-discovery-christian-domination-maine/",
    "title": "The Doctrine Of Christian Discovery And Domination, Colonizing Indigenous Peoples, And The State Of Maine",
    "publishedAt": "2020-10-22T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "The Doctrine of Christian Discovery and Domination comprises a worldview and promotes the legal and moral authority justifying the invasion and conquest of non-Christian lands.",
    "tags": [
      "Video",
      "lecture",
      "Maine",
      "Christianity",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Oct. 15: The Doctrine Of Christian Discovery And Domination, Colonizing Indigenous Peoples, And The State Of Maine John Dieffenbacher-Krall, Chair of the Episcopal Committee on Indian Relations and former Executive Director of Maine Indian Tribal-State Commission Chelsea Fairbank, PhD Candidate in Anthropology & Environmental Policy Darren Ranco, Chair of Native American Programs and Associate Professor of Anthropology The Doctrine of Christian Discovery and Domination comprises a worldview and promotes the legal and moral authority justifying the invasion and conquest of non-Christian lands. Historically, this Doctrine’s legal and moral authority derive from papal bulls, edicts and declarations, from the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church and the later use by Western Christendom’s secular leaders to reference the Doctrine to authorize their voyages of “discovery” into the New World. This Doctrine of Discovery forms the foundation of Federal Indian Law and the most important U.S. Supreme Court case affecting the Original Nations and Peoples of this land. The University of Maine exists on occupied Penobscot Indian Nation land legally justified via the Doctrine. Panelists will develop this program by presenting information on “Settler Colonialism, the Doctrine of Discovery, Capitalism, and Extractivism,” and on “the Doctrine of Discovery and the State of Maine.” Anyone interested in viewing The Doctrine of Christian Discovery and Domination, Colonizing Indigenous Peoples, and the State of Maine held on 10/15 can do so two ways. You can access the link to the video and audio here. It is also posted under the program on the Socialist and Marxist Studies Series website, now under \"recent programs\" and immediately below the Doctrine of Christian Discovery and Domination, Colonizing Indigenous Peoples, and the State of Maine title."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/lies-of-discovery/",
    "title": "Lies of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2024-06-26T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "In 2016 the Vatican, recognizing the need to understand Indigenous religious protocols, invited Indigenous spiritual leaders from around the world to Rome. On May 4, eleven leaders met outside of Rome to prepare for their visit with Pope Francis. JoDe Goudy, as chairman and a longhouse spiritual leader of the Yakama Nation, began with a song and prayer to honor his peers and the occasion. Each leader followed with a similar honoring and mission: revoke the Doctrine of Discovery. The Doctrine of Discovery is the institutional pillar and origin of systemic racism and the global oppression of Indigenous people. One of the earliest examples of international law, the Doctrine of Discovery holds that when a European, Christian nation discovered new lands---which is to say, planted its flag on land unknown to other European nations---it acquired sovereignty over that territory and any non-Christian, non-European people living in it. This doctrine continues to influence law and policy in the United States: it was referenced in a 2005 Supreme Court Opinion by Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The doctrine originated in a series of fifteenth-century papal bulls, in particular the \"Inter Caetera\" bull of May 4, 1493, which called for non-Christian nations and peoples to be \"reduced to the Catholic faith and Christian religion\" and \"subjected\" in order \"to propagate the Christian Empire.\" The Indigenous leaders' visit to the Vatican marked 523 years since the bull was issued. The Indigenous leaders knew the invitation from the Vatican was a distraction, one long used by Christendom. Pope Frances had already shown himself to be indifferent to their opinions when, during his visit to the United States in September 2015, he canonized Father Junípero Serra, founder of nine of the Catholic missions in California that forced conversion and oversaw the slavery and genocide of Native people. Serra's controversial canonization was viewed by Indigenous leaders as hypocritical and disingenuous. However, they met with the pope at the Vatican in good faith. The Indigenous leaders knew an education process that would open the door toward \"I la q'ai xisha (it is lighting) ishchi't (the road)\" had to be their intent. The papal procession gawked at the visitors' ceremonial white buckskin regalia and head-to-toe trailing eagle headdress. My son JoDe shook the pope's hand and greeted him in our native language by his given name: \"Shix' pa'chway, good afternoon, Jorge.\" The personal exchange was respectful and reciprocal. The pope ended with \"Pray for me.\" JoDe replied, \"Pope Francis, we all need prayer.\" After the formal greeting, the Indigenous leaders met with Vatican officials, including Archbishop Silvano Maria Tomasi, who had just stepped down as one of the Holy See's representatives to the United Nations. But in the meeting, the Vatican representatives claimed to have no knowledge of the Doctrine of Discovery. I believe it's time for illumination. It's time to expose the origin, magnitude, and depth of the Holy See's responsibility for the historical and continual violation of Indigenous humanity. I speak in a borrowed language because of the Doctrine of Discovery. I'm an Indigenous Elder from a federally recognized Native Nation, the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, in Oregon. My parents came from two distinct and different Nations. My mother was a fluent Ichiskiin speaker, a spiritual longhouse leader, and a teacher. She was a descendant of Chief Joseph's sister. Her father and grandfathers were Taixpam chiefs and spiritual leaders. My dad was Hopi from Arizona, First Mesa's Walpi Village. He was a fluent Hopi speaker, a member of the Rabbit and Tobacco clan, and a decorated World War II veteran. In 1972, when I was an undergraduate at the University of Minnesota, I took a class titled \"Western Thought and the Racial Oppression of Man.\" That class was where I first learned that the historic trauma and racial oppression directed at Indigenous people are rooted in Greek \"master/slave\" philosophy, Christian dogma, and so-called divine approval. The cultural message: domination is the nature of man, who uses technology to advance man over nature. Prior to this, I was a reservation Indian with a spiritual glass half-full. I attended a Bureau of Indian Affairs boarding school and several public schools. Their message and intent were clear: assimilation into dominant society. The churches I attended promised I could be saved if only I believed in Christ as my savior. Good deeds would be rewarded and bad deeds punished. That was the same message my parents had received in boarding school and church, and with the same results. Native values and beliefs took priority in practice and were my spiritual anchor. In school we weren't allowed to speak our language. We were separated from our families and marched to meals, class, and Christian functions. But weekends, summers, and holidays were my salvation. Both sides of my family are traditional and practiced our sacred ceremonies and social functions separate from school. However, these practices were only placeholders for longhouse ceremonies, Hopi initiation, and my spiritual well-being. Unlike my parents, I wasn't fluent in either Ichiskiin or Hopi, and didn't fully understand the words to our songs. I participated in our ceremonies in dubiety. The Doctrine of Discovery has uprooted and affected Indigenous languages. In a 2019 paper, \"A Kiksht Revitalization Model: Using Linguistic Materials and a Digital Platform to Learn and Teach a Sleeping Language,\" Shayleen Eaglespeaker writes, \"When a language ceases to be used by a generation whether by choice or by external social factors, the dominant language or language of wider use will take [the] place of the former language in domains of the Individual or the community. This process is called language shift. Language shift happens when the language is not transmitted generationally to new speakers, or when the speakers exchange the use of a heritage language in favor of a different language such as a more dominant language. The choice to switch to the more dominant language may be conscious or unconscious, and it can happen in spite of efforts to stop it. Social factors that contribute to language shift include economic motivation, social stability, and other material rewards that the heritage language cannot provide. Language shift may also be institutionalized or forced by the dominant society.\" My mother's people, the Taixpam, follow a spiritual belief and lifestyle called Tama'nwit. In \"Reciprocity of Tradition,\" an article in the Spring 2020 issue of Oregon Humanities, Joe Whittle wrote, \"Indigenous peoples of the Columbia Plateau have adhered to a physical and spiritual philosophy of reciprocal, equitable, and equal relationships between human beings and with the natural world around them.\" My peoples' spiritual beliefs follow the Wa'ashat reciprocity. This relationship is between human beings and the natural world. Similarly, my father's people, the Hopi, have kachinas who mediate reciprocity. In human ceremonial practice, kachinas are more than spiritual messengers, but not deities. The name has two parts. Ka means \"respect,\" and china, \"spirit.\" They are respected spirits---spirits of the dead; spirits of mineral, plant, and animal; spirits of all the invisible forces of life our universe entails. Both Tama'nwit and kachinas are grounded in human interconnection and codependence with nature. We are led to believe Native history is but a blip in the history of Western man. In God Is Red, Vine Deloria Jr. wrote, \"Christians must disclaim using history as a weapon of conquest.\" The chain must be broken to mitigate healing and create an institutional shift to \"I la q'ai xisha (It is lighting).\" We can make distinctions to start to understand the differences between the teachings of Jesus Christ and the political and legal doctrines of the church-state complex. Ancient Greek philosophy declares, \"If you are not Greek, you are a barbarian.\" During the crusades and conquests of the fourteenth century, Christian leaders adopted this principle. They sanctioned various forms of domination such as genocide, enslavement, and other insurmountable ways to oppress Indigenous nations and peoples. If a slave chose to become a Christian, they were still a barbarian. The first Europeans to make contact in the Americas carried this domination edict to the sovereign Indigenous Nations they met. In 1452, Pope Nicholas V directed Portugal's King Alfonso to \"capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens [Muslims], pagans, and other enemies of Christ\" and put them into \"perpetual slavery\" and take their \"possessions and goods.\" The \"Inter Caetera\" followed, and the Doctrine of Discovery became enshrined in colonial law. Later, the doctrine was cited by the US Supreme Court in its decision in the 1823 case of Johnson v. M'Intosh, which ruled that Native tribes did not have a right to sell their own land. Following Deloria's research in the 1970s, Shawnee-Lenape scholar Steven Newcomb wrote the most complete study on the relationship between the Doctrine of Discovery and US federal Indian law. Newcomb was a member of the 2016 delegation to the Vatican. He provided technical support to the spiritual leaders. While completing an MBA in the 1980s, I began reading Newcomb's work in Indian Country Today. His research into federal Indian law decoded the Doctrine of Discovery. He employed cognitive theory and found an ongoing process of mental or conceptual activity and socialized behavior. Newcomb translated non-English words used in the doctrine. For example, the Latin word deprimatur means \"to subjugate, tame, till, cultivate.\" Colonize tied to \"root-colon-with-digest.\" Newcomb wrote the following in an email to me on November 13, 2013: When the white men who were seated on the early US Supreme Court in the first couple of decades of the nineteenth century began to create ideas about American Indians, they turned to the already existing patterns of thought that had been used by Christian monarchs and popes in ancient times to think about (categorize) non-Christians. The ideas, arguments, and decisions reached by the Supreme Court in those early decades of the 1800's, became a kind of intellectual inheritance formed with the understanding that future generations of the court would continue to rely upon those same religious patterns of reasoning. This was consistent with the principle called \"stare decisis,\" \"the decision must stand.\" To this day, the US Supreme Court has never disavowed or rejected the religious categories still maintained by Supreme Court by means of the Johnson v. M'Intoshdecision. For over two thousand years, the Greek master/slave idiom and Christianity have coalesced in the face of any opposing belief. On one side is a question of divine truth and belief in revelation and in God. On the other side are mortal error, fables, and the damned and devils. I recently read \"Presidents and Native Peoples\" by Alysa Landry in the July 2020 issue of Cowboys and Indians. It reacquainted me with the progress that's been made in Native peoples' relationship with dominant society, and also with the injustices done to Indigenous peoples by the same. Domination law and policy are camouflaged in plain sight as official policy toward Native Nations. The dominant narrative of how the West was won celebrates the presidents who built a country while committing racist atrocities against Native Americans. For example, Jefferson's Indian policy fueled the most violent and racist strategies of Andrew Jackson. Under Lincoln, US soldiers commanded by an officer who was also a Christian priest slaughtered Cheyenne and Arapaho people at Sand Creek. Under Lincoln's watch, thirty-eight Dakota warriors were publicly hanged in Minnesota in what remains the largest mass execution in US history. Coolidge passed the Indian Citizenship Act and oversaw the Meriam Report, exposing deplorable reservation conditions while advocating federal termination of trust responsibility, the government's moral and legal obligations to protect tribal treaty rights and lands. Truman wanted to wipe out reservations and assimilate Indians into dominant culture. Having one of your own in high office doesn't assure positive outcomes for uprooting the doctrine's cultivation from the Indigenous collective conscience. The US has never had an Indigenous president, but the Herbert Hoover administration included Vice President Charles Curtis, a Kaw tribal member. Curtis grew up on the Kaw reservation and was raised by traditional Kaw grandparents in Oklahoma. He assimilated into dominant culture, becoming a Methodist and a Republican. Curtis drafted the Curtis Act of 1898, an \"Act for the Protection of the People of Indian Territory.\" The act would have actually overturned many treaty rights by allocating federal lands, abolishing tribal courts, and giving the Department of the Interior control over mineral leases on Indian lands. The concepts of transactional analysis, developed by Eric Berne, and triangulation, part of Murray Bowen's family systems theory, provide insight into Curtis's actions against Native people. In 1968, Stephen Karpman developed the idea of the drama triangle. Triangulation is the process whereby a two-party (internal/external) relationship that is experiencing tension will naturally involve a third party to reduce tension. Curtis's life is a drama triangle in which a Native child (Curtis) begins as a victim, becomes an enabler, and evolves into a prosecutor elite for the dominant culture who can cause devastation to the collective conscience.  After the Yakama delegation's visit to the Vatican, one would think Indian country and its tribal leaders would be eager to learn more about the racist Doctrine of Discovery, its roots, and how it affects our Indigenous Nations today. However, in my experience, this hasn't been the case. There was no call to arms. More like deer in the headlights and a collective yawn. In 1967, psychologist Martin Seligman developed the theory of \"learned helplessness.\" He found that learned helplessness can emerge from and contribute to depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Learned helplessness acts in mysterious ways. For Natives it emerged from the historic trauma and collective post-traumatic stress that began with the Doctrine of Discovery. The effects of this trauma on multiple generations are simultaneous and continual. The collective conscience and unconscious had no control over the experience of genocide or doctrinal indoctrination. After the Vatican delegation returned, I attended the annual conference of Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians (ATNI) in Tulalip, Washington. At the request of Yakama Chairman JoDe Goudy, ATNI leadership reluctantly added the Doctrine of Discovery to their agenda. An impromptu breakout session on the topic had limited interest and produced only a cursory desire to learn more. However, this experience did result in a prototype for educating each tribal nation's leadership and membership. The chair of the Yakama Nation Tribal Council developed a process that could be replicated and used by tribal governments to educate their members about the doctrine and work for full grassroots support for revoking it. Elected tribal officials face a daunting dilemma. How do tribal councils mediate healing from the cross-generational trauma caused by the Doctrine of Discovery and create an institutional shift toward revocation of the papal bulls? Given the plethora of immediate and daunting decisions, a single, historic institutional challenge is both out of sight and out of mind. My own tribal government is an example of this dilemma. I attended a Treaty Conference at the Museum at Warm Springs in October 2018. The conference was intended to celebrate our Treaty of 1855 with the US government and educate tribal members about it. Our tribal members were invited, with particular accommodations made for the Tribal Council. During the conference, I asked why the Doctrine of Discovery wasn't on the agenda. I believed this issue was critical to understanding the US government's rationale behind our treaty agreement history. After all, the doctrine was a historic and pivotal issue both to our treaty and to a Supreme Court case that was happening at the time of the conference: Washington State Department of Licensing v. Cougar Den Inc. The Chairman of the Yakama Nation who attended followed me and handed out the Yakama's amicus curiae brief in the case to the attendees. The brief stated, \"the Doctrine of Christian Discovery is legal fiction that [stated that] Christian Europeans immediately and automatically acquired legally recognized property rights in our lands upon reaching the Americas, thereby diminishing our sovereignty, which the State attempts to deploy here.\" The conference organizers and speakers granted my request to add the doctrine to the agenda, but without mention of its Christian origin. Two of the eleven Tribal Council members made Kodak appearances, while a Chief slept through the conference. I reached out to the National Congress of American Indians' general counsel, Derrick Beetso, to ascertain Indian country's interest in the Doctrine of Discovery. He replied, \"I searched our resolutions and did not see an NCAI passed resolution that addresses the issue you raise. If it was presented at a NCAI conference, it very well did not get passed and therefore is not a standing resolution of NCAI.\" I believe the collective Indigenous spirit must address the racial oppression institutionalized by the spiritual anchor of the Western world, the Vatican, as executed by its historical minion, the pope. Whose transnational Indigenous voice speaks to the Holy See and represents our plight and collective conscience? In Native American Religious Identity: Unforgotten Gods, Cherokee scholar Jace Weaver argues for a \"strategic essentialism\" that ascertains and expands the political interests of Native communities and also recognizes the communal dimension integral to Indigenous selfhood, in contrast to the disconnected individuality of Western culture. My outreach to the Wisdom Weavers of the World, the Global Earth Repair Foundation, the Parliament of the World's Religions, the Faith Action Network, and the Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon found common themes and missions regarding the Doctrine of Discovery, including the following: Heal the earth (create a sustainable, compassionate world). Work in the here and now; start within ourselves. Find ecumenical unity in Jesus Christ and honor sacred tradition. Seek pathways to peace. Respond, don't react. Share Indigenous wisdom and sacred teachings. Advocate for the right of Native Nations to live free and independent from oppression. Work for transnational Indigenous inclusion. I agree with the conclusion Vine Deloria made in 1973: \"It is becoming increasingly apparent that we shall not have the benefit of this world for much longer. The imminent and expected destruction of the life cycle of world ecology can be prevented by a radical shift in outlook from our present naïve conception of the world as a testing ground for abstract morality to a more mature view of the universe as a comprehensive matrix of life forms. Making a shift in viewpoint is essentially religious, not economic or political.\" I have a dream of how to achieve the institutional shift. I want a transnational Indigenous voice with integrity and vision: a call to revoke and eliminate the papal bulls that created the Doctrine of Discovery. Our peoples' research and study demonstrate the importance of oral and written knowledge and of our connection to one another and our world. We are expanding the network of support for revocation. I want personal and collective healing from the effects of the doctrine. I want to help mitigate the dominant culture's institutional apprehensions and create positive dialogue toward elimination of the Doctrine of Discovery. In a 2016 essay in Oregon Humanities addressed to her son, my friend and colleague Christine Dupres wrote something I believe speaks to all our children: \"Our community relies on a persistent enactment of the motions of the everyday and upon a quiet lived awareness, one I have grown to understand can bring a seed of cultural continuity up from the ground and back into the light.\" I've written to honor myself, but more important, to honor you, the collective. I speak to Na' me' pupt' (our brother) co' (and) Na' mip' tsh (father of our brother). I ask for help and pray for I la q' ai xisha (lighting the way). Thou' cu ush' (that is all I have to say).   Sal Sahme, a Tygh-pum/Hopi member of the Warm Springs Nation, grew up on two separate Indian reservations. Firmly planted in an inheritance of cultures and languages, he chose to bridge two cultures through education and spiritual tradition. He received his BA with honors from the University of Minnesota and an MBA from Prometheus College in Tacoma, Washington. He retired following a mission to help his people overcome learned helplessness and become whole again.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "colonialism",
      "doctrine-of-discovery",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "In 2016 the Vatican, recognizing the need to understand Indigenous religious protocols, invited Indigenous spiritual leaders from around the world to Rome. On May 4, eleven leaders met outside of Rome to prepare for their visit with Pope Francis. JoDe Goudy, as chairman and a longhouse spiritual leader of the Yakama Nation, began with a song and prayer to honor his peers and the occasion. Each leader followed with a similar honoring and mission: revoke the Doctrine of Discovery. The Doctrine of Discovery is the institutional pillar and origin of systemic racism and the global oppression of Indigenous people. One of the earliest examples of international law, the Doctrine of Discovery holds that when a European, Christian nation discovered new lands---which is to say, planted its flag on land unknown to other European nations---it acquired sovereignty over that territory and any non-Christian, non-European people living in it. This doctrine continues to influence law and policy in the United States: it was referenced in a 2005 Supreme Court Opinion by Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The doctrine originated in a series of fifteenth-century papal bulls, in particular the \"Inter Caetera\" bull of May 4, 1493, which called for non-Christian nations and peoples to be \"reduced to the Catholic faith and Christian religion\" and \"subjected\" in order \"to propagate the Christian Empire.\" The Indigenous leaders' visit to the Vatican marked 523 years since the bull was issued. The Indigenous leaders knew the invitation from the Vatican was a distraction, one long used by Christendom. Pope Frances had already shown himself to be indifferent to their opinions when, during his visit to the United States in September 2015, he canonized Father Junípero Serra, founder of nine of the Catholic missions in California that forced conversion and oversaw the slavery and genocide of Native people. Serra's controversial canonization was viewed by Indigenous leaders as hypocritical and disingenuous. However, they met with the pope at the Vatican in good faith. The Indigenous leaders knew an education process that would open the door toward \"I la q'ai xisha (it is lighting) ishchi't (the road)\" had to be their intent. The papal procession gawked at the visitors' ceremonial white buckskin regalia and head-to-toe trailing eagle headdress. My son JoDe shook the pope's hand and greeted him in our native language by his given name: \"Shix' pa'chway, good afternoon, Jorge.\" The personal exchange was respectful and reciprocal. The pope ended with \"Pray for me.\" JoDe replied, \"Pope Francis, we all need prayer.\" After the formal greeting, the Indigenous leaders met with Vatican officials, including Archbishop Silvano Maria Tomasi, who had just stepped down as one of the Holy See's representatives to the United Nations. But in the meeting, the Vatican representatives claimed to have no knowledge of the Doctrine of Discovery. I believe it's time for illumination. It's time to expose the origin, magnitude, and depth of the Holy See's responsibility for the historical and continual violation of Indigenous humanity. I speak in a borrowed language because of the Doctrine of Discovery. I'm an Indigenous Elder from a federally recognized Native Nation, the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, in Oregon. My parents came from two distinct and different Nations. My mother was a fluent Ichiskiin speaker, a spiritual longhouse leader, and a teacher. She was a descendant of Chief Joseph's sister. Her father and grandfathers were Taixpam chiefs and spiritual leaders. My dad was Hopi from Arizona, First Mesa's Walpi Village. He was a fluent Hopi speaker, a member of the Rabbit and Tobacco clan, and a decorated World War II veteran. In 1972, when I was an undergraduate at the University of Minnesota, I took a class titled \"Western Thought and the Racial Oppression of Man.\" That class was where I first learned that the historic trauma and racial oppression directed at Indigenous people are rooted in Greek \"master/slave\" philosophy, Christian dogma, and so-called divine approval. The cultural message: domination is the nature of man, who uses technology to advance man over nature. Prior to this, I was a reservation Indian with a spiritual glass half-full. I attended a Bureau of Indian Affairs boarding school and several public schools. Their message and intent were clear: assimilation into dominant society. The churches I attended promised I could be saved if only I believed in Christ as my savior. Good deeds would be rewarded and bad deeds punished. That was the same message my parents had received in boarding school and church, and with the same results. Native values and beliefs took priority in practice and were my spiritual anchor. In school we weren't allowed to speak our language. We were separated from our families and marched to meals, class, and Christian functions. But weekends, summers, and holidays were my salvation. Both sides of my family are traditional and practiced our sacred ceremonies and social functions separate from school. However, these practices were only placeholders for longhouse ceremonies, Hopi initiation, and my spiritual well-being. Unlike my parents, I wasn't fluent in either Ichiskiin or Hopi, and didn't fully understand the words to our songs. I participated in our ceremonies in dubiety. The Doctrine of Discovery has uprooted and affected Indigenous languages. In a 2019 paper, \"A Kiksht Revitalization Model: Using Linguistic Materials and a Digital Platform to Learn and Teach a Sleeping Language,\" Shayleen Eaglespeaker writes, \"When a language ceases to be used by a generation whether by choice or by external social factors, the dominant language or language of wider use will take [the] place of the former language in domains of the Individual or the community. This process is called language shift. Language shift happens when the language is not transmitted generationally to new speakers, or when the speakers exchange the use of a heritage language in favor of a different language such as a more dominant language. The choice to switch to the more dominant language may be conscious or unconscious, and it can happen in spite of efforts to stop it. Social factors that contribute to language shift include economic motivation, social stability, and other material rewards that the heritage language cannot provide. Language shift may also be institutionalized or forced by the dominant society.\" My mother's people, the Taixpam, follow a spiritual belief and lifestyle called Tama'nwit. In \"Reciprocity of Tradition,\" an article in the Spring 2020 issue of Oregon Humanities, Joe Whittle wrote, \"Indigenous peoples of the Columbia Plateau have adhered to a physical and spiritual philosophy of reciprocal, equitable, and equal relationships between human beings and with the natural world around them.\" My peoples' spiritual beliefs follow the Wa'ashat reciprocity. This relationship is between human beings and the natural world. Similarly, my father's people, the Hopi, have kachinas who mediate reciprocity. In human ceremonial practice, kachinas are more than spiritual messengers, but not deities. The name has two parts. Ka means \"respect,\" and china, \"spirit.\" They are respected spirits---spirits of the dead; spirits of mineral, plant, and animal; spirits of all the invisible forces of life our universe entails. Both Tama'nwit and kachinas are grounded in human interconnection and codependence with nature. We are led to believe Native history is but a blip in the history of Western man. In God Is Red, Vine Deloria Jr. wrote, \"Christians must disclaim using history as a weapon of conquest.\" The chain must be broken to mitigate healing and create an institutional shift to \"I la q'ai xisha (It is lighting).\" We can make distinctions to start to understand the differences between the teachings of Jesus Christ and the political and legal doctrines of the church-state complex. Ancient Greek philosophy declares, \"If you are not Greek, you are a barbarian.\" During the crusades and conquests of the fourteenth century, Christian leaders adopted this principle. They sanctioned various forms of domination such as genocide, enslavement, and other insurmountable ways to oppress Indigenous nations and peoples. If a slave chose to become a Christian, they were still a barbarian. The first Europeans to make contact in the Americas carried this domination edict to the sovereign Indigenous Nations they met. In 1452, Pope Nicholas V directed Portugal's King Alfonso to \"capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens [Muslims], pagans, and other enemies of Christ\" and put them into \"perpetual slavery\" and take their \"possessions and goods.\" The \"Inter Caetera\" followed, and the Doctrine of Discovery became enshrined in colonial law. Later, the doctrine was cited by the US Supreme Court in its decision in the 1823 case of Johnson v. M'Intosh, which ruled that Native tribes did not have a right to sell their own land. Following Deloria's research in the 1970s, Shawnee-Lenape scholar Steven Newcomb wrote the most complete study on the relationship between the Doctrine of Discovery and US federal Indian law. Newcomb was a member of the 2016 delegation to the Vatican. He provided technical support to the spiritual leaders. While completing an MBA in the 1980s, I began reading Newcomb's work in Indian Country Today. His research into federal Indian law decoded the Doctrine of Discovery. He employed cognitive theory and found an ongoing process of mental or conceptual activity and socialized behavior. Newcomb translated non-English words used in the doctrine. For example, the Latin word deprimatur means \"to subjugate, tame, till, cultivate.\" Colonize tied to \"root-colon-with-digest.\" Newcomb wrote the following in an email to me on November 13, 2013: When the white men who were seated on the early US Supreme Court in the first couple of decades of the nineteenth century began to create ideas about American Indians, they turned to the already existing patterns of thought that had been used by Christian monarchs and popes in ancient times to think about (categorize) non-Christians. The ideas, arguments, and decisions reached by the Supreme Court in those early decades of the 1800's, became a kind of intellectual inheritance formed with the understanding that future generations of the court would continue to rely upon those same religious patterns of reasoning. This was consistent with the principle called \"stare decisis,\" \"the decision must stand.\" To this day, the US Supreme Court has never disavowed or rejected the religious categories still maintained by Supreme Court by means of the Johnson v. M'Intoshdecision. For over two thousand years, the Greek master/slave idiom and Christianity have coalesced in the face of any opposing belief. On one side is a question of divine truth and belief in revelation and in God. On the other side are mortal error, fables, and the damned and devils. I recently read \"Presidents and Native Peoples\" by Alysa Landry in the July 2020 issue of Cowboys and Indians. It reacquainted me with the progress that's been made in Native peoples' relationship with dominant society, and also with the injustices done to Indigenous peoples by the same. Domination law and policy are camouflaged in plain sight as official policy toward Native Nations. The dominant narrative of how the West was won celebrates the presidents who built a country while committing racist atrocities against Native Americans. For example, Jefferson's Indian policy fueled the most violent and racist strategies of Andrew Jackson. Under Lincoln, US soldiers commanded by an officer who was also a Christian priest slaughtered Cheyenne and Arapaho people at Sand Creek. Under Lincoln's watch, thirty-eight Dakota warriors were publicly hanged in Minnesota in what remains the largest mass execution in US history. Coolidge passed the Indian Citizenship Act and oversaw the Meriam Report, exposing deplorable reservation conditions while advocating federal termination of trust responsibility, the government's moral and legal obligations to protect tribal treaty rights and lands. Truman wanted to wipe out reservations and assimilate Indians into dominant culture. Having one of your own in high office doesn't assure positive outcomes for uprooting the doctrine's cultivation from the Indigenous collective conscience. The US has never had an Indigenous president, but the Herbert Hoover administration included Vice President Charles Curtis, a Kaw tribal member. Curtis grew up on the Kaw reservation and was raised by traditional Kaw grandparents in Oklahoma. He assimilated into dominant culture, becoming a Methodist and a Republican. Curtis drafted the Curtis Act of 1898, an \"Act for the Protection of the People of Indian Territory.\" The act would have actually overturned many treaty rights by allocating federal lands, abolishing tribal courts, and giving the Department of the Interior control over mineral leases on Indian lands. The concepts of transactional analysis, developed by Eric Berne, and triangulation, part of Murray Bowen's family systems theory, provide insight into Curtis's actions against Native people. In 1968, Stephen Karpman developed the idea of the drama triangle. Triangulation is the process whereby a two-party (internal/external) relationship that is experiencing tension will naturally involve a third party to reduce tension. Curtis's life is a drama triangle in which a Native child (Curtis) begins as a victim, becomes an enabler, and evolves into a prosecutor elite for the dominant culture who can cause devastation to the collective conscience.  After the Yakama delegation's visit to the Vatican, one would think Indian country and its tribal leaders would be eager to learn more about the racist Doctrine of Discovery, its roots, and how it affects our Indigenous Nations today. However, in my experience, this hasn't been the case. There was no call to arms. More like deer in the headlights and a collective yawn. In 1967, psychologist Martin Seligman developed the theory of \"learned helplessness.\" He found that learned helplessness can emerge from and contribute to depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Learned helplessness acts in mysterious ways. For Natives it emerged from the historic trauma and collective post-traumatic stress that began with the Doctrine of Discovery. The effects of this trauma on multiple generations are simultaneous and continual. The collective conscience and unconscious had no control over the experience of genocide or doctrinal indoctrination. After the Vatican delegation returned, I attended the annual conference of Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians (ATNI) in Tulalip, Washington. At the request of Yakama Chairman JoDe Goudy, ATNI leadership reluctantly added the Doctrine of Discovery to their agenda. An impromptu breakout session on the topic had limited interest and produced only a cursory desire to learn more. However, this experience did result in a prototype for educating each tribal nation's leadership and membership. The chair of the Yakama Nation Tribal Council developed a process that could be replicated and used by tribal governments to educate their members about the doctrine and work for full grassroots support for revoking it. Elected tribal officials face a daunting dilemma. How do tribal councils mediate healing from the cross-generational trauma caused by the Doctrine of Discovery and create an institutional shift toward revocation of the papal bulls? Given the plethora of immediate and daunting decisions, a single, historic institutional challenge is both out of sight and out of mind. My own tribal government is an example of this dilemma. I attended a Treaty Conference at the Museum at Warm Springs in October 2018. The conference was intended to celebrate our Treaty of 1855 with the US government and educate tribal members about it. Our tribal members were invited, with particular accommodations made for the Tribal Council. During the conference, I asked why the Doctrine of Discovery wasn't on the agenda. I believed this issue was critical to understanding the US government's rationale behind our treaty agreement history. After all, the doctrine was a historic and pivotal issue both to our treaty and to a Supreme Court case that was happening at the time of the conference: Washington State Department of Licensing v. Cougar Den Inc. The Chairman of the Yakama Nation who attended followed me and handed out the Yakama's amicus curiae brief in the case to the attendees. The brief stated, \"the Doctrine of Christian Discovery is legal fiction that [stated that] Christian Europeans immediately and automatically acquired legally recognized property rights in our lands upon reaching the Americas, thereby diminishing our sovereignty, which the State attempts to deploy here.\" The conference organizers and speakers granted my request to add the doctrine to the agenda, but without mention of its Christian origin. Two of the eleven Tribal Council members made Kodak appearances, while a Chief slept through the conference. I reached out to the National Congress of American Indians' general counsel, Derrick Beetso, to ascertain Indian country's interest in the Doctrine of Discovery. He replied, \"I searched our resolutions and did not see an NCAI passed resolution that addresses the issue you raise. If it was presented at a NCAI conference, it very well did not get passed and therefore is not a standing resolution of NCAI.\" I believe the collective Indigenous spirit must address the racial oppression institutionalized by the spiritual anchor of the Western world, the Vatican, as executed by its historical minion, the pope. Whose transnational Indigenous voice speaks to the Holy See and represents our plight and collective conscience? In Native American Religious Identity: Unforgotten Gods, Cherokee scholar Jace Weaver argues for a \"strategic essentialism\" that ascertains and expands the political interests of Native communities and also recognizes the communal dimension integral to Indigenous selfhood, in contrast to the disconnected individuality of Western culture. My outreach to the Wisdom Weavers of the World, the Global Earth Repair Foundation, the Parliament of the World's Religions, the Faith Action Network, and the Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon found common themes and missions regarding the Doctrine of Discovery, including the following: Heal the earth (create a sustainable, compassionate world). Work in the here and now; start within ourselves. Find ecumenical unity in Jesus Christ and honor sacred tradition. Seek pathways to peace. Respond, don't react. Share Indigenous wisdom and sacred teachings. Advocate for the right of Native Nations to live free and independent from oppression. Work for transnational Indigenous inclusion. I agree with the conclusion Vine Deloria made in 1973: \"It is becoming increasingly apparent that we shall not have the benefit of this world for much longer. The imminent and expected destruction of the life cycle of world ecology can be prevented by a radical shift in outlook from our present naïve conception of the world as a testing ground for abstract morality to a more mature view of the universe as a comprehensive matrix of life forms. Making a shift in viewpoint is essentially religious, not economic or political.\" I have a dream of how to achieve the institutional shift. I want a transnational Indigenous voice with integrity and vision: a call to revoke and eliminate the papal bulls that created the Doctrine of Discovery. Our peoples' research and study demonstrate the importance of oral and written knowledge and of our connection to one another and our world. We are expanding the network of support for revocation. I want personal and collective healing from the effects of the doctrine. I want to help mitigate the dominant culture's institutional apprehensions and create positive dialogue toward elimination of the Doctrine of Discovery. In a 2016 essay in Oregon Humanities addressed to her son, my friend and colleague Christine Dupres wrote something I believe speaks to all our children: \"Our community relies on a persistent enactment of the motions of the everyday and upon a quiet lived awareness, one I have grown to understand can bring a seed of cultural continuity up from the ground and back into the light.\" I've written to honor myself, but more important, to honor you, the collective. I speak to Na' me' pupt' (our brother) co' (and) Na' mip' tsh (father of our brother). I ask for help and pray for I la q' ai xisha (lighting the way). Thou' cu ush' (that is all I have to say).   Sal Sahme, a Tygh-pum/Hopi member of the Warm Springs Nation, grew up on two separate Indian reservations. Firmly planted in an inheritance of cultures and languages, he chose to bridge two cultures through education and spiritual tradition. He received his BA with honors from the University of Minnesota and an MBA from Prometheus College in Tacoma, Washington. He retired following a mission to help his people overcome learned helplessness and become whole again.",
    "externalUrl": "https://oregonhumanities.org/rll/magazine/possession-spring-2021/lies-of-discovery/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/Race-Religion-and-Nationalism-in-the-21st-Century/",
    "title": "Race, Religion, and Nationalism in the 21st Century",
    "publishedAt": "2024-12-03T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "This Special Issue invites submissions that interrogate the intersection between race, religion, and nationalism in the 21st century. Submissions might explore questions such as: What role does religion play in nationalist groups and movements? How do racism and racialization play a role in discrimination and violence against religious communities",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "journal",
      "featured",
      "land-theft",
      "doctrineofdiscovery",
      "race",
      "special-issue",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Essays from the Open Access Journal Religions Specail Issue on Race, Religion, and Nationalism in the 21st Century are now being published.",
    "externalUrl": "https://www.mdpi.com/journal/religions/special_issues/TER981G9Q3"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/an-original-nations-examination-of-freedom-human-and-human-rights/",
    "title": "An Original Nations’ Examination of “Freedom,” “Human” and “Human Rights”",
    "publishedAt": "2023-08-25T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "This essay reveals why, from an Original Nations’ Perspective, the term “human,” in the Greco-Roman-Judeo-Christian sense, as traced to the Vatican papal bulls of the fifteenth century, means “living under domination,” which in turn changes our understanding of the term “freedom.” We will explain why the international framework of human rights is not designed to liberate Peoples from the claim of a right of domination.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "podcast",
      "doctrine",
      "theology",
      "colonization",
      "indigenous",
      "catholic",
      "papal-bull",
      "responses",
      "joint-statement-responses",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "Some Reflections for the Parliament of the World's Religions in Chicago, Illinois, August 14-18, 2023 by Steven Newcomb (Shawnee/Lenape)\\ Indigenous Law Institute and Original Nations Advocates[^1] \"Force is not truth, nor justice, but [force] is indispensable for the propagation of civilization\"[^2] Contents Our Global Predicament and the 2023 Parliament of the World's Religions An Original Nations' Perspective The Domination Translator The System of Domination The 1893 Congress of Religions The 1890 Massacre at Wounded Knee Birgil and I Attended the 1993 Parliament of the World's Religions How Are We Able to Defend Our \"Freedom\" When We Are Living Under and Subject to the U.S. Claim of a Right of Domination? The Vatican's March 30th Statement About the Doctrine of Discovery and Human Rights Failed to Address the Claim of a Right of Domination The Vatican is Responsible for Our Nations and Peoples Having Been Forced to Transition from Living Free to Living a \"Human\" Existence Under Christian Domination The Mission of the Mission System Is it Possible to Defend a Freedom You've Been Deprived of? Being Whipped and Goaded into Worshipping the \"God\" of the \"Humans\" La Conquistadora (the Female Dominator) Civilization as Domination \"The State\" of Domination A \"Human\" Existence Lived Under Domination Creates the Need for \"Human Rights\" The Context of the United Nations The \"Human Rights\" Framework Provides Us with No Means of Liberating Our Nations and Peoples from the Claim of a Right of Domination Challenging the Claim of a Right of Domination Conclusion Notes ↑ Our Global Predicament and the 2023 Parliament of the World's Religions This essay reveals why, from an Original Nations' Perspective, the term \"human,\" in the Greco-Roman-Judeo-Christian sense, as traced to the Vatican papal bulls of the fifteenth century, means \"living under domination,\" which in turn changes our understanding of the term \"freedom.\" We will explain why the international framework of human rights is not designed to liberate Peoples from the claim of a right of domination. Peoples who were labeled and categorized as \"barbarous,\" \"infidel,\" \"heathen,\" \"pagan,\" and \"savage\" by the ancient political powers of Western Christendom, are still being labeled and categorized in that manner by the present-day successors of those political powers. It's a tradition held together by means of, for example, active Supreme Court precedents that have those labels and categories embedded in them.[^3] Those labels and categories are rooted in the past and ongoing in the present. Domination has been defined as \"living under the arbitrary will of another, [or] having to conform one's actions to a will external to one's own.\"[^4] This essay will explain that the claim of a right of domination is a hidden dimension of the terms \"barbarous\" and \"human.\" We have identified this covert dimension by studying fifteenth century Vatican papal bulls that labeled our non-christian Peoples \"barbarous\" and called for the oppression (\"deprimantur,\" in Latin) of our Original Nations and Peoples. In our view, the claim of a right of domination, and the behaviors that follow from that claim, are the main cause of the global problems we all face. This is why opposition to that claim is a potentially unifying theme for homo sapiens. Accordingly, we are prompted to ask: \"To what extent is the theme of the 2023 Parliament of the World's Religions, 'A Call to Conscience: Defending Freedom and Human Rights' focused on the fundamental and global issue of domination?\" One possible answer is: \"While it's true that the Parliament's theme is not focused on the term domination, the potential for such a focus is hidden in the background and deeper meaning of the terms 'freedom,' 'human,' and 'human rights' when examined from an Original Nations' Perspective.\" ↑ An Original Nations' Perspective Our way of framing the context for this 2023 Parliament of the World's Religions is to think of it in terms of the contrast between our initial free existence as the Original Nations and Peoples of this continent, and the claim of a right of domination that centuries ago was brought by ship across the ocean from Western Christendom and imposed on Peoples and places that Christendom labeled as \"barbarous\" ---an imposition which continues today. From this contrast, two points of view emerge: The first vantage point imagines our ancestors' view-from-the-shore, seeing an invading ship moving toward them. The second vantage point is a view-from-the-ship, with the voyaging colonizers looking at our free and independent Native ancestors standing on shore. ↑ The Domination Translator At times I will be using a specific technique I've developed, which I call \"the domination translator.\" It's quite simple. After a synonym for domination, such as the word \"conquest\", I add the word \"domination\" in brackets. For example, \"conquest [domination].\" Or I may place \"dominator\" or \"dominating\" in brackets. I use this technique because none of us were ever taught to make a mental association between certain English and Latin words and domination. Using this technique helps the brain learn to make the connection. ↑ The System of Domination For tens of thousands of years, our Original Nation ancestors lived truly free here on this Turtle Island continent (\"North America\" ) with our own unique languages, values, and Sacred Responsibilities to care for our homelands. Our Ancestors used their free existence to evolve for us, their future generations, systems of Spiritual Understanding, Knowledge, and Wisdom. They were able to maintain a deep relationship with and an abiding appreciation for all Life, especially the Waters of Life, without which nothing can live. Our songs and ceremonies, our stories, our agricultural practices are all directed toward the accentuation and furtherance of Life. However, centuries of unrestrained domination, which Christian Europeans call a \"human\" existence, have culminated in the waters of Mother Earth and our own bloodstreams being poisoned by carcinogenic and neurologically destructive toxic chemicals. The effect of this toxicity on the mind also needs to be taken into account. All this has happened as a result of a \"human\" economics of unbridled militarism, corporate gluttony, and greed. The ecosystems of the planet have been horrifically impacted, while poverty and abuse have proliferated everywhere. The suffering caused by poverty and degradation is contrasted with a massive accumulation of wealth and power by the masters of the domination system. The wealthy and the powerful create the appearance of \"green,\" \"healthy,\" and \"democratic\" solutions, which are measures that merely reinforce the existing patterns of militarism, colonization, authoritarianism, and suppression. During the past five centuries, the vast majority of the original old growth forests on this Turtle Island continent (\"North America\" ), which our ancestors nurtured, have been cut down, along with much of the rainforests to the South. Massive numbers of species have been wiped out. Genocide---the intention to destroy, in whole or in part, an entire nation or people---was committed against the Buffalo Nation, and against our Original Nations throughout this Western Hemisphere. The \"human\" and \"Christian\" system of domination called \"civilization,\" which has been so destructive to our Original Nations and Peoples is also well-illustrated by the U.S. government detonating nuclear weapons in the homeland of the Western Shoshone Nation, thereby sending radioactivity, spewing out onto the Western Shoshone, the land, the air, and the water, and reaching some 46 states, Mexico, and Canada.[^5] There was no regard by the scientific and military planners for the long-term and devastating consequences of the radiation. The proliferation of nuclear weapons, and the instability caused by competing domination systems vying for supremacy, has brought the planet closer than ever to the real prospect of a nuclear catastrophe.[^6] Innumerable destructive effects of the claim of a right of domination can be recounted. ↑ The 1893 Congress of Religions This Ticket to the 1893 World's Columbian Exposition displayed a Native American chief. Actual American Indians were \"displayed to fairgoers as objects of anthropological inquiry.\" PHOTO:TOM HOFFMAN 2023 marks one hundred thirty years since the convening of the Congress of Religions, which was a gathering of interfaith leaders in Chicago, during the 1893 World's Columbian Exposition. It was intended to celebrate 400 years since Columbus's first voyage to \"discover and conquer\" [dominate] distant non-Christian lands in 1492. It is recorded that more than four thousand people attended the opening ceremony. Representatives from different faiths marched into the Hall of Columbus on September 11, 1893. A replica of the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia was cast for the Exposition. It was named the Columbian (for Columbus) Liberty Bell and stood seven feet high and weighed 13,000 pounds. It was engraved with wording from the Bible and hung up in the Court of Honor. During the grand opening of the Congress of Religions, the bell was rung 10 times to honor \"Liberty of Thought\" and ten world religions -- Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Taoism, Confucianism, Jainism, and Zoroastrianisim. The Original Nations and Peoples of this Turtle Island continent were not honored during the Columbian Exposition or the Congress of Religions, unless the image of an \"Indian\" chief wearing a warbonnet, which was printed on one of the Exposition entrance tickets, strikes you as an honoring.[^7] Some Native people were displayed at the Exposition as an anthropological exhibit.[^8] The U.S. government and various Christian denominations labeled our ancestors as \"barbarous,\" \"pagans,\" \"heathens,\" \"infidels,\" and \"savages,\" whose lands, languages, cultures, and spiritual traditions needed to be wrested away from them, so that they could receive the \"blessings\" and \"progress\" of a \"human\" Christian European \"civilization\" [domination].[^9] To achieve this \"beneficent\" objective, the children of our Original Nations and Peoples were taken away from their families and loved ones and subjected to horrific abuse in so-called \"boarding schools\" and \"residential schools.\"[^10] They were taught the patterns of domination by, for example, being forcibly christianized and violently subjected for doing the most natural thing imaginable, speaking their own Original Nation language.[^11] The death toll was high. At Sherman Indian School in Riverside, California, for instance, there are some 70 unmarked graves. There were more than 300 such \"schools\" in the United States, and several hundred in Canada as well. The children who died were alone without the comfort of any family member or loved ones. ↑ The 1890 Massacre at Wounded Knee Mass grave of Original Free Peoples at Wounded Knee, SD, murdered on 29 December 1890. The 1893 Congress of Religions in Chicago was held at the end of the nineteenth century phase of the bloody era of U.S. Manifest Destiny, and just three years after \"human and Christian civilization,\" represented by some 500 US Army soldiers, and supported by a battery of four Hotchkiss mountain guns and other firearms, slaughtered hundreds of Lakota women, children, elderly, and men at the Wounded Knee Massacre of December 29, 1890. Some twenty of those soldiers were awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, \"the highest military decoration presented by the United States government to a member of its armed forces.\"[^12] Recipients \"must have distinguished themselves at the risk of their own life above and beyond the call of duty in action against an enemy of the United States.\"[^13] Dewey Beard, the grandfather of my Oglala Lakota friend and mentor Birgil Kills Straight, was a Wounded Knee Survivor.[^12] He recounted that the commanding U.S. officer gave his soldiers the order to fire upon the innocent people. When I told Oglala Lakota Medicine Man Richard Two Dogs this story a couple of years ago, he told me that his grandmother had also survived the massacre. His grandmother told him she saw the commanding U.S. officer give the order to commence firing immediately after a Catholic priest finished delivering the last rites, which is a Catholic ceremony that a priest may conduct for those awaiting execution. There is no indication the priest tried to use his influence to talk the commanding officer out of slaughtering Chief Bigfoot and his Miniconjou people.[^13] A century after Wounded Knee, from 1986 to 1990, Birgil Kills Straight (Oglala Lakota), Alex White Plume (Oglala Lakota), and Eugenio White Hawk (Oglala Lakota), and many other people of the Oceti Sakowin (\"Great Sioux Nation\" ) organized an annual horseback ride some 300 miles long, through winter conditions periodically engulfed in blizzards. The Ride retraced the footsteps of Chief Bigfoot and his people to Wounded Knee. They did so as a ceremonial way of renewing the traditional Wiping of the Tears of the people and honoring the memory of the hundreds who were murdered by the U.S. Seventh Cavalry, while at the same time revitalizing the ceremonial life of the Oceti Sakowin. ↑ Birgil and I Attended the 1993 Parliament of the World's Religions In 1993, Birgil and I traveled to Chicago to attend the first Parliament of the World's Religions to be convened since the Congress of Religions was held in 1893. 1893 marked four centuries since Pope Alexander VI had issued a series of papal documents in 1493. The documents called for the propagation of the Christian empire and for the establishment of Christian domination wherever it did not yet exist. Birgil and I were presenters on a panel titled \"Voices of the Dispossessed.\" We brought the issue of the Vatican papal bulls to the world stage by publicizing the patterns of oppression and subjugation found in the Vatican documents. We explained the link between the so-called doctrine of discovery, the Vatican documents, and the ideas and arguments that comprise U.S. federal Indian law, which is an anti-Indian area of \"law.\" 1993 was also the year that we wrote an open letter to then Pope John Paul II,[^14] calling on him to formally revoke the Inter Caetera papal bull of May 4, 1493. We did this as a way of publicizing the connection between U.S. federal Indian law and the Vatican documents of the fifteenth century. ↑ How Are We Able to Defend Our \"Freedom\" When We Are Living Under and Subject to the U.S. Claim of a Right of Domination? As we reflect upon the above information, we---the Indigenous Law Institute and Original Nations Advocates---reaffirm our call upon Pope Francis and the Vatican (the Holy See) to formally revoke the Inter Caetera papal bull and other such fifteenth century Vatican documents. We call upon the U.S. Supreme Court to discontinue using the patterns of domination found in the Johnson v. McIntosh ruling of 1823[^15] against our nations and peoples. We are challenging the destructive conceptual patterns found in those papal documents and in U.S. case law, and the patterns of domination which continue to afflict our Indigenous Nations and Peoples, and the planet. We are also sharing insights obtained from decades of research into the terminology and patterning of the Domination Code.[^16] This year's theme of the Parliament of the World's Religions, \"A Call to Conscience: Defending Freedom and Human Rights,\" raises some questions: Given that our Original Nations and Peoples have lived for more than two centuries under the U.S. government's claim of a right of \"Christian domination,\" and given that the U.S. government is still asserting that claim, why would we say we are defending \"freedom\" under and subject to the U.S. claim of a right of domination? What human rights framework is this year's Parliament theme referencing? Is there a specific provision of human rights that will give us the leverage we need to free ourselves from the U.S. claim of a right of Christian domination, or is the United States going to be able to maintain its claim forever? When someone claims to be defending \"freedom,\" there is an unconscious assumption that we all share the same understanding of the word freedom: \"being free.\" But what kind of \"freedom\" are we talking about, relative to our Original Nations and Peoples, given that foreigners from across the ocean came here, labeled our ancestors \"barbarous\" and worked to deprive us of our original free existence by means of their invasive system of domination called \"human civilization,\" \"democracy,\" and \"civil society\" ? Our nations and peoples have ended up with a type of \"human freedom\" under and subject to the control of the United States (and \"Canada\" ), and of other countries in other areas. This type of \"freedom\" does not include our original free existence because the invaders consider us to be the descendants of \"barbarous\" ancestors and thus rightfully subject to the ideas and arguments produced by their mental world of domination, ideas such as \"conquest,\" \"ultimate dominion,\" and the \"plenary power\" of Congress. To be \"human\" in this context is to live \"free\" under the arbitrary restrictions of a mentally imposed framework of domination. ↑ The Vatican's March 30th Statement About the Doctrine of Discovery and Human Rights Failed to Address the Claim of a Right of Domination[^17] After we helped generate several decades of publicity about the Catholic Church's fifteenth century papal bulls, Pope Francis traveled to \"Canada\" in late July of 2022 as part of the Church's work of evangelization.[^18] Because the graves of Native children had been found on the grounds of former church-run and government-run \"residential\" \"schools,\" the pope also expressed contrition for the deaths of Native children at hundreds of those institutions (indoctrination centers).[^19] His visit was called \"penitential.\"[^20] During the pope's 2022 visit to Canada, some Indigenous peoples' representatives held up banners challenging the \"doctrine of discovery.\"[^21] Then, during his return flight to Rome, the pope told a Mohawk reporter that the horrific treatment of Indigenous peoples by the Canadian government was \"genocide.\"[^22] The pontiff failed, however, to draw attention to the connection between what he was calling genocide and the system of domination which his predecessors set into motion on the planet by means of papal documents of the Holy See. Strangely, the pope also indicated to the reporter that he had no knowledge of the \"doctrine of discovery.\" Then, suddenly, on March 30th 2023, the Vatican issued a statement on the doctrine of discovery. The statement claims that \"The 'doctrine of discovery' is not part of the teachings of the Catholic Church.\" It says that the Holy See [\"repudiates those concepts that fail to recognize the inherent human rights of indigenous [sic] peoples, including what has become known as the legal and political 'doctrine of discovery'.\"](https://ratical.org/manyworlds/StevenNewcomb/RevokeThePapalBulls-Newcomb.html#Point7) For years we've been discussing \"the doctrine of domination\" with a number of Vatican officials, including with Cardinal Anders Arborelius of Sweden, in an effort to make them aware of the theology of domination found in the papal bulls, patterns that continue to have real world destructive consequences today. 30 March 2023 Vatican Statement on the doctrine of discovery Despite our efforts, the March 30th document never once mentions the word \"domination.\" The Vatican statement completely ignores that issue, even though the statement says it has been written as a response to discussions among Indigenous peoples' representatives. This seems strange since we are among the Indigenous peoples' advocates who have been discussing the \"doctrine of discovery\" with Vatican officials.[^17] The Vatican officials did quote the titles of three of the papal documents, but they did not quote one word from the text of those papal bulls, such as the language from Dum Diversas of 1452. Pope Nicholas V provided an excellent example of the patterns of domination in that document when he called upon King Alfonso V of Portugal to travel to the Western coast of Africa, and \"to invade, search out. capture, vanquish, and subdue, all Saracens, and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ ... and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and take away all their possessions and property.\"[^23] The March 30th statement conveniently ignores such evidence, which we have been publicizing for decades. The Vatican's March 30th statement also ignores the intention, which is explicitly mentioned in two papal bull documents dated May 3rd and September 26th of 1493, to establish Christian domination wherever it did not yet exist. The Vatican's statement does not explain that the system of domination the Holy See helped unleash on the planet is what makes people call out for \"human rights.\" The claim of a right of domination is what results in the problems that the international \"human rights\" framework is supposedly designed to resolve. However, the international human rights framework never acknowledges that domination is intrinsic to the meaning of the word \"human.\" ↑ The Vatican is Responsible for Our Nations and Peoples Having Been Forced to Transition from Living Free to Living a \"Human\" Existence Under Christian Domination The history of the colonization of California provides important evidence that the word \"human\" means \"living under domination.\" In 1930, for instance, the California Supreme Court issued a decision in the case City of San Diego v. Cuyamaca Water Company (209 Cal. Mar. 1930, p. 125). The court said that when the Spaniards arrived at Alta (\"Upper\" ) California, with the intention of establishing a Spanish Catholic mission system, the \"Indian population\" was, from the Spaniards' viewpoint, living in \"a state of barbarism.\" Interestingly, the term \"barbarism\" matches Pope Alexander VI's expressed desire in the 1493 papal bulls to \"reduce\" the \"barbarous nations\" to the \"Catholic faith and Christian religion.\"[^24] A system of Christian domination could not be established in any non-Christian place until the original Native peoples were deprived of their free existence and/or removed from the land. In the Spanish language, the Catholic missions, such as those established in Alta (Upper) California in 1769, were called reducciones (\"reductions\" in English). This process of reduction is designed to cause a transition from one capacity, quality, or quantity to a \"diminished\" or smaller capacity, quality, or quantity. A reduction can also be thought of in terms of moving or pushing something downward from a starting height to a lower level, which is the metaphorical image of a motion that causes Free Nations and Peoples to be forced down and under a system of oppression. The imagery of reduction was utilized by Chief Justice John Marshall in the U.S. Supreme Court ruling Johnson & Graham's Lessee v. McIntosh 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823). Marshall said of the \"Indians\": \"Their rights to complete sovereignty, as independent nations, were necessarily diminished by the original fundamental principle that, discovery gave title to those who made it [the discovery].\"[^25] (emphasis added) Notice how Marshall is claiming that the colonizers are original and fundamental to this continent. In fact, they are neither, which is why we emphasize that we are the Original Nations and Peoples who were already living on this and other continents when the invaders arrived on their ships. ↑ The Mission of the Mission System Two Spanish Catholic colonizers, Franciscan Friar Junipero Serra, and Spanish military officer Gaspar de Portola founded the San Diego Mission in the Kumeyaay Nation Territory in 1769, to begin building \"missions\" to the north. They intended for the Indians in Alta California to be \"reduced\" downward from the \"height,\" so to speak, of their original free and independent existence, which the invaders called \"barbarous,\" to a resulting unfree existence called \"human\" under and subject to the supposed Spanish Catholic's claim of a \"right\" of domination. Together, Spanish military officer Gaspar de Portolá and Franciscan Friar Junipero Serra founded the San Diego Mission. In a 1995 essay,[^26] Gary Caldwell says \"it was Serra's task to implement the reducción (reduction) type of mission.\" Caldwell then quotes Lenape scholar Jack Forbes, as saying that a reduction mission \"was not erected in an already existing pueblo with sufficient population to support a church, but was utilized as a device for gathering together (congregating) natives who were dispersed in small villages,' and for 'reducing' them from the 'free,' 'undisciplined' way of life to that of a disciplined subject of Spain.\"[^27] Gary Caldwell lucidly explains how the Spanish Crown had enlisted the Franciscans to assist the Spanish military project to protect Alta California from possible Russian claims to that same area: The Russians were coming, expanding southward out of the Gulf of Alaska with their Aleut hunters in search of the prized sea otter. The strategic plan to meet this threat was crafted by the vainglorious and unstable José de Galvez and approved by [King] Carlos III. It called for an expedition northward which would secure by occupation this remote province of Spain's unguarded northwestern frontier. To that end Father Serra and his Franciscans were enlisted in direct support of this military move on the international chess board. Saint Francis [of Assisi] had been turned on his head. And so it had been from the initial organization of the expedition under [Gaspar de] Portolá in Baja California. It was obvious the Franciscans were going to play much more than a religious role when it came to the native inhabitants of Alta California.[^28] Caldwell notes Charles Chapman's cynical comment about \"the priests heading north.\" For the Franciscan priests, if the individual Indian's \"soul were to be saved and his intelligence quickened . . . his body should first be enslaved [domination].\"[^29] To this, we accurately add, they should first be enslaved [dominated] as part of the process of being made \"human\" living under Christendom's claim of a right of domination. ↑ Is it Possible to Defend a Freedom You've Been Deprived of? Let us now examine more specifically how the invading Spanish Catholic colonizers forced the Native Peoples into a reality of domination called \"human.\" Because of the Spanish Catholic invasion, Native Nations and Peoples were working to \"defend their freedom,\" meaning their original free existence, from the Catholic Church's and the Spanish crown's claim of a right of domination. The framework for this was created by the Spanish monarchy's assumed right of domination (\"dominium\" ) over the Native Nations and their lands.[^30] This was applied to any newly identified non-Christian place on the basis of the papal bulls of domination. After the Original Nations and Peoples had been deprived of their free existence, and forced to live a \"human\" existence under domination, how much of their original freedom was remaining for them to defend? To begin creating a framework of domination in a newly located non-Christian area, a ceremony was conducted which symbolically claimed to \"convert\" the lands of the \"barbarous nations\" into \"Spanish crown land.\"[^31] Additionally, the Native peoples were made to undergo Christian baptism and receive the imposition of a Christian name. The Christian name was a metaphorical carrier (metonymy) of the Christian European system of domination called \"a human existence,\" and \"Spanish civilization.\"[^32] Next, the \"barbarous\" Indians were forced to help build a brutal and deadly \"chain\" of mission structures that was used for containing and controlling them, and for securing control of the land for the Spanish crown. I use the word \"deadly\" based on historian David Stannard's assessment in American Holocaust (1992)[^33] that \"the missions were furnaces of death that sustained their Indian population levels for as long as they did only by driving more and more natives into their confines to compensate for the huge numbers who were being killed once they got there.\"[^34] He continues: This was a pattern that held throughout California and on out across the southwest. Thus, for example, one survey of life and death in an early Arizona mission has turned up statistics showing that at one time an astonishing 93 percent of the children born within its walls died before reaching the age of ten---and yet the mission's total population did not drastically decline. There were various ways in which the mission Indians died. The most common causes were the European introduced diseases---which spread like wildfire in such cramped quarters---and malnutrition. The personal living space for Indians in the missions averaged about seven feet by two feet per person for unmarried captives, who were locked at night into sex-segregated common rooms that contained a single open pit for a toilet.[^35] And, as one example of the views of a Catholic Church official, what did Archbishop Gomez of Los Angeles have to say about this historical record of suffering, disease, and death to force the Indians to transition into an existence under domination called \"human.\" Gomez claimed that Serra was \"a pioneer of human rights and development in the Americas.\"[^36] It would have been more accurate if he had said that Serra \"was a pioneer of human [dominated] rights under domination\" . Referencing Gomez, in 2015 Catholic News Agency stated, \"Not only did Bl. Junipero Serra offer an important model to follow for the eighteenth-century missionaries, but he also continues to pave the way for the new era of cultural encounter.\"[^37] Archbishop Gomez, without a sense of irony, says the current generation \"has much to learn from Padre Serra in the continental mission of the new evangelization.\"[^38] ↑ Being Whipped and Goaded into Worshipping the \"God\" of the \"Humans\" For the Franciscan missionaries, the temporal (physical) and spiritual \"conquest\" [domination] of the Native peoples was a taken for granted objective. Eyewitness Thomas Jefferson Farnham explained that the Indians' attendance at the mission church was mandatory.[^39] Once inside the church, the men and women were separated by a wide aisle. He described the threatening tactics used against the Native people in the mission church to make them comply with the dictates of a \"human\" existence under a joint church (priests)-state (soldiers) system of domination: In this aisle are stationed men with whips and goads to enforce order and silence, and keep them [the Native people] in a kneeling posture. By this arrangement, the untamed and vicious [resistant ones] are generally made willing to comply with the forms of the service. In addition to these restraints, a guard of soldiers with fixed bayonets occupies one end of the church, who may suppress by their more powerful weapons any strong demonstration against this comfortable mode of worshipping God.[^40] Looking back on such examples of mission history, Archbishop Gomez claims \"We cannot judge eighteenth century attitudes and behavior by 21st century standards.\"[^41] \"But the demands of Gospel love are the same in every age,\" he continues.[^42] Gomez does not entertain the possibility that the horrific mission conditions of that time are correctly judged in our time consistent with the eighteenth-century views of the Native Peoples themselves who were being whipped, goaded, terrorized, and killed on a mass scale in the name of \"Gospel love,\" and \"God's plan of salvation,\" and that form of domination euphemistically called \"civilization.\" ↑ La Conquistadora (the Female Dominator) Archbishop Gomez says of Serra, \"His story reminds us of God's plan of salvation, the Gospel was first preached in this country by Spanish missionaries from Mexico, under the sign of the Virgin Guadalupe, the bright star of America's first evangelization.\"[^43] \"And let us ask Our Lady Guadalupe,\" he adds, \"to help us to continue her work of America's first missionaries---in offering Jesus Christ to every man and woman and promoting justice and human dignity.\" He does not admit that, in keeping with the goal of the \"spiritual conquest\" of the \"Indians\", a Spanish name for the Virgin Mary was \"La Conquistadora\" (a female Conqueror, and thus Dominator).[^44] ↑ Civilization as Domination Various tactics were used as a means of forcing Original Nations and Peoples to transition from their traditional free way of life to a \"civilized\" and \"human\" way of life, subject to the Spaniards' claim of a right of Christian domination. This matches a definition of the word \"civilization\" found in Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1996), \"the forcing of a cultural pattern on a population to which it is foreign.\" (emphasis added) It also coincides with a statement made by Manuel Serrano y Sanz in his book Origenes de Dominacion Espanola en America, (\"Origins of Spanish Domination in America\" ) published in 1918. \"Force is not truth,\" said Serrano y Sanz, \"nor justice, but [force]is indispensable for the propagation of civilization . . .\" His statement is aligned with the language of the papal bull of May 4, 1493, where Pope Alexander VI calls for the \"propagation of the Christian empire,\" \"imperii Christiani propagationem.\" In other words, the bloody, destructive, and deadly violence that was inflicted on \"infidel\" nations and peoples in \"the Americas,\" was indispensable for spreading violent Christian evangelism, and for planting (\"propagating\" ) that form of domination called \"human,\" \"Christian,\" and \"civilization.\" Lewis Mumford, in The Myth of the Machine: The Pentagon of Power (1970), points out that the explorations of \"Western man\" were focused on whatever \"aspect of nature\" \"could be brought under human domination.\" (p. 3) Two inventions that helped facilitate this process were the magnetic compass, to figure out where they were going, and gunpowder to assist them in using lethal force once they got there. Then, using synonyms for domination Mumford writes about \"the equipment that made these conquests and exploitations and enslavements possible---the armor, the crossbows, muskets and cannon---these new technical facilities\" which \"gave the Europeans who commanded them, though vastly outnumbered, the power to overcome the aborigines: their [the Christian Europeans'] grim audacity and their utter ruthlessness were not only supported but magnified by their superior weapons.\" \"What is more,\" he continues, \"the easy successes this achieved re-enforced the new power complex [of human domination] that was coming into existence.\" (p. 7) ↑ \"The State\" of Domination Once the Christian European dominators had deprived our ancestors of their free existence, the only possible \"freedom\" for our Original Nations and Peoples to experience was whatever degree of latitude they could achieve under and subject to the resulting \"human\" system of domination being forcibly imposed by the Spanish Catholic imperialist, or by the United States in its political context. If the Native Peoples had been told back then they were in need of \"human rights\" it would have been because of the torment, misery, and death they were experiencing as a result of being forced to live a \"human\" existence under the domination of the Catholic Church and \"the State.\" German sociologist Max Weber pointed out a century ago that \"the State\" is accurately defined as \"a relation of men dominating men,.... If the state is to exist, the dominated [e.g., the Original Nations and Peoples] must obey  the authority claimed by the powers that be.\"[^45] ↑ A \"Human\" Existence Lived Under Domination Creates the Need for \"Human Rights\" If the positive connotation of the terms \"human\" and \"civil society\" is warranted, how is it that for centuries Indigenous (dominated) peoples have been deprived of their freedom, and subjected to slavery, torture, and forced labor as a means of driving them into a \"human\" and \"civil\" order? And once the freedom of the Native peoples had been successfully destroyed as a result of them being subjected to the brutal dominion of a \"civil\" and \"mission\" existence, they were well on their way to becoming \"human\" under and subject to Christian European domination. At that point how much of their pre-invasion pre-domination freedom was remaining for them to have defended by means of the idea \"human rights,\" if such a framework had been existing back then? Being compelled to live a \"human\" life under Christian European domination is what caused them to need \"human rights\" in the first place. ↑ The Context of the United Nations Founded in 1945, the United Nations (UN) defines \"human rights\" as \"rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status.\"[^46] Human rights are said to include \"the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education, and many more.\"[^47] How interesting that the destructive acts perpetrated against the Native peoples to rob them of their freedom and make them \"human\", are the actions said to be disallowed according to the international framework of \"human rights.\" According to the UN, \"International human rights law lays down the obligations of Governments to act in certain ways or to refrain from certain acts, in order to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms of individuals or groups.\"[^48] We are also told that the \"comprehensive body of human rights law\" is \"a universal and internationally protected code to which all nations can subscribe and all people [can] aspire.\"[^49] Given that \"aspire\" means \"to desire a lofty object\", this implies that all people can desire to one day obtain the goal and protected code of human rights. But the UN also tells us that human rights are \"inherent\", which means \"innate\" . It stands to reason that if these rights are innate within us, then there is no need for us to desire them because we already have them. This must mean that such \"rights\" are merely ideational (i.e., existing on the level of ideas) and that the mere aspirational idea of such rights provides us with no actual ability to end the patterns of domination that are causing our suffering and discontent. ↑ The \"Human Rights\" Framework Provides Us with No Means of Liberating Our Nations and Peoples from the Claim of a Right of Domination The language of the Vatican papal bulls, and the above depiction of the Spanish Catholic mission system in California, is but one way to powerfully illustrate how, over the course of centuries, a \"human\" and \"civil\" system of domination has been extended all over our planet, by the Catholic Church and the various \"States of Christendom.\" Today, people throughout the world are seeking relief from the pain, misery, and suffering they are experiencing as a result of being forced to live subject to a \"human\" system of domination called a \"civil society\" and \"the State.\" And the international framework of human rights, unfortunately, does not provide any means of being liberated from this predicament. Innumerable abuses result from living a way of life under the claim of a right of domination. Yet, if we point this out, we are told dismissively, \"well, that's just human nature.\" Those very abuses are what eventually resulted in the development of a framework of \"human rights\" that operates in a limited manner under \"the rule\" [domination] of \"the State.\" When the United Nations was founded in 1945, even though its membership was comprised of \"States,\" it could not be named \"the United States\" because the \"United States of America\" already had that name. This evidently caused the founders of the UN system to revert to the word \"nations\" when naming that international system. In any case, the United Nations is an organization made up of States of domination. And the rules of that system have put everyone on notice that no one is permitted to challenge \"the State's\" ultimate control within its claimed geopolitical boundaries. This is emphasized in the human rights document called The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007). In the text below from Article 46 of the Declaration, we use the domination translator to emphasize concepts of domination found therein: Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State [of domination], people, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act contrary to the Charter of the United Nations [i.e., United States] or construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity [domination] or political unity of sovereign [dominating] and independent States [of domination].[^50] No one, in other words, is allowed to call into question the domination system termed \"civil society,\" \"democracy,\" and \"the State.\" Accordingly, the international framework of human rights regards every State of domination as a permanent and unquestionable given. We as Indigenous people and peoples are able to use international human rights to aspire to someday alleviate the suffering we experience as a result of the domination system, but from the perspective of the UN, no one is allowed to challenge the premise of the UN system, which is \"the State's\" claim of a right of domination over everyone and everything within boundaries claimed geopolitically by a given State of domination. ↑ Challenging the Claim of a Right of Domination An existing global system of domination, which has been used to strip Indigenous Nations and Peoples of their original free existence, is the context for the Parliament's phrase \"defending freedom and human rights.\" One potential course of action is for us to put forward the argument that there is no such thing as a right of domination. Making that argument, however, does not change the fact that the present day and ongoing system of ideas and arguments called U.S. federal Indian law (a.k.a anti-Indian law) and policy has been constructed, and continues to operate, on the basis of the U.S. claim of a right of domination over our original Native Nations and Peoples. The Felix Cohen Handbook of Federal Indian Law, for example, pointedly states: \"Conquest [domination] renders the tribes subject to the legislative power [domination] of the United States.\"[^51] The question remains: How do we get free from the U.S. claim of a right of domination by getting U.S. government officials to stop claiming a right of domination over our original Native Nations and Peoples? And, given that the international \"human rights\" framework does not seem to include the leverage necessary to compel U.S. government officials to stop claiming a right of domination over our Original Nations and Peoples, how can that international framework be a means of liberating ourselves from that U.S. government's invalid claim? Moreover, how can there be peace, harmony, and respect for one another and Mother Earth if the global domination system continues unabated? Given that the \"State\" systems of the planet have been organized around the presumption that every \"State\" has a right of domination over \"its\" \"citizens,\" how are the people who are defined as \"citizens\" going to be able to respond when the algorithms of the internet, including the \"transhuman\" Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems, have been encoded with an assumed right of domination over them? Will every means of escape have been permanently preempted? Here are some additional questions: Will robots and AI systems end up with an unquestioned right to exert a right of domination over the \"humans\" who have built those systems? Will every human being on the planet one day be compelled, based on an AI theology, to live under and subject to an AI system of domination? Will an Era of robots and Artificial Intelligence render obsolete any discussion of a fundamental \"human right\" to live free from an AI system of domination? Will the Chief Justice of an AI Tribunal, which is modeled after Chief Justice John Marshall and the U.S. Supreme Court, someday say of the humans: \"Their rights to live free from an AI System have been necessarily diminished by the original fundamental principle that the discovery of AI gave a title of ultimate dominion to the Central AI System.\" Are we hurtling toward an AI form of totalitarianism from which there will be no means of escape? Is the so-called \"great reset\" simply a \"reset\" and intensification of the global system of domination? ↑ Conclusion There is something that everyone who believes in a free existence should have been calling into question long before now, but without a View-from-the-Shore perspective, it was difficult to understand why we should be doing so. I'm talking about calling into question the Greco-Roman-Judeo-Christian category \"human.\" If you hear someone say, \"You can't treat me like that, I'm a human being,\" the person making that comment assumes that being defined as \"human\" is a solution to the abuse they are suffering. But what if the category \"human\" contains an unnoticed hidden meaning, specifically, \"living under domination.\" And what if that hidden meaning reveals the actual cause of the vast majority of the abuse that people suffer everywhere on Mother Earth? Our View-from-the-Shore perspective as Original Nations and Peoples provides us with an awareness of our pre-invasion free existence. This awareness enables us to see that being defined as \"human\" in a Greco-Roman-Judeo-Christian\" sense, means being born into an unfree existence, which means being made to live under and subject to a taken-for-granted system of domination. This predicament eventually results in the need and demand for \"human\" rights for those who are suffering from being compelled to live under the claim of a right of domination. If a people can be deceived into passionately demanding human rights under domination, without noticing they are doing so, they will end up mentally captured in a most insidious manner. The result is an existential dilemma called the double bind. A double bind means, \"you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't.\" Someone might say, \"I am being dominated and treated horribly because I am not being regarded as human,\" or, that person might say, \"I am being dominated and treated horribly because I am being regarded as human living under and subject to the domination of a civil [domination] society.\" You're damned if you are defined as \"human\" and damned if you aren't. The bind is there no matter where you turn. Our View-from-the-Shore perspective has enabled us to gain these insights from our heightened awareness of our pre-invasion and pre-domination free existence as the Original Nations and Peoples of this continent. We need to keep gaining insights and sharing them with others, while continuously challenging the claim of a right of domination. We need to maintain our spiritual strength and our identity as rightfully free Original Nations and Peoples because the dominationists (aka, \"globalists\" ) are working 24/7/365, with their technological prowess, to forever end even the very possibility of conceiving of a way of life lived free from their imposed \"Greco-Roman-Judeo-Christian\" system and, soon to be Artificial Intelligence, system of domination. Continuous new knowledge and ever-insightful consciousness is a central part of the liberating solutions we need to build together. We have a sacred responsibility to place the long-term well-being of our children and future generations here on Mother Earth ahead of any technological dystopia. Now is the time for the people of good hearts and minds to come together and live out our spiritual values by accurately naming the domination system so we can end it.  We need to publicize the claim of a right of domination, by pointing it out wherever it exists. We need to declare the claim of a right of domination to be invalid. Protocol of Domination Vocabulary We need thoughts, behaviors, and language of Reverence that will enable us to create the social and economic patterns by means of which we can thrive together in perpetuity as free beings, meaning free from domination. In the meantime, we need to learn how to listen skillfully, and develop the receptivity,  patience, and discipline to establish and maintain strong relationships by communicating effectively so we can work together toward these positive outcomes. Notes [^1]: Indigenous Law Institute. See also, https://originalfreenations.com [^2]: Manuel Serrano y Sanz, The Origins of Spanish Domination in America, 1918. [^3]: Ancient labels and categories that have been institutionalized in the symbols, architecture, and linguistic structures of empires and states remain active and ongoing in their present-day systems of meaning. [^4]: From the Preface to Political Exclusion and Domination, in Nomos XLVI, ed., by Melissa S. Williams and Stephen Macedo, Yearbook for the American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy, New York: New York University Press, 2005. [^5]: Nuclear fallout from Manhattan Project's Trinity test reached 46 states, new study finds, Adam Schrader, United Press International, 20 July 2023 [^6]: For a deep reflection on all this see, Trinity's Shadow, Edward Curtin, Behind the Curtain, 29 July 2023 [^7]: Your Ticket to the 1893 Columbian Exposition, Atlas Obscura, 13 July 2015 [^8]: Fair Representation? American Indians and the 1893 Chicago World's Columbian Exposition, David R.M. Beck, World History Connected, Vol. 13, Issue 3. October 2016 [^9]: Johnson v. McIntosh 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823), 573&hl=en&assdt=40000006#p573) \"The potentates of the old world found no difficulty in convincing themselves that they made ample compensation to the inhabitants of the new by bestowing on them civilization and Christianity in exchange for unlimited independence [for the Christian Europeans].\" [^10]: Tamara Starblanket, Suffer the Little Children: Genocide, Indigenous Peoples, and the Canadian State (2018). [^11]: Ibid. [^12]: List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Wounded Knee Massacre, Military Wiki [^13]: Ibid. [^14]: Letter to Pope John Paul II; See \"Revoke the Inter Cetera Bull,\" Valerie Taliman, Turtle Quarterly, Fall-Winter 1994, p. 7-8. [^15]: 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823) at 574, \"[T]hey asserted the ultimate dominion [domination] to be in themselves, and claimed and exercised, as a consequence of this ultimate dominion, a power to grant the soil while yet in possession of the natives.\" [^16]: See Steven T. Newcomb, Pagans in the Promised Land: Decoding the Doctrine of Discovery (2008), and the documentary movie \"The Doctrine of Discovery: Unmasking the Domination Code,\" 2015. Evidence of the Global System of Domination is found in the text of the May 3rd papal bull titled Inter Caetera. It refers, for example, to \"insulas\" (islands) and \"terras firmas\" (firm lands), \"remotis et incognitas\" (remote and unknown), \"que non essent sub actuali dominio temporali aliquorum dominorum Christianorum constitute.\" The Latin is referring to remote and unknown islands and firm lands [continents], \"that have not been \"established under the domination [\"dominio\" ] of any Christian dominators [\"dominorum Christianorum].\" This claim of a right of domination has been used against Indigenous nations and peoples, and, indeed, against peoples and ecosystems everywhere. Given our long-standing challenge to the patterns of domination that are found in the Vatican papal bulls and other documents, this 2023 Parliament provides an excellent opportunity to embrace and publicize a View-from-the-Shore insight about the Parliament's theme. Here's the insight: The present-day concepts of \"freedom\" and \"human rights\" have emerged from a historically Greco-Roman-Judeo-Christian context. In that context, words such as \"human,\" \"civil,\" \"dominion,\" and even \"freedom,\" mean \"living under the claim of a right of domination.\" This is an accurate context for the idea of \"human rights.\" [^17]: Joint Statement on the \"Doctrine of Discovery\" 30 March 2023 [^18]: Pope Francis in Canada, Walking Together, 24-29 July 2022 [^19]: Canada: 751 unmarked graves found at residential school, BBC News, 24 June 2021 [^20]: Pope's Penitential Pilgrimage to Canada to reconcile and heal, Deborah Castellano Lubov, Vatican News, 20 July 2022 [^21]: Why Pope Francis may be hesitant to rescind the Doctrine of Discovery, Mark Gollum, CBC News, 30 July 2022 [^22]: Pope says genocide took place at Canada's residential schools, Ka'nhehsí:io Deer, CBC News, 30 Jul 2023 [^23]: The language from Dum diversas of 1452 is folded into the papal bull, Romanus Pontifex of 1455. [^24]: Ibid. [^25]: Johnson v. McIntosh at 574. [^26]: Gary Caldwell, \"St. Francis Turned on his Head: A Summary Assessment of Mission Impact on the Indian Population of Alta California, 1769-1834,\" For the Indian Task Force, Advisory Council on California Indian Policy, Revised and Expanded, August 1995. (On file with Original Nations Advocates.) [^27]: Ibid., pp. 1-2. [^28]: Ibid., p. 4. [^29]: Ibid., pp. 4-5 [^30]: See generally E. N. Van Kleffens, Hispanic Law until the end of the Middle Ages, Edinburgh, 1968. \"Note on the continued validity after the fifteenth century of medieval Hispanic legislation...ii. the Fuero Juzgo and Las Siete Partidas in the Americas, Asia, and Africa,\" pp. 261-277. [^31]: Ibid. [^32]: See the explanation of metaphorical systems in Newcomb, Pagans in the Promised Land, 2008. [^33]: David Stannaard, American Holocaust, 1992. [^34]: Ibid., p. 137. [^35]: Ibid., pp. 137-138. [^36]: America's Next Saint, St. Junípero Serra, Archbishop Gomez [^37]: Why Junipero Serra's canonization is important for the new evangelization, CNA, 22 January 2015. [^38]: America's Next Saint, op. cit. [^39]: Caldwell, p. 16, footnote 2. [^40]: Ibid. [^41]: America's Next Saint, op. cit. [^42]: Ibid. [^43]: Ibid. [^44]: The cover of Manuel Vanegas's biography of Juan Maria Salvatierra uses the \"La Conquistadora\" to reference the Virgin Mary. [^45]: Politics as Vocation, Max Weber, originally from a 1918 speech at Munich University. [^46]: Human Rights, United Nations -- Peace, dignity and equality on a healthy planet [^47]: Ibid. [^48]: Ibid. [^49]: Ibid. [^50]: Article 46, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, adopted 13 September 2007 [^51]: Note 4, Tribal Sovereignty and the Supreme Court's 1977-1978 Term, 1978 BYU L. Rev. 911 (1978).",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://originalfreenations.com/an-original-nations-examination-of-freedom-human-and-human-rights/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/book-review-urgency-indigenous-values/",
    "title": "Book Review of The Urgency of Indigenous Values",
    "publishedAt": "2025-11-14T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "What is a way forward in the midst of the environmental and ecological crisis? How does religious studies engage with Indigenous Peoples? Philip P. Arnold explores these two different but interrelated questions in The Urgency of Indigenous Values, which offers an alternative perspective on religion that shifts away from a settler-colonial worldview to better affirm Indigenous values.",
    "tags": [
      "Indigenous",
      "religion",
      "values",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "What is a way forward in the midst of the environmental and ecological crisis? How does religious studies engage with Indigenous Peoples? Philip P. Arnold explores these two different but interrelated questions in The Urgency of Indigenous Values, which offers an alternative perspective on religion that shifts away from a settler-colonial worldview to better affirm Indigenous values. The book begins with the premise that there is a crisis in how humanity relates to one another and to the land. Arnold describes this ecological and social crisis as one of values. Indigenous values often stand in contrast to the modern values of settler-colonial people. He contends that understanding Indigenous values is essential for the survival of all life---human and nonhuman. It is through this lens that he critiques the category of religion. Considering the history of Native Peoples, the term religion, and the category of Indigenous religions more specifically, is problematic. Arnold claims that \"religion was used to systematically obliterate Indigenous cultures by attempting to destroy their special relationship with the natural world\" (5). He argues for a more appropriate term and category---Indigenous values. For Arnold, a collaborative model is the most viable path to understanding Indigenous values and securing the survival of all life.",
    "externalUrl": "https://readingreligion.org/9780815638087/the-urgency-of-indigenous-values/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/daily-orange-onondaga-lake/",
    "title": "Onondaga Nation to restore sacred creek after colonial theft",
    "publishedAt": "2024-12-05T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Onondaga Creek, muddied by more than 100 years of pollution, may soon flow with a renewed glimmer under the care of its original protectors, the Onondaga Nation.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "journal",
      "featured",
      "land-theft",
      "doctrineofdiscovery",
      "race",
      "special-issue",
      "blog"
    ],
    "externalUrl": "https://dailyorange.com/2024/12/onondaga-nation-restore-sacred-creek-after-colonial-theft-pollution/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/decoding-doctrine-discovery-series/",
    "title": "Decoding the Doctrine of Christian Discovery: A Wakaga Sovereignty Series",
    "publishedAt": "2025-08-05T10:27:30Z",
    "description": "Decoding the Doctrine of Christian Discovery: A Wakaga Sovereignty Series is a multi-article initiative by the Wakaga Economic Development Group examining how the centuries-old Doctrine of Christian Discovery still shapes federal Indian law and impacts tribal sovereignty today. Drawing on the research of Steven T. Newcomb, this 100+ article series explores the doctrine's colonial origins, its influence on landmark Supreme Court decisions, and its continuing effect on U.S. Indian policy and Wakaga governance. Designed as a resource for tribal members, educators, policymakers, youth, and allies, the series combines historical analysis with practical insights to challenge the legacy of domination embedded in U.S. law and foster informed action toward true sovereignty.",
    "tags": [
      "law",
      "religion",
      "values",
      "environment",
      "featured",
      "Sovereignty",
      "IndigenousRights",
      "DecodingTheDoctrine",
      "Wakaga",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "Decoding the Doctrine of Christian Discovery: A Wakaga Sovereignty Series is a multi-article initiative by the Wakaga Economic Development Group examining how the centuries-old Doctrine of Christian Discovery still shapes federal Indian law and impacts tribal sovereignty today. Drawing on the research of Steven T. Newcomb, this 100+ article series explores the doctrine's colonial origins, its influence on landmark Supreme Court decisions, and its continuing effect on U.S. Indian policy and Wakaga governance. Designed as a resource for tribal members, educators, policymakers, youth, and allies, the series combines historical analysis with practical insights to challenge the legacy of domination embedded in U.S. law and foster informed action toward true sovereignty. 🚨 New Series Alert! 🚨 For centuries, the Doctrine of Christian Discovery has been used to justify the theft of Indigenous lands---and it's STILL shaping federal Indian law today. The Wakaga Economic Development Group's Decoding the Doctrine of Christian Discovery series digs deep into this colonial framework, unpacking its origins, its impact on landmark Supreme Court cases, and how it continues to affect Wakaga sovereignty, land rights, and governance. 💡 Over 100 articles. 📚 Groundbreaking research by Steven T. Newcomb. ⚡ Tools to educate, challenge, and transform U.S. law's legacy of domination. Join us on this journey to understand---and dismantle---the Doctrine of Discovery. 👉 Read the series here",
    "externalUrl": "https://wakagagroup.com/index.php/news/tig/decoding-the-doctrine-of-christian-discovery-a-wakaga-sovereignty-series"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/doctrine-of-discovery-bibliography/",
    "title": "Doctrine of Discovery Resources",
    "publishedAt": "2026-03-11T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Doctrine of Discovery Resources and Bibliography",
    "tags": [
      "theology",
      "religion",
      "domination",
      "christian-nationalism",
      "bibliography",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "externalUrl": "https://rivercrew.notion.site/Doctrine-of-Discovery-a841e79fae19469c829c413fe476dba0"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/documenting-domination/",
    "title": "Documenting Domination: From the Doctrine of Christian Discovery to Dominion Theology",
    "publishedAt": "2024-12-07T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "The Doctrine of Christian Discovery is a series of fifteenth-century papal bulls that served as the theological and legal justification for the colonization of the world and the enslavement of the Original Free Nations, starting first on the African continent before spreading across the globe.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "journal",
      "featured",
      "land-theft",
      "doctrineofdiscovery",
      "race",
      "theology",
      "special-issue",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Abstract The Doctrine of Christian Discovery is a series of fifteenth-century papal bulls that served as the theological and legal justification for the colonization of the world and the enslavement of the Original Free Nations, starting first on the African continent before spreading across the globe. In the 1800s, these bulls and other documents like The Requerimiento and colonial charters would be codified and enshrined together in U.S. law as the Doctrine of Christian Discovery, becoming the foundation of property law and international law. Also, considering what Peter d'Errico calls Federal Anti-Indian Law, we will trace and document how this framework of domination began with the Catholic crowns of Europe and transformed into the dominion theology found within Christian nationalist theologies today. Our research highlights how the Doctrine became enshrined and encoded within Protestantism and the imagined \"secular\" of the U.S. and Canada, countries who rhetorically espouse separation of church and state while justifying land theft, treaty violations, and the abuse of Indigenous nations and peoples through the Doctrine. We craft a genealogy of Christian domination by carefully analyzing primary sources, especially the colonial charters. We will conclude by juxtaposing the domination framework and the Haudenosaunee Confederacy's principles of the Gayanashagowa (Great Law of Peace). Citation Brett, Adam DJ, and Betty Hill (Lyons). 2024. \"Documenting Domination: From the Doctrine of Christian Discovery to Dominion Theology\" Religions 15, no. 12: 1493. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15121493 Download bibtex RIS",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/essay2/documenting/",
    "externalUrl": "https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/15/12/1493"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/domination-chronicles-e00-trailer/",
    "title": "Domination Chronicles: Trailer",
    "publishedAt": "2025-11-17T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Steven Newcomb and Peter d'Errico introduce Domination Chronicles, a podcast focused on domination, discovery, law, language, and Indigenous free existence.",
    "tags": [
      "podcast",
      "domination-chronicles",
      "doctrine-of-discovery",
      "law",
      "language",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "The trailer for Domination Chronicles introduces a conversation that begins where many public discussions stop: with the claim of domination itself. Steven T. Newcomb and Peter d'Errico frame the podcast as an ongoing inquiry into how Christian discovery, federal Indian law, language, symbols, and political concepts have been used to normalize a world built through conquest. The series invites listeners to slow down and notice the words that make domination appear ordinary. Rather than treating the Doctrine of Discovery as a closed historical topic, the podcast follows its continuing effects in law, policy, religion, and everyday assumptions about land and authority. This opening points toward the deeper work of the series: learning to hear the language of domination, to question its claims, and to recover the possibility of original free existence outside the categories imposed by empire.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://dominationchronicles.com/episodes/e00-trailer/",
    "externalUrl": "https://dominationchronicles.com/episodes/e00-trailer/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/domination-chronicles-e001-opening/",
    "title": "Domination Chronicles: Our Opening Conversation",
    "publishedAt": "2025-11-18T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Steven Newcomb and Peter d'Errico begin a decades-long dialogue on domination, Johnson v. McIntosh, Christian discovery, and federal Indian law.",
    "tags": [
      "podcast",
      "domination-chronicles",
      "johnson-v-mcintosh",
      "doctrine-of-discovery",
      "federal-indian-law",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "In the first full episode of Domination Chronicles, Steven Newcomb and Peter d'Errico open a conversation shaped by decades of study, friendship, and shared attention to the legal structure of domination. Their starting point is the 1823 decision in Johnson v. McIntosh, where the United States Supreme Court absorbed Christian discovery into property law and federal Indian law. The episode does more than introduce a podcast. It models a way of reading legal history that refuses to accept domination as neutral background. Newcomb and d'Errico connect the language of discovery to the wider mental world of Christendom, race, gender, law, and worldview. They also place this work alongside cultural projects such as Oyate Woyaka, reminding listeners that language and story remain central to Indigenous life and resistance. The conversation asks what becomes visible when the foundations of U.S. law are read from the standpoint of Native nations' original free existence.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://dominationchronicles.com/episodes/e001-opening/",
    "externalUrl": "https://dominationchronicles.com/episodes/e001-opening/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/domination-chronicles-e002-say-something/",
    "title": "Domination Chronicles: Say Something, See Something",
    "publishedAt": "2025-11-19T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Steve Newcomb and Peter d'Errico examine Halverson v. Burgum and the way Johnson v. McIntosh continues to appear inside modern federal Indian law.",
    "tags": [
      "podcast",
      "domination-chronicles",
      "federal-indian-law",
      "johnson-v-mcintosh",
      "sovereignty",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "This episode turns to Halverson v. Burgum, a 2025 Ninth Circuit decision dismissing Jack Halverson's case against the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The court's reasoning invokes the United States' sovereign immunity and cites Johnson v. McIntosh, showing how a case from 1823 remains active inside contemporary legal decisions affecting Native people. Newcomb and d'Errico use the case to show why close reading matters. Modern opinions may appear technical or procedural, but their authority often rests on older claims of domination that courts continue to treat as settled law. The episode asks listeners to see what is present in plain sight: Christian discovery and federal power do not merely belong to history. They reappear whenever courts transform Native peoples' attempts to seek remedy into occasions for reaffirming U.S. control. The discussion is an invitation to notice how domination speaks through ordinary legal language.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://dominationchronicles.com/episodes/e002-say-something/",
    "externalUrl": "https://dominationchronicles.com/episodes/e002-say-something/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/domination-chronicles-e003-symbols/",
    "title": "Domination Chronicles: Symbols, Enigmas, Curiosity",
    "publishedAt": "2025-11-20T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Steven Newcomb and Peter d'Errico explore how symbols, monuments, seals, and public images participate in creating and preserving domination realities.",
    "tags": [
      "podcast",
      "domination-chronicles",
      "symbols",
      "language",
      "domination",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "Symbols are not passive decorations. In this episode, Steven Newcomb and Peter d'Errico examine how statues, seals, emblems, monuments, and public images help create a shared reality. They ask what these objects reveal about domination, especially when communities debate whether to remove, preserve, or reinterpret them. The conversation treats symbols as evidence of the mental worlds that produced them. A monument may appear to be a marker of the past, but it can also continue to authorize present structures of power. Newcomb and d'Errico invite listeners to approach symbols with curiosity rather than habit, asking what assumptions they carry about land, people, history, and authority. This approach is central to the Doctrine of Discovery Project's work: the systems of domination are not only written in statutes and court opinions. They are also built into the visual and ceremonial language through which societies tell themselves what is normal.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://dominationchronicles.com/episodes/e003-symbols/",
    "externalUrl": "https://dominationchronicles.com/episodes/e003-symbols/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/domination-chronicles-e004-seeing-through/",
    "title": "Domination Chronicles: Seeing Through To The Emperor's Extravagant Pretension",
    "publishedAt": "2025-11-21T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "A Washington Supreme Court concurrence criticizes racist language in federal Indian law while leaving deeper doctrines of domination in place.",
    "tags": [
      "podcast",
      "domination-chronicles",
      "federal-indian-law",
      "racism",
      "courts",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "In this episode, Newcomb and d'Errico examine a Washington Supreme Court concurrence in Flying T Ranch v. Stillaguamish Tribe. The opinion criticizes racist language in foundational federal Indian law cases, but the hosts ask whether removing offensive words is enough when the underlying legal architecture remains intact. The episode presses an important distinction. Courts may condemn old rhetoric while continuing to rely on the doctrines that made that rhetoric legally powerful. This allows legal institutions to appear enlightened without surrendering the claimed authority of discovery, conquest, and domination. Newcomb and d'Errico call listeners to see through the cleaned-up language to the deeper \"extravagant pretension\" that Euro-American law has legitimate authority over Native nations. The conversation is useful for anyone tracking how institutions manage criticism: they may apologize for words while preserving the structure those words once openly named.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://dominationchronicles.com/episodes/e004-seeing-through/",
    "externalUrl": "https://dominationchronicles.com/episodes/e004-seeing-through/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/domination-chronicles-e005-future-of-indians/",
    "title": "Domination Chronicles: The Future of Indians",
    "publishedAt": "2025-11-22T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Steven Newcomb and Peter d'Errico connect Vine Deloria Jr., eminent domain, and contemporary legal scholarship to questions of Native free existence.",
    "tags": [
      "podcast",
      "domination-chronicles",
      "vine-deloria-jr",
      "eminent-domain",
      "free-existence",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "This episode begins with a striking juxtaposition: a 1975 article by Vine Deloria Jr. and a contemporary law review article that raises questions about eminent domain and Native futures. Newcomb and d'Errico use that convergence to ask what happens when originally free peoples are pressed to imagine their futures through the very domination system that attacks their existence. The conversation is less about prediction than orientation. What counts as a future when the available legal categories already assume U.S. superiority over Native nations? How do terms such as property, sovereignty, development, and jurisdiction shape what can be imagined? By returning to Deloria and to current legal debates, the episode asks listeners to consider whether Native futures can be discussed honestly without first naming the system that confines those futures. It is a reminder that the struggle over land is also a struggle over imagination.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://dominationchronicles.com/episodes/e005-future-of-indians/",
    "externalUrl": "https://dominationchronicles.com/episodes/e005-future-of-indians/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/domination-chronicles-e006-plenary-power/",
    "title": "Domination Chronicles: Supreme Court Justices Attack Plenary Power over Native Peoples",
    "publishedAt": "2025-11-23T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Steve Newcomb and Peter d'Errico discuss a Supreme Court dissent that challenges plenary power and opens questions about federal domination over Native nations.",
    "tags": [
      "podcast",
      "domination-chronicles",
      "plenary-power",
      "supreme-court",
      "federal-indian-law",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "Plenary power is one of the central fictions of federal Indian law: the claim that Congress possesses broad, nearly total authority over Native nations. In this episode, Newcomb and d'Errico discuss a Supreme Court dissent by Justices Gorsuch and Thomas that questions that doctrine and suggests the possibility of significant legal change. The hosts do not treat the dissent as a simple victory. Instead, they ask what it means for the Court to criticize plenary power while still operating within a legal system built from discovery and domination. The episode helps listeners understand why plenary power is not merely a technical doctrine. It is a vocabulary for converting Native nations' original free existence into dependence under U.S. authority. The discussion is valuable because it holds open both possibilities at once: the importance of cracks in federal doctrine and the danger of mistaking those cracks for liberation.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://dominationchronicles.com/episodes/e006-plenary-power/",
    "externalUrl": "https://dominationchronicles.com/episodes/e006-plenary-power/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/domination-chronicles-e007-quantum-view/",
    "title": "Domination Chronicles: A Quantum View of Free Existence as Entangled Indeterminacy",
    "publishedAt": "2025-12-01T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Steve Newcomb and Peter d'Errico use quantum theory to rethink free existence, time, domination, and the assumptions behind colonial legal order.",
    "tags": [
      "podcast",
      "domination-chronicles",
      "free-existence",
      "quantum-theory",
      "time",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "This episode brings quantum theory into conversation with Indigenous free existence. Newcomb and d'Errico ask whether concepts such as entanglement, uncertainty, and indeterminacy can help loosen the rigid assumptions that domination systems impose on people, land, time, and law. The discussion moves from physics to history without reducing one to the other. Colonial systems carried a worldview that expected hierarchy, command, rulers, property, and fixed categories. By contrast, the hosts consider free existence as relational, open, and self-determining. They also explore how industrial time and time zones reshaped everyday life, making even time feel like a tool of organization and control. The episode matters because it widens the field of inquiry. The Doctrine of Discovery is not only a legal doctrine; it is part of a larger story about reality. Rethinking existence itself becomes part of resisting domination.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://dominationchronicles.com/episodes/e007-quantum-view/",
    "externalUrl": "https://dominationchronicles.com/episodes/e007-quantum-view/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/domination-chronicles-e008-words-meanings/",
    "title": "Domination Chronicles: Words and Meanings",
    "publishedAt": "2025-12-07T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Newcomb and d'Errico examine how everyday words conceal domination and how careful language work can expose federal Indian law's foundations.",
    "tags": [
      "podcast",
      "domination-chronicles",
      "language",
      "johnson-v-mcintosh",
      "domination",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "Words are not neutral containers. In this episode, Newcomb and d'Errico examine how terms such as state, empire, sovereignty, civilization, landlord, trust, and discovery can hide domination while appearing ordinary. Their conversation shows why the work of definition is central to understanding federal Indian law. Newcomb describes his \"domination translator,\" a method for hearing domination inside words that usually pass without challenge. The hosts return to Johnson v. McIntosh and the \"extravagant pretension\" that discovery gave Christian nations a right of domination. They ask listeners to notice how legal language can normalize a claim that would otherwise appear outrageous. The episode is an important companion to the Doctrine of Discovery Project because it gives practical attention to vocabulary. If domination survives through repeated words and inherited assumptions, then careful reading becomes part of the work of liberation.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://dominationchronicles.com/episodes/e008-words-meanings/",
    "externalUrl": "https://dominationchronicles.com/episodes/e008-words-meanings/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/domination-chronicles-e009-mcgirt-oklahoma-revealing-concealing/",
    "title": "Domination Chronicles: McGirt v. Oklahoma - Revealing and Concealing Domination",
    "publishedAt": "2025-12-17T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Steve Newcomb and Peter d'Errico analyze McGirt v. Oklahoma as a decision that both reveals and conceals U.S. domination in federal Indian law.",
    "tags": [
      "podcast",
      "domination-chronicles",
      "mcgirt-v-oklahoma",
      "federal-indian-law",
      "jurisdiction",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "The Supreme Court's decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma was widely celebrated as a win for the Creek Nation. In this episode, Newcomb and d'Errico ask a more difficult question: what does the decision reveal, and what does it conceal, about U.S. domination over Native nations? Their analysis focuses on jurisdiction, federal power, and the Major Crimes Act. While McGirt recognizes that a reservation continued to exist, it also leaves intact the larger structure through which the United States claims authority over Native people and land. The hosts challenge listeners to move beyond the language of \"wins\" and \"losses\" and to examine the legal framework that makes such outcomes possible. This episode is a careful example of reading beneath headlines. It shows how even favorable decisions can preserve the assumption that federal anti-Indian law has the power to define the terms of Native existence.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://dominationchronicles.com/episodes/e009-mcgirt-oklahoma-revealing-concealing/",
    "externalUrl": "https://dominationchronicles.com/episodes/e009-mcgirt-oklahoma-revealing-concealing/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/domination-chronicles-e010-tee-hit-ton/",
    "title": "Domination Chronicles: Pulp Legal Fiction - Tee-Hit-Ton v. United States",
    "publishedAt": "2025-12-22T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Domination Chronicles examines Tee-Hit-Ton v. United States and the doctrine of Christian discovery as legal fiction serving racial segregation and land theft.",
    "tags": [
      "podcast",
      "domination-chronicles",
      "tee-hit-ton",
      "doctrine-of-discovery",
      "property-law",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "In this episode, Newcomb and d'Errico revisit Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, the 1955 Supreme Court decision that denied compensation for timber taken from Tlingit lands. The case is one of the clearest modern examples of Christian discovery functioning as U.S. property law. The hosts call the opinion \"pulp legal fiction\" because its reasoning depends on inherited colonial stories rather than legitimate consent or justice. They compare the case with Brown v. Board of Education, showing how mid-century legal decisions could challenge one form of racial segregation while preserving another structure of domination against Native nations. The episode helps listeners see how discovery doctrine did not disappear after the Marshall Court. It was renewed and adapted in the twentieth century to protect land theft and federal authority. The conversation is a sharp reminder that legal fiction can have material consequences for peoples, forests, and nations.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://dominationchronicles.com/episodes/e010-tee-hit-ton/",
    "externalUrl": "https://dominationchronicles.com/episodes/e010-tee-hit-ton/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/domination-chronicles-e011-2026-the-year-ahead/",
    "title": "Domination Chronicles: 2026 - The Year Ahead",
    "publishedAt": "2026-01-23T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "A New Year's conversation on domination, free existence, law, language, technology, and the questions shaping the work ahead.",
    "tags": [
      "podcast",
      "domination-chronicles",
      "free-existence",
      "technology",
      "language",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "This New Year's conversation looks ahead by returning to the central themes of the work: domination, free existence, law, language, technology, and the long histories that shape present choices. Newcomb and d'Errico ask how to keep reading deeply in a moment when public language often rewards speed, slogans, and institutional performance. The episode is an orientation for the year rather than a prediction. It connects old legal narratives with new technologies, asking how claims of domination adapt to changing conditions. The hosts emphasize the need for close attention to documents, terms, and stories, because domination often survives by appearing inevitable or benevolent. For readers of the Doctrine of Discovery Project, the episode offers a useful frame: the work is not only about exposing the past. It is also about learning how old patterns reappear in contemporary forms and how original free existence can guide the questions we ask next.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://dominationchronicles.com/episodes/e011-2026-the-year-ahead/",
    "externalUrl": "https://dominationchronicles.com/episodes/e011-2026-the-year-ahead/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/domination-chronicles-e012-federal-indian-boarding-school-report/",
    "title": "Domination Chronicles: The Federal Indian Boarding School Report",
    "publishedAt": "2026-01-28T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Steve Newcomb and Peter d'Errico discuss the Federal Indian Boarding School Report, apology, assimilation, and ongoing domination.",
    "tags": [
      "podcast",
      "domination-chronicles",
      "boarding-schools",
      "assimilation",
      "genocide",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "The Federal Indian Boarding School Report names a history of forced assimilation, but Newcomb and d'Errico ask what such reports can and cannot do when the larger domination framework remains in place. This episode examines apology, documentation, dispossession, and the language used to describe violence against Native children, families, nations, and lifeways. The conversation insists that boarding schools were not isolated abuses. They were part of a system designed to attack Indigenous free existence by reshaping children, language, land relations, and memory. The hosts read the report through that wider frame, asking whether official acknowledgment can become another form of containment if it does not challenge the legal and political structures that made the schools possible. This episode matters for anyone working on truth-telling, repair, or institutional accountability. It reminds us that naming harm is necessary, but not sufficient, when domination continues under new administrative forms.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://dominationchronicles.com/episodes/e012-federal-indian-boarding-school-report/",
    "externalUrl": "https://dominationchronicles.com/episodes/e012-federal-indian-boarding-school-report/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/domination-chronicles-e013-a-domination-chronicles-lexicon/",
    "title": "Domination Chronicles: A Domination Chronicles Lexicon",
    "publishedAt": "2026-02-01T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Steven Newcomb examines key terms including civilization, state, sovereignty, ascendancy, dominion, property, and empire.",
    "tags": [
      "podcast",
      "domination-chronicles",
      "language",
      "sovereignty",
      "empire",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "This brief episode offers a lexicon for hearing domination in the words that organize political and legal life. Steven Newcomb focuses on terms such as civilization, state, sovereignty, ascendancy, dominion, property, and empire, showing how each word can carry a history of coercion beneath its ordinary use. The episode is especially useful as a companion to the Doctrine of Discovery Project because it provides a vocabulary for close reading. \"Civilization\" becomes a name for forcing one cultural pattern onto another people. \"Sovereignty\" becomes a claim of unlimited power. \"Dominion\" and \"property\" reveal relationships of control. These definitions are not academic exercises. They help listeners recognize how domination is encoded into the language of law, politics, and everyday common sense. By slowing down over words, the episode opens a way to question the world those words have been used to build.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://dominationchronicles.com/episodes/e013-a-domination-chronicles-lexicon/",
    "externalUrl": "https://dominationchronicles.com/episodes/e013-a-domination-chronicles-lexicon/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/domination-chronicles-e015-domination-chronicles-stolen-land/",
    "title": "Domination Chronicles: Stolen Land and the Danger of Performative Speech",
    "publishedAt": "2026-02-19T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Peter d'Errico and Steven Newcomb explore stolen land, performative speech, legal precedent, and the right of domination.",
    "tags": [
      "podcast",
      "domination-chronicles",
      "stolen-land",
      "johnson-v-mcintosh",
      "performative-speech",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "This episode begins with the public controversy around saying \"stolen land\" and moves quickly to the deeper issue: what kind of speech actually challenges domination? Newcomb and d'Errico distinguish between words that perform legal acts, such as claiming land for a monarch, and words that perform social approval without changing underlying structures. The hosts return to Johnson v. McIntosh and the \"extravagant pretension\" that Christian discovery gave colonizing powers a right of domination. They argue that modern statements about stolen land often touch a central truth while stopping short of the legal framework that made theft appear lawful. The episode is valuable because it refuses both silence and easy slogans. It asks listeners to connect moral language to legal history, and to notice when public speech names harm without confronting the systems that continue to benefit from it.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://dominationchronicles.com/episodes/e015-domination-chronicles-stolen-land/",
    "externalUrl": "https://dominationchronicles.com/episodes/e015-domination-chronicles-stolen-land/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/domination-chronicles-e016-colonists-settlers-invaders-expansionists-immigrants/",
    "title": "Domination Chronicles: Colonists, Settlers, Invaders, Expansionists, Immigrants",
    "publishedAt": "2026-02-24T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Peter d'Errico and Steven Newcomb critique language around the Indian Removal Act, settlement, immigration, liberty, and domination.",
    "tags": [
      "podcast",
      "domination-chronicles",
      "indian-removal",
      "language",
      "colonization",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "What do we call the people who came onto Native lands under claims of empire, settlement, expansion, and law? In this episode, Newcomb and d'Errico critique the language used in a contemporary article about the Indian Removal Act and the Muscogee Nation, asking how words such as colonists, settlers, invaders, expansionists, and immigrants shape historical understanding. The discussion shows that naming is never merely descriptive. Each term carries assumptions about legitimacy, movement, property, and belonging. When histories of removal are narrated through the language of settlement or liberty, domination can be softened or hidden. The hosts return to Johnson v. McIntosh and the legal world that made Native lands available to U.S. expansion. This episode is a useful exercise in linguistic discipline. It asks readers to notice when familiar civic vocabulary makes invasion sound ordinary and when the \"rule of law\" becomes a weapon against Native nations.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://dominationchronicles.com/episodes/e016-colonists-settlers-invaders-expansionists-immigrants/",
    "externalUrl": "https://dominationchronicles.com/episodes/e016-colonists-settlers-invaders-expansionists-immigrants/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/domination-chronicles-e017-bruce-mcivor-legalized-lawlessness/",
    "title": "Domination Chronicles: Bruce McIvor on Legalized Lawlessness",
    "publishedAt": "2026-03-09T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Bruce McIvor joins Newcomb and d'Errico to discuss Canadian law, reconciliation, the Doctrine of Discovery, and ongoing colonization.",
    "tags": [
      "podcast",
      "domination-chronicles",
      "canada",
      "doctrine-of-discovery",
      "reconciliation",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "Attorney Bruce McIvor joins Newcomb and d'Errico to discuss what he calls \"legalized lawlessness\" in Canada. The phrase names a system in which courts and governments claim legitimacy while continuing to rely on the Crown's assertion of sovereignty and the Doctrine of Discovery to control Indigenous lands and peoples. The episode connects legal doctrine with lived political practice. McIvor explains how governments can speak the language of reconciliation while changing laws, manipulating processes, and preserving colonial authority when Indigenous people successfully defend their rights. The conversation also highlights the importance of language and etymology in exposing how power hides inside legal terms. For the Doctrine of Discovery Project, this episode is a strong reminder that domination is not limited to U.S. federal Indian law. It moves through Canadian law as well, where \"reconciliation\" can become another administrative form of control unless the original claim of domination is confronted.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://dominationchronicles.com/episodes/e017-bruce-mcivor-legalized-lawlessness/",
    "externalUrl": "https://dominationchronicles.com/episodes/e017-bruce-mcivor-legalized-lawlessness/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/domination-chronicles-e018-mark-savage-natural-rights-unravelling-the-questions/",
    "title": "Domination Chronicles: Mark Savage on Natural Rights and Unravelling the Questions",
    "publishedAt": "2026-03-20T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Attorney Mark Savage joins Domination Chronicles to revisit plenary power, original free existence, treaties, and systemic litigation.",
    "tags": [
      "podcast",
      "domination-chronicles",
      "plenary-power",
      "treaties",
      "free-existence",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "Attorney Mark Savage joins Newcomb and d'Errico for a conversation about natural rights, plenary power, treaties, and the possibility of systemic litigation. The episode asks what changes when Native nations and their advocates begin from original free existence rather than from the categories imposed by federal anti-Indian law. The discussion revisits some of the central legal fictions of U.S. law, especially the claim that Congress holds plenary power over Indigenous nations. It also considers treaties and bilateral relations as reminders that Native nations were not created by the United States and do not derive their existence from federal recognition. Savage's presence brings the conversation toward strategy without losing the deeper conceptual work. The episode is important because it shows how legal argument depends on the questions we ask first. If the starting point is domination, one set of possibilities appears. If the starting point is original free existence, another horizon opens.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://dominationchronicles.com/episodes/e018-mark-savage-natural-rights-unravelling-the-questions/",
    "externalUrl": "https://dominationchronicles.com/episodes/e018-mark-savage-natural-rights-unravelling-the-questions/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/domination-chronicles-e019-loretta-afraid-of-bear-cook-living-in-oglala-lakota-community/",
    "title": "Domination Chronicles: Loretta Afraid of Bear-Cook on Living in Oglala Lakota Community",
    "publishedAt": "2026-04-07T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Loretta Afraid of Bear-Cook joins Newcomb and d'Errico to discuss Oglala Lakota community, language, traditions, and resistance to domination.",
    "tags": [
      "podcast",
      "domination-chronicles",
      "lakota",
      "language",
      "community",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "Loretta Afraid of Bear-Cook joins Newcomb and d'Errico for a conversation grounded in Oglala Lakota community, language, food, ceremony, and everyday practices of relationship. The episode expands the series by centering living traditions and the work required to sustain them under conditions shaped by domination and modern convenience. The conversation reminds listeners that resistance is not only a matter of court cases or public statements. It is also carried through language, kinship, seasonal knowledge, food practices, and responsibilities to place. Afraid of Bear-Cook speaks from within community life, showing how Indigenous existence continues through practices that colonial systems have tried to interrupt or replace. For readers of the Doctrine of Discovery Project, this episode is a necessary counterpoint to legal analysis. It shows what domination attacks, but also what persists: relationships, teachings, and ways of being that cannot be reduced to federal categories.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://dominationchronicles.com/episodes/e019-loretta-afraid-of-bear-cook-living-in-oglala-lakota-community/",
    "externalUrl": "https://dominationchronicles.com/episodes/e019-loretta-afraid-of-bear-cook-living-in-oglala-lakota-community/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/domination-chronicles-e020-unworthy-trust-domination-fear-and-fearlesness/",
    "title": "Domination Chronicles: Untrustworthy Trust - Domination, Fear, and Fearlessness",
    "publishedAt": "2026-04-18T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Newcomb and d'Errico examine the federal Indian law trust doctrine as a euphemism for domination rather than a protective obligation.",
    "tags": [
      "podcast",
      "domination-chronicles",
      "trust-doctrine",
      "federal-indian-law",
      "language",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "The federal Indian law \"trust doctrine\" is often described as a protective obligation. In this episode, Newcomb and d'Errico ask whether the word trust actually hides a relationship of domination. Their discussion traces how a term associated with care can become a legal euphemism for control. The episode is a close study in language and power. When courts and commentators speak of a federal trust responsibility, they may sound benevolent while preserving the assumption that the United States stands above Native nations as manager, guardian, or superior authority. Newcomb and d'Errico connect this vocabulary to fear and fearlessness, asking what it takes to name domination directly when familiar legal language discourages that clarity. The conversation is useful for anyone who encounters the trust doctrine in law, policy, or advocacy. It encourages readers to ask what the doctrine does, not only what it claims to mean.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://dominationchronicles.com/episodes/e020-unworthy-trust-domination-fear-and-fearlesness/",
    "externalUrl": "https://dominationchronicles.com/episodes/e020-unworthy-trust-domination-fear-and-fearlesness/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/domination-chronicles-e021-tribal-sovereignty-101/",
    "title": "Domination Chronicles: Tribal Sovereignty 101",
    "publishedAt": "2026-05-25T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Steve Newcomb and Peter d'Errico unpack tribal sovereignty, limited sovereignty, federal anti-Indian law, and the language trap of domination.",
    "tags": [
      "podcast",
      "domination-chronicles",
      "tribal-sovereignty",
      "federal-indian-law",
      "language",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "In this episode, Newcomb and d'Errico unpack the phrase \"tribal sovereignty\" and argue that it often functions as a language trap. If sovereignty means a claim of unlimited power, then \"limited sovereignty\" becomes an oxymoron. Federal anti-Indian law uses that contradiction to make domination sound like recognition. The conversation examines how Native nations are encouraged to speak in terms that already accept U.S. authority as the defining frame. Phrases such as \"sovereignty that the United States has not extinguished\" reveal the claim of domination hidden inside apparently supportive legal language. The hosts also discuss contemporary land-rights arguments that can unintentionally reproduce the framework they seek to resist. This episode is important because it challenges one of the most common vocabularies in Native law and advocacy. It asks whether a language of limited sovereignty can ever fully express original free existence.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://dominationchronicles.com/episodes/e021-tribal-sovereignty-101/",
    "externalUrl": "https://dominationchronicles.com/episodes/e021-tribal-sovereignty-101/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/domination-chronicles-e022-where/",
    "title": "Domination Chronicles: Where Are We Now?",
    "publishedAt": "2026-06-08T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Steven Newcomb and Peter d'Errico ask why domination must be treated as the beginning of serious inquiry, not the end of the conversation.",
    "tags": [
      "podcast",
      "domination-chronicles",
      "domination",
      "language",
      "doctrine-of-discovery",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "In this episode, Newcomb and d'Errico step back to ask where the work is now. They warn against turning words such as domination and discovery into slogans. Naming domination is necessary, but it is only the beginning of serious inquiry into law, religion, history, political language, and systems of control. The conversation returns to key terms such as dominion, conquest, sovereignty, treaty, right, claim, and Johnson v. McIntosh. Each word opens a question about how domination has been asserted, disguised, and normalized. The hosts also reflect on plurality: many peoples, many languages, many ways of being in relation, rather than one imposed world or one imposed solution. This episode is a strong entry point for new listeners and a useful orientation for those already following the series. It asks us to resist the comfort of slogans and to continue the slower work of understanding how domination operates beneath familiar words.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://dominationchronicles.com/episodes/e022-where/",
    "externalUrl": "https://dominationchronicles.com/episodes/e022-where/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/domincation-code-free-screening/",
    "title": "The Doctrine of Discovery: Unmasking the Domination Code; with Live Q & A",
    "publishedAt": "2025-01-29T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Join us for a deep dive into The Doctrine of Discovery film and uncover the hidden truths behind the Domination Code in our live Q&A session Register Now The Doctrine of Discovery: Unmasking the Domination Code film & Live Q & A Welcome to film screening of the thought-provoking film The Doctrine of Discovery: Unmasking the Domination Code, followed by a live Q & A session with renowned Indigenous speakers Steven T. Newcomb and Shawna Bluestar Newcomb. Join us as we delve into the history and impact of the Doctrine of Discovery, and Domination Code, a concept that has shaped the course of history and is amplified with a destructive influence for All Peoples, and our Beloved Planet. We will also share alternative solutions as a way towards harmony, balance honoring our Sacred Earth, All People, Beings, and Future Generations. Get ready to engage with experts and ask your burning questions during the interactive Q & A session. Don’t miss this eye-opening event! This profound film and insights have changed the way they see their life, history and the world, and how to be more compasionate participants for change. The film has been opening hearts and minds since 2015. Join us February 2nd, 2025 @ 11 am PST, 7 pm GMT Presentation: Steven T. Newcomb, writer and co-producer behind the film will be joined by his daughter Shawna Bluestar Newcomb to present this ground-breaking film. They will share more about the history and research behind the film, and how this relates to current topics. It affects all of us today with dire consequences, and extends into the social, ecological, political and economic challenges people are experiencing. The vision Steven Newcomb and Shawna Bluestar Newcomb share is one of restoration, balance, harmony and healing. Shawna Bluestar also presents empowering and healing alternatives through her teachings on The Reverence Code. This unique blueprint offers a powerful way to help navigate this time of big changes, and help transform grief, anger, anxiety, or despair into greater resilience, courage, purpose and joyfilled life and leadership. We honor all spiritual paths, and backgrounds. We look forward to connecting with you. About the Film 2025 is the 10th anniversary since the premier of this award-winning and compelling film “The Doctrine of Discovery: Unmasking The Domination Code” (by Steven T. Newcomb, and directed and co-produced by Sheldon Wolfchild) This presentation helps to connect the dots to root causes behind current events & crises affecting All Peoples & our beloved Earth and this little known history. The film tells the story of how ancient Vatican documents of the fifteenth century resulted in a tragic global momentum of domination and dehumanization. This led to law systems in the U.S. and Canada, and throughout the world, that are still used against Original Indigenous Nations & Peoples to this day. These destructive patterns set into motion systems that affect All Peoples, Beings & our Precious Planet. The mindset of domination expands resulted in the current ecological, social, economic & political issues affecting us all. We respect people of all faiths & backgrounds. Parts of the film can be sensitive for some viewers. It examines the legacy of domination code systems & patterns. The film concludes with traditional teachings developed over thousands of years that provide a positive alternative. Background: In 1992, Mr. Newcomb, along with his friend and mentor Birgil Kills Straight, (Oglala, Lakota Headman) called upon the Vatican to revoke the Papal Bulls of Domination and dehumanization (Doctrine of Discovery) of the 14th and 15th centuries. Their work has become a global movement for change and healing. Mr. Newcomb’s best-selling book, Pagans in the Promised Land; Decoding the Doctrine of Christian Discovery shares his decades of research. Mr. Newcomb’s book, film and research is celebrated by universities, communities, churches, advocates, and Peoples of all backgrounds throughout the world. In 2015, Mr. Newcomb released the award-winning film, titled, The Doctrine of Discovery: Unmasking the Domination Code. In 2016, Mr. Newcomb, with a group of Original Nations elders, and friends spoke with Pope Francis at the Vatican. Ongoing efforts and conversations continue. Vision The vision Steven Newcomb and Shawna Bluestar Newcomb share is one of restoration, balance, harmony and healing for all Peoples, the Planet, and all aspects of Life. More information: For related extensive articles, research, lectures, and media Steven T. Newcomb Original Free Nations https://originalfreenations.com Shawna Bluestar Newcomb For related courses, workshops, sessions, summits, and podcasts https://shawnabluestar.com",
    "tags": [
      "Law",
      "Event",
      "Education",
      "Resources",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "Join us for a deep dive into The Doctrine of Discovery film and uncover the hidden truths behind the Domination Code in our live Q&A session Register Now The Doctrine of Discovery: Unmasking the Domination Code film & Live Q & A Welcome to film screening of the thought-provoking film The Doctrine of Discovery: Unmasking the Domination Code, followed by a live Q & A session with renowned Indigenous speakers Steven T. Newcomb and Shawna Bluestar Newcomb. Join us as we delve into the history and impact of the Doctrine of Discovery, and Domination Code, a concept that has shaped the course of history and is amplified with a destructive influence for All Peoples, and our Beloved Planet. We will also share alternative solutions as a way towards harmony, balance honoring our Sacred Earth, All People, Beings, and Future Generations. Get ready to engage with experts and ask your burning questions during the interactive Q & A session. Don't miss this eye-opening event! This profound film and insights have changed the way they see their life, history and the world, and how to be more compasionate participants for change. The film has been opening hearts and minds since 2015. Join us February 2nd, 2025 @ 11 am PST, 7 pm GMT Presentation: Steven T. Newcomb, writer and co-producer behind the film will be joined by his daughter Shawna Bluestar Newcomb to present this ground-breaking film. They will share more about the history and research behind the film, and how this relates to current topics. It affects all of us today with dire consequences, and extends into the social, ecological, political and economic challenges people are experiencing. The vision Steven Newcomb and Shawna Bluestar Newcomb share is one of restoration, balance, harmony and healing. Shawna Bluestar also presents empowering and healing alternatives through her teachings on The Reverence Code. This unique blueprint offers a powerful way to help navigate this time of big changes, and help transform grief, anger, anxiety, or despair into greater resilience, courage, purpose and joyfilled life and leadership. We honor all spiritual paths, and backgrounds. We look forward to connecting with you. About the Film 2025 is the 10th anniversary since the premier of this award-winning and compelling film \"The Doctrine of Discovery: Unmasking The Domination Code\" (by Steven T. Newcomb, and directed and co-produced by Sheldon Wolfchild) This presentation helps to connect the dots to root causes behind current events & crises affecting All Peoples & our beloved Earth and this little known history. The film tells the story of how ancient Vatican documents of the fifteenth century resulted in a tragic global momentum of domination and dehumanization. This led to law systems in the U.S. and Canada, and throughout the world, that are still used against Original Indigenous Nations & Peoples to this day. These destructive patterns set into motion systems that affect All Peoples, Beings & our Precious Planet. The mindset of domination expands resulted in the current ecological, social, economic & political issues affecting us all. We respect people of all faiths & backgrounds. Parts of the film can be sensitive for some viewers. It examines the legacy of domination code systems & patterns. The film concludes with traditional teachings developed over thousands of years that provide a positive alternative. Background: In 1992, Mr. Newcomb, along with his friend and mentor Birgil Kills Straight, (Oglala, Lakota Headman) called upon the Vatican to revoke the Papal Bulls of Domination and dehumanization (Doctrine of Discovery) of the 14th and 15th centuries. Their work has become a global movement for change and healing. Mr. Newcomb's best-selling book, Pagans in the Promised Land; Decoding the Doctrine of Christian Discovery shares his decades of research. Mr. Newcomb's book, film and research is celebrated by universities, communities, churches, advocates, and Peoples of all backgrounds throughout the world. In 2015, Mr. Newcomb released the award-winning film, titled, The Doctrine of Discovery: Unmasking the Domination Code. In 2016, Mr. Newcomb, with a group of Original Nations elders, and friends spoke with Pope Francis at the Vatican. Ongoing efforts and conversations continue. Vision The vision Steven Newcomb and Shawna Bluestar Newcomb share is one of restoration, balance, harmony and healing for all Peoples, the Planet, and all aspects of Life. More information: For related extensive articles, research, lectures, and media Steven T. Newcomb Original Free Nations Shawna Bluestar Newcomb\\ For related courses, workshops, sessions, summits, and podcasts\\",
    "externalUrl": "https://www.eventbrite.com/e/the-doctrine-of-discovery-unmasking-the-domination-code-with-live-q-a-tickets-1225475132109?aff=oddtdtcreator"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/erie-canal-map-arcgis-su/",
    "title": "The Haudenosaunee and the Erie Canal",
    "publishedAt": "2025-01-23T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "In his address during the Erie Canal Centennial Celebration in 1926, Dr. John H. Finley remarked that the Canal’s economic benefits, though immense, were outweighed by its social and political significance. He noted that George Washington himself feared that without improved inland navigation, settlers in the Ohio territory (then the western frontier) would become dependent on trade with British Canada and Spain, and with these commercial ties would come closer political ties, weakening the infant union. The Erie Canal served to bind together the Midwest to the Atlantic Seaboard, strengthening the nascent republic. However, early leaders never seriously considered the Indigenous peoples of the state when planning canal projects. The primary impetus was to acquire the land by any means, whether legal, illegal, or fraudulent. There was also a widely accepted assumption that Haudenosaunee would simply “fade away”or be forced westward as settlers streamed in. Native Americans were often viewed as a relic of the past with no place in the post-revolutionary world of the nineteenth century. This belief in the “myth of the  Vanishing Indian  ” allowed Americans from the colonial period forward to avoid a sense of culpability in dealing with the continent’s indigenous inhabitants. Thus, the Canal Period became an important factor in the dispossession of the Haudenosaunee.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "Haudenosaunee",
      "erie-canal",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "In his address during the Erie Canal Centennial Celebration in 1926, Dr. John H. Finley remarked that the Canal's economic benefits, though immense, were outweighed by its social and political significance. He noted that George Washington himself feared that without improved inland navigation, settlers in the Ohio territory (then the western frontier) would become dependent on trade with British Canada and Spain, and with these commercial ties would come closer political ties, weakening the infant union. The Erie Canal served to bind together the Midwest to the Atlantic Seaboard, strengthening the nascent republic. However, early leaders never seriously considered the Indigenous peoples of the state when planning canal projects. The primary impetus was to acquire the land by any means, whether legal, illegal, or fraudulent. There was also a widely accepted assumption that Haudenosaunee would simply \"fade away\"or be forced westward as settlers streamed in. Native Americans were often viewed as a relic of the past with no place in the post-revolutionary world of the nineteenth century. This belief in the \"myth of the  Vanishing Indian \" allowed Americans from the colonial period forward to avoid a sense of culpability in dealing with the continent's indigenous inhabitants. Thus, the Canal Period became an important factor in the dispossession of the Haudenosaunee.",
    "externalUrl": "https://arcg.is/15bn4W"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/evangelical-zionism/",
    "title": "Evangelical Zionism: From the River to the Sea Palestine by Tad Delay",
    "publishedAt": "2024-12-02T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Sitting amid this background before a congressional hearing, Reagan’s secretary of the interior James G. Watt was asked if he would protect wildernesses for future generations. Watt replied, “I do not know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns.” A normal American reaction. When I speak of the popular belief that we are living in the End Times, I hear either laughs in disbelief or, among those who grew up in that world, instant recognition. As a child, I doubt I knew many adults who didn’t believe the world was ending. But how many Americans believe there will be a future? How does that belief intersect with the climate and other crises? In 2010, Pew Research Center surveyed how many Americans believed Christ would return by 2050.[3] Forty-eight percent of Christians agreed (roughly four in ten Americans overall): Catholics (thirty-two percent), mainline Protestants (twenty-seven percent), and the religiously unaffiliated (20 percent) believed this with less frequency than white evangelicals (fifty-eight percent). Only a tenth of American Christians felt sure Christ would not return in this window. But Evangelicals are outliers. Only one in three Americans, while sixty-five percent of evangelicals, believe natural disasters are signs of the End Times.[4] Among those who expect Christ’s return, seventy-three percent of evangelicals say the world will turn against Israel as we approach the rapture, and seventy-nine percent say violence in the Middle East signals the end (compared to forty-three percent of non-evangelical Christians).[5] While Americans are more than twice as likely as the global average to believe the end of the world is near, white evangelicals are nearly twice as likely as the average American: two-thirds of white evangelicals believe the end is near.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "theology",
      "evangelicals",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Sitting amid this background before a congressional hearing, Reagan’s secretary of the interior James G. Watt was asked if he would protect wildernesses for future generations. Watt replied, “I do not know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns.” A normal American reaction. When I speak of the popular belief that we are living in the End Times, I hear either laughs in disbelief or, among those who grew up in that world, instant recognition. As a child, I doubt I knew many adults who didn’t believe the world was ending. But how many Americans believe there will be a future? How does that belief intersect with the climate and other crises? In 2010, Pew Research Center surveyed how many Americans believed Christ would return by 2050.[3] Forty-eight percent of Christians agreed (roughly four in ten Americans overall): Catholics (thirty-two percent), mainline Protestants (twenty-seven percent), and the religiously unaffiliated (20 percent) believed this with less frequency than white evangelicals (fifty-eight percent). Only a tenth of American Christians felt sure Christ would not return in this window. But Evangelicals are outliers. Only one in three Americans, while sixty-five percent of evangelicals, believe natural disasters are signs of the End Times.[4] Among those who expect Christ’s return, seventy-three percent of evangelicals say the world will turn against Israel as we approach the rapture, and seventy-nine percent say violence in the Middle East signals the end (compared to forty-three percent of non-evangelical Christians).[5] While Americans are more than twice as likely as the global average to believe the end of the world is near, white evangelicals are nearly twice as likely as the average American: two-thirds of white evangelicals believe the end is near.",
    "externalUrl": "https://www.parapraxismagazine.com/articles/evangelical-zionism"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/examining-doctrine-of-discovery/",
    "title": "Examining the Doctrine of Discovery in Religion and Indigenous Studies",
    "publishedAt": "2025-12-31T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Since the publication of Pagans in the Promised Land by Steven T. Newcomb (Shawnee/Lenape), scholarship on the Doctrine of Discovery has expanded significantly as a central issue in Indigenous law and politics. However, its implications remain underexamined in Religious Studies, Indigenous Studies, and legal scholarship. This article analyzes the matrix of enslavement, exploitation, and extraction that Newcomb identifies within settler-colonial systems and examines how scholars in Religious Studies, Legal Studies, and Indigenous Studies have engaged with the Doctrine of Discovery. Situating the Doctrine of Discovery within the broader analytical frameworks of enslavement, systemic violence, and religious imperialism reveals its deep entanglement with historic and legal structures of oppression. Examining its intersections with Religious Studies and postcolonial scholarship uncover how white Christian hegemony maintains its dominion and exposes the fragility of any perceived boundary between church and state.",
    "tags": [
      "Indigenous",
      "religion",
      "law",
      "history",
      "compass",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "Abstract Since the publication of Pagans in the Promised Land by Steven T. Newcomb (Shawnee/Lenape), scholarship on the Doctrine of Discovery has expanded significantly as a central issue in Indigenous law and politics. However, its implications remain underexamined in Religious Studies, Indigenous Studies, and legal scholarship. This article analyzes the matrix of enslavement, exploitation, and extraction that Newcomb identifies within settler-colonial systems and examines how scholars in Religious Studies, Legal Studies, and Indigenous Studies have engaged with the Doctrine of Discovery. Situating the Doctrine of Discovery within the broader analytical frameworks of enslavement, systemic violence, and religious imperialism reveals its deep entanglement with historic and legal structures of oppression. Examining its intersections with Religious Studies and postcolonial scholarship uncover how white Christian hegemony maintains its dominion and exposes the fragility of any perceived boundary between church and state. Citation Brett, Adam D. J., and Betty Hill. 2026. “Examining the Doctrine of Discovery in Religion and Indigenous Studies,” Religion Compass: e70039. .",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/compass/essay1/examining-doctrine-of-discovery/",
    "externalUrl": "https://doi.org/10.1111/rec3.70039"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/flying-t-ranch-v-stillaguamish-tribe/",
    "title": "Flying T Ranch v. Stillaguamish Tribe",
    "publishedAt": "2025-11-21T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "A Washington Supreme Court case used by Domination Chronicles to examine the limits of criticizing racist legal language while preserving domination doctrine.",
    "tags": [
      "law",
      "federal-indian-law",
      "courts",
      "racism",
      "domination-chronicles",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "Flying T Ranch v. Stillaguamish Tribe enters the Domination Chronicles conversation through a Washington Supreme Court concurrence that criticizes racist language in foundational federal Indian law cases. That criticism matters, but the episode asks whether changing the language is enough when the legal structure remains in place. The case becomes a way to examine the difference between denouncing offensive rhetoric and challenging the doctrines that made the rhetoric legally effective. Courts can distance themselves from older words while continuing to rely on assumptions of discovery, conquest, and domination. Newcomb and d'Errico use the case to press for a deeper reading: the problem is not only what courts once said about Native nations, but the claimed authority those courts continue to exercise over peoples who never surrendered their original freedom and independence.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://dominationchronicles.com/episodes/e004-seeing-through/",
    "externalUrl": "https://dominationchronicles.com/episodes/e004-seeing-through/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/haaland-brackeen-discovery/",
    "title": "Haaland v. Brackeen and the Logic of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2025-04-29T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "The ICWA was enacted to protect Indigenous sovereignty, but the Brackeens argued that its preference to Native American families in the fostering and adoption of Native American children amounts to racial discrimination, an argument the court did not substantively address because it judged the Brackeens lacked standing.",
    "tags": [
      "law",
      "religion",
      "values",
      "indigenous",
      "journal",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "Abstract On June 15, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision in Haaland v. Brackeen, withholding the constitutionality of the 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). The ICWA was enacted to protect Indigenous sovereignty, but the Brackeens argued that its preference to Native American families in the fostering and adoption of Native American children amounts to racial discrimination, an argument the court did not substantively address because it judged the Brackeens lacked standing. Viewing indigeneity in terms of race rather than sovereignty follows a logic of discovery, promoted in fifteenth-century papal bulls and read into U.S. law in the nineteenth century by Chief Justice John Marshall. A secularized version of the doctrine of discovery has supported the U.S. government's assimilation policies, including the forced removal of Indigenous children from their homes and into boarding schools, land allotment, and the Indian adoption project. While the Brackeen case was decided in favor of the Indigenous respondents, the decision's reasoning is too narrow to inspire confidence that Indigenous sovereignty will withstand future challenges.",
    "externalUrl": "https://muse.jhu.edu/article/908128"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/haaland-v-brackeen/",
    "title": "Cutting Through the US Claim of a Right of Domination over Indigenous People: An Analysis of Haaland v. Brackeen",
    "publishedAt": "2025-11-13T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Haaland v. Brackeen is a 2023 US Supreme Court decision rejecting several challenges to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), a federal law establishing a framework to control adoptions of any child who is “a member of an Indian tribe” or who is “eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and is the biological child of a member of an Indian tribe.”",
    "tags": [
      "law",
      "religion",
      "federal-indian-law",
      "featured",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "externalUrl": "https://peterderrico.substack.com/p/cutting-through-the-us-claim-of-a"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/halverson-v-burgum/",
    "title": "Halverson v. Burgum",
    "publishedAt": "2025-11-19T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "A 2025 Ninth Circuit decision that shows how Johnson v. McIntosh and sovereign immunity remain active in contemporary federal Indian law.",
    "tags": [
      "law",
      "federal-indian-law",
      "johnson-v-mcintosh",
      "sovereignty",
      "domination-chronicles",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "Halverson v. Burgum appears in Domination Chronicles as a contemporary example of how older legal claims continue to operate in present-day court decisions. The case involved Jack Halverson, a citizen of the Crow Nation, and his attempt to bring a claim involving the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Ninth Circuit dismissed the case on sovereign immunity grounds. What makes the case important for this project is not only the procedural result. It is the way the decision reaches back to Johnson v. McIntosh and the inherited claim that Christian discovery gave the United States authority over Native lands and peoples. The Domination Chronicles discussion asks readers and listeners to notice how domination persists through ordinary legal reasoning. A modern dismissal can sound technical while still carrying forward a much older structure of assumed U.S. control.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://dominationchronicles.com/episodes/e002-say-something/",
    "externalUrl": "https://dominationchronicles.com/episodes/e002-say-something/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/iitc/",
    "title": "An Upcoming Fifty-Year Retrospective (1977-2027)",
    "publishedAt": "2026-02-05T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "In 1977, forty-eight years ago, the International Indian Treaty Council (IITC) submitted an intervention (a formal document) to the International NGO Conference On Discrimination Against Indigenous Populations. The conference convened in Geneva, Switzerland from September 20-23rd at the Palais des Nations, the United Nations Office at Geneva.",
    "tags": [
      "law",
      "religion",
      "un",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "externalUrl": "https://stevennewcomb.substack.com/p/an-upcoming-fifty-year-retrospective?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1198890&post_id=186897437&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&r=45v9k&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/joint-statement-to-the-pontifical-council/",
    "title": "Joint Statement to the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace",
    "publishedAt": "2025-05-24T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Nine Years Ago Today, on May 4th, 2016, We Met Pope Francis at St. Peter's Square, and Archbishop Silvano Tomasi at the Pontifical Council For Justice and Peace",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "podcast",
      "doctrine",
      "theology",
      "colonization",
      "indigenous",
      "catholic",
      "papal-bull",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "From the Long March to Rome Gathering Florence, Italy April 30-May 3, 2016 Greetings to Pope Francis and the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Let us begin with some historical context. In 1992, the Indigenous Law Institute (ILI), founded by Birgil Kills Straight (Oglala Lakota Nation) and Steven Newcomb (Shawnee, Lenape Nations) began a global campaign, calling upon the Holy See, during the papacy of Pope John Paul II, to formally revoke the Inter Caetera papal bull of May 4, 1493. That campaign continues now in 2016, during the papacy of Pope Francis. The Domination Chronicles is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. In 1993, the ILI wrote an open letter to Pope John Paul II regarding its call for a ceremonial papal bull revocation. The UN Human Rights Centre delivered that open letter to the Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations. The Holy See's Permanent Observer Mission sent the UN Human Rights Centre a letter stating that the ILI letter had been sent to the Vatican in Rome. Although the Holy See was not responsive to that first letter, the Indigenous Law Institute has continued on with its campaign for a revocation of the papal bull of May 4, 1493, as representative of a series of fifteenth century papal decrees of domination and dehumanization. After more than twenty years that campaign has gained a great deal of momentum throughout the world with the Haudenosaunee, the American Indian Law Alliance, the Yakama Nation, the Assembly of First Nations, the Apache Alliance, and many others, now calling for the issue of \"the Doctrine of Discovery\" to be dealt with. This overall momentum has resulted in the Long March to Rome gathering for several days in Florence, Italy in May 2016, and has resulted in this meeting with the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. Let us turn now to the focus of our discussion. As you know, after the first historic voyage of Cristobal Colón (Columbus) to the islands that came to be called the Caribbean, Pope Alexander VI, issued several papal bulls to the monarchies of Castile-Aragon (Spain) and Portugal. The first two of those documents are dated May 3^rd^ and May 4^th^ of that year. How ironic, then, that May 4, 2016 is the day we are meeting with the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace at the Vatican. The purpose of our visit is to discuss, from our perspective, the significance of those and other such papal documents. When we look at the specific wording of a series of papal decrees \\[inter alia, Dum Diversas (1452), Romanus Pontifex (1455), Inter Caetera (1493)\\], we see that they called for non-Christian nations, so-called \"pagans,\" to be invaded, captured, vanquished, subdued, reduced to perpetual slavery, and for all their possessions and property to be taken away from them in order to benefit Western Christendom with global empire and dominations (\"imperii et dominationes\") riches, wealth, and vast areas of real estate. Such language is evidence of Christendom's bid to establish a system of Christian domination all across Mother Earth by means of a Doctrine of Christian Domination found in the papal bulls. The papal bulls of 1493 called for \"the propagation of the Christian Empire\" (imperii christiani propagationem), and for the reduction (reducere), subjection (subjicere), and domination (e.g., \"sub actuali dominio temporali aliquorum dominorum Christianorum constitute non essint\") of non-Christian nations (\"barbare nationes\") by reducing and dominating them (\"deprimantur\"). The ILI's research, led by Steven Newcomb, shows that Christendom's pattern of domination and dehumanization were and continue to be directed in a deadly and destructive manner at our Original Nations and Peoples from Great Turtle Island-Abya Yala, throughout the vast continental and hemispheric area now typically called in English \"the Western Hemisphere\" and \"the Americas.\" Because the patterns of domination and dehumanization expressed in the papal bull of May 4, 1493, have become embedded, inculcated, habitualized, and institutionalized in language, thought and behavior, those patterns have not become \"ipso facto obsolete\" as Archbishop Celestino Migliore claimed with regard to Inter Caetera papal bull in a letter to the Indigenous Law Institute dated July 5, 2005. Furthermore, the embeddedness and institutionalization of the linguistic and behavioral patterns domination and dehumanization we are talking about are in part an outgrowth and consequence of the papal decrees of the fifteenth century and other such documents of Western Christendom. Other examples of that linguistic and behavioral tradition include the 1496 John Cabot charter issued by Henry VII, a Catholic king, as well as the charter issued to Jacque Cartier in 1534, issued by Francis Premier, a Catholic king. Francis Premier received permission from Pope Clement VII, so long as the French king directed his efforts at locating non-Christian places where Spain and Portugal had not yet laid claimed or attempted to constitute a right of Christian domination. Here's the point we are coming to: There has been no \"abrogation\" of the pattern or paradigm of domination-dehumanization which the Holy See set into motion over a period of a century, and which has been ongoing for more than five centuries. It is still being directed at our Original Nations and Peoples throughout \"the Western Hemisphere,\" and against Original Nations elsewhere such as in Australia and Aotearoa (\"New Zealand\"). The papal bull Sublimis Deus did not, for example, abrogate the establishment of a system of domination in all those areas claimed by Spain on the basis of the 1493 papal bulls, which Spain understood to be a grant \"ganaran y conquistaron de las Indias\" (\"to win and to conquer [dominate] the Indies.\") Allow us to provide an excellent example as to why Apostolic Nuncio Migliore's statement was incorrect when he claimed to the ILI that \"the bull Inter Caetera, like other documents of that era, has become ipso facto obsolete and with no effect,\" and why it is not true, as Nuncio Migliori said in a letter addressed to Onondaga Faithkeeper Oren Lyons, that the Inter Caetera bull was \"abrogated\" by the bull Sublimis Deus of 1537. In his book A Violent Evangelism (1992), theologian Dr. Luis Rivera-Pagán states, \"In the juridical area, the Alexandrian bulls maintained their authorized character, as shown by the first sentence in the first law of the first chapter of the third book of 'the Compilation of the Leyes de Indias\" (1680), which recognizes them [those papal documents] as the first foundation of the possession in perpetuity of the Americas by the Crown of Castilla.\": By donation from the Apolostolic Holy See . . . we are Lord of the Western Indies, isles and mainlands of the Ocean See, discovered and to be discovered and incorporated in our Royal Crown of Castilla . . . [so that] they [those isles and mainlands] may always remain united for their great perpetuity and firmness, we forbid them being taken away. And we order that at no time may they be separated from our Royal Crown of Castilla. . . .And we give our faith and royal word, and the Kings our successors, so that they can never be taken away or separated, in all or in part, for any reason or cause whatsoever (Recopilación 1841, 3.1.1, 2: 1). (p. 32) Dr. Rivera-Pagán ended his discussion of this point by saying, \"This law is based on consecutive royal declarations by Carlos V and Filipe II, who during the sixteenth century propounded the doctrine of Castilian dominion in perpetuity over the Ibero-American peoples. All those declarations allude to the Alexandrian bulls as the crucial point of reference.\" (Ibid.) Then this: \"Although we cannot dwell on this point, it is appropriate to point out that at the beginning of the nineteenth century the papal grant in perpetuity was used as a justification for discrediting the Latin American independence movement.\" (Ibid). The above examples provide a key illustration of how the patterns which were promulgated in those ancient papal decrees and other such documents of domination have become institutionalized in the laws and policies of various states. Those patterns, as previously mentioned, continue to be used in a dominating and dehumanizing manner against our Nations and Peoples. From our standpoint, the Holy See bears present day responsibility for setting forth our Nations and Peoples a deadly and destructive language system of domination (\"sub actuali dominio temporali aliquorum dominorum Christianorum constitute sint\"). The truth of this is found in the sentence of the papal bull: \"We have confidence [or trust] in Him from whom empires and dominations and all good things proceed.\" In our view the Holy See needs to put as much time, effort, energy, and money into assisting with the restoration of our languages, cultures, lands, and sacred places as it put into attempting to destroy those things to begin this. Furthermore, open the Vatican archives to our scholars; disclose and repatriate your holdings of any of our cultural and spiritual items and ancestral remains. We look forward to further and fruitful discussions on this important matter, and propose, among other things, a series of international convenings with the Holy See, to discuss from our respective viewpoints, yours and ours, the significance of the papal bulls of the fifteenth century, and the paradigm of domination and dehumanization. Furthermore, it is time for the Holy See to explicitly oppose the use of the doctrine of discovery and domination by state governments in their relations with Indigenous Nations and Peoples. Sincerely, Barbara Dull Knife, Oglala Lakota Nation Loretta Afraid of Bear Cook, Oglala Lakota Nation Belinda Ayze, Dine Nation Chi'qwax, Jode Goudy, Chairman, Yakama Nation Keith Matthew, Shuswap Nation David Close, Himkokapskap, Cayuse Nation Wilton Little Child, Cree Nation, International Chief for Treaties 6, 7, & 8. Kenneth Deer, Mohawk Nation, Haudenosaunee Michael Hill, Apache Alliance Steven Newcomb (Shawnee, Lenape) Indigenous Law Institute",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://stevennewcomb.substack.com/p/joint-statement-to-the-p0ntifical"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/maines-original-sin/",
    "title": "Maine's Original Sin, by John Dieffenbacher-Krall",
    "publishedAt": "2020-03-20T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Doctrine of Discovery Resources and Bibliography",
    "tags": [
      "theology",
      "religion",
      "domination",
      "christian-nationalism",
      "bibliography",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "During his tenure as the Executive Director for the Maine Indian Tribal State Commission, John Dieffenbacher-Krall worked closely with Maine Wabanaki REACH engaging tribal and state partners, assisting with writing the mandate and developing the Commission selection process. He has worked tirelessly toward the repudiation of the Doctrine of Christian Discovery and we are pleased to offer the text of his talk at the Wilson Center in Orono on March 4, 2020, as our blog this month. The text has been edited slightly for readability. Maine's Original Sin with Wabanaki Nations and Peoples First, I want to acknowledge that we gather on Penobscot Nation land that perhaps a deed says belongs to the Wilson Center or University of Maine, but it will always be Penobscot land until the earth ceases to exist. Regardless of the current legal status of the land, the Penobscot people have a connection with this land that is part of them in an eternal relationship. I believe as settlers we often don't sufficiently appreciate the relationship Original Peoples have with the land. It is not a resource to exploit but instead a relation to protect and to nurture. Though I assume few of you know much about the Doctrine of Christian Discovery and Domination even though you have been taught history and social studies and learned about the founding of the United States, I did not do the original scholarship that has exposed the Doctrine of Christian Discovery and Domination as the legal and moral justification for Christendom's colonization of North America. Many people credit Vine Deloria, Jr. for bringing the concept into greater prominence in his 1972 An Open Letter to the Heads of the Christian Churches in America. Lenape/Shawnee scholar Steven Newcomb has further researched and more fully explicated this worldview that is the ultimate expression of white supremacy and a terrible evil that any person of conscience should work to purge from the world. Tonight, I address you during the liturgical season of Lent in the Christian Church...a period marked by \"prayer, doing penance, mortifying the flesh, repentence of sins, almsgiving, and self-denial.\" I find repentance to be an especially applicable word for what settlers need to do in their relationship with the Original Peoples and Nations of this land. Note the two-part aspect of this definition from Wikipedia: \"Repentance is the activity of reviewing one's actions and feeling contrition or regret for past wrongs, which is accompanied by commitment to and actual actions that show and prove a change for the better.\" My intent is to inform and to motivate you sufficiently tonight that you will take action to join with other like-minded people to purge the world of the Doctrine of Christian Discovery and Domination. For the past 23 years, I have expressed some important aspects of my spirituality through worship in the Episcopal Church. As is the case for most Christians, Episcopalians view sin as a foundational concept to understanding our faith. Even if a person is not a practicing Christian, s/he has heard the word and probably has some understanding of sin as a concept... For Christians, sin means \"an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law\" (Google). I titled my talk in part \"Maine's Original Sin.\" I did not do that accidentally. The Episcopal Church describes original sin as \"the shared sinful condition of all humanity.\" The original sin consists of Adam's and Eve's defiance of God by eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. I assert Maine's Original Sin is its reliance on the Doctrine of Christian Discovery and Domination and continued colonial occupation to exert control over the land and the Original Peoples and Nations we today recognize within the boundary of the State of Maine. I want to acknowledge my friend and fellow Episcopal Committee on Indian Relations member Father Ted Kanellakis for his expression of this idea as Maine's Original Sin. Similarly to the Episcopal description of Original Sin as the \"shared sinful condition of all humanity,\" I maintain all settlers living within the State of Maine live in a \"shared sinful condition\" as occupiers of Wabanaki land. Until we renounce the colonial power we have exerted and create a new relationship with Wabanaki Peoples and Nations based on acknowledgment of their inherent right to self-determination and their eternal relationship with the land, we live as unrepentant occupiers and sinners. Why is the Doctrine of Christian Discovery and Domination so central to our colonial occupation of Wabanaki Peoples and the land they view as a relation? It provides unjustified moral cover for evil and genocidal acts and the legal basis for the stealing of Wabanaki land and asserting settler political control over formerly free and independent peoples. The Doctrine of Christian Discovery and Domination asserts Christians --- based solely on the fact that they profess to be Christians in contrast to other individuals and peoples who do not espouse such a religious identity --- have a right blessed by God to enter non-Christian lands, seize the land and possessions of non-Christians, and kill the original inhabitants unless they instantly submit to the domination of the Christian invaders. This worldview was delineated in a series of papal bulls --- think of them as official pronouncements by the Pope. Scholars generally attribute the first articulation of this concept to the Papal Bull Dum Diversas issued in 1452 by Pope Nicholas V: \"We grant you [Kings of Spain and Portugal] by these present documents, with our Apostolic Authority, full and free permission to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as welll as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and other property...and to reduce their persons into perpetual servitude.\" Spain was not alone in using the concept to justify its greed and colonial desire. King Henry VII of England borrows the reasoning first articulated by Pope Nicholas V in sanctioning John Cabot's voyage to North America. Instead of a Papal Bull, he uses the instrument of a letters patent: \"Be it known and made manifest that we have given and granted as by these presents we give and grant, for us and our heirs, to our well beloved John Cabot, citizen of Venice, and to Lewis, Sebastian and Sancio, sons of the said John... to find, discover and investigate whatsoever islands, countries, regions or provinces of heathens and infidels, in whatsoever part of the world placed, which before this time were unknown to all Christians. And that the before-mentioned John and his sons or their heirs and deputies may conquer, occupy and possess whatsoever such towns, castles, cities and islands by them thus discovered that they may be able to conquer, occupy and possess, as our vassals and governors, lieutenants, and deputies therein, acquiring for us the dominion, title and jurisdiction of the same towns, castles, cities, islands and mainlands so discovered.\" (Patent granted to John Cabot and his Sons, March 1496) Vine Deloria, Jr. told Studs Terkel in a 1975 interview: \"I think the doctrine of discovery has kind of separated out the Christian church establishment, as at least a theoretical enemy of Indians and not simply a religious enemy, because Christian docrines have in my opinion, [in] many other Indians' opinion, supported the disenfranchisement of Indians and genocide of Indians.\" The United Nations in 2007 condemned the Doctrine of Christian Discovery and Domination in the preamble to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: \"Affirming further that all doctrines, policies and practices based on or advocating superiority of peoples or individuals on the basis of national origin or racial, religious, ethnic or cultural differences are racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable and socially unjust.\" Every member state present for the adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples voted in support of it except for Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the US. Subsequently, all four countries issued qualified statements supporting the Declaration. Though the official body of nation-states rejects the Doctrine of Christian Discovery and Domination, it formed the legal basis for the taking of Wabanaki and all Original Peoples' lands. An example of how something so fundamental to the existence of the State of Maine remains so invisible today can be found on page 40 of Maine, The Pine Tree State, from Prehistory to the Present (compiled by the University of Maine). Here it describes the voyage of Humphrey Gilbert: \"After sailing to Newfoundland, which he officially claimed for the Queen...\" How did Gilbert do that, claim Newfoundland for the Queen of England? The Doctrine of Christian Discovery and Domination supported his action. Yet the text of Maine never states this fact. Robert Miller and the co-authors of Discovering Indigenous Lands: The Doctrine of Discovery in the English Colonies describe \"ten elements that constitute the Doctrine.\" The initial one is \"first discovery: The first European country that discovered lands unknown to other Europeans claimed property and sovereign rights over the lands and Indigenous Peoples.\" The fourth element underscores the profound injustice of the most important US Supreme Court decision ever decided affecting the Original Nations and Peoples of this land, Johnson v M'intosh: \"Indigenous/Native title. After a 'first discovery,' European legal systems claimed that Indigenous Peoples and Nations had automatically lost the full ownership of their lands. Europeans claimed that Indigenous Nations only retained the rights to occupy and use their lands. These rights could last indefinitely, however, if the Indigenous Peoples never consented to sell land to the European country that claimed the preemption right. But if Indigenous Nations did choose to sell, they were expected to sell only to the European government that purported to hold the preemption right.\" Fast forward from Humphrey Gilbert in 1583 to the US Supreme Court in 1823. In its decision Johnson v M'intosh, the Court ruled the Original Nations and Peoples of this country had a mere right of occupancy but no legal title to the land: \"On the discovery of this immense continent, the great nations of Europe were eager to appropriate to themselves so much of it as they could respectively acquire. Its vast extent offered an ample field to the ambition and enterprise of all; and the character and religion of its inhabitants afforded an apology for considering them as a people over whom the superior genius of Europe might claim an ascendancy. The potentates of the old world found no difficulty in convincing themselves that they made ample compensation to the inhabitants of the new, by bestowing on them civilization and Christianity, in exchange for unlimited independence. But, as they were all in pursuit of nearly the same object, it was necessary, in order to avoid conflicting settlements, and consequent war with each other, to establish a principle, which all should acknowledge as the law by which the right of acquisition, which they all asserted, should be regulated as between themselves. This principle was, that discovery gave title to the government by whose subjects, or by whose authority, it was made, against all other European governments, which title might be consummated by possession. \"In the establishment of these relations, the rights of the original inhabitants were, in no instance, entirely disregarded; but were necessarily, to a considerable extent, impaired. They were admitted to be the rightful occupants of the soil, with a legal as well as just claim to retain possession of it, and to use it according to their own discretion; but their rights to complete sovereignty, as independent nations, were necessarily diminished, and their power to dispose of the soil at their own will, to whomsoever they pleased, was denied by the original fundamental principle, that discovery gave exclusive title to those who made it.\" Though Chief Justice Marshall writing for the Supreme Court does not use the term \"Christian\" Discovery, that is the basis for this decision. So a country that purports to keep separate church and state has based the most important Supreme Court decision ever issued affecting the Original Nations and Peoples of this land on a religious concept condemned by the United Nations and many 21st century religious bodies. Anyone with even a cursory interest in Maine politics and the political scene knows of the deep conflict between the Wabanaki Nations and Peoples who reside in what we today call Maine, and Maine State Government. I deliberatedly chose Maine State Government instead of Maine People because I know many Maine residents oppose the actions and policies that Maine State Government has pursued on what political leaders would call its citizens' behalf. For anyone here unfamiliar with the term Wabanaki, I am referring to the Original Nations and Peoples that inhabit New England and provinces in eastern Canada who speak a common Algonquin-based language and share many cultural practices, spirituality, and traditions. They have also been united for centuries in the Wabanaki Confederacy. In Maine, these Wabanaki Peoples include the Abenaki, Maliseets, Micmacs, Passamaquoddies, and Penobscots.  The Wabanaki did not escape the American genocide. Many Wabanaki Peoples who lived in this territory at the time of early European contact no longer exist (see Unsettled Past, Unsettled Future: The Story of Maine Indians, by Neil Rolde). For the Wabanaki Peoples that remain, they are engaged in a constant struggle for survival. Maine State Government has also acted in a white supremacist and colonial posture toward the Wabanaki no different that other states within this country or the United States or other nation-states of the world. I can point to many examples. I offer two from the Maine judiciary. In Murch v Tomer decided by the Maine Supreme Court in 1842, the court said: \"Imbecility on their [the Indians'] part, and the dictates of humanity on ours, have necessarily prescribed to them their subjection to our paternal control; In disregard of some at least, of abstract principles of the rights of man.\" Fifty years later the Maine Supreme Court opined in State v Newell (1892), \"Though these Indians...perhaps consider themselves a tribe, they have for many years been without a tribal organization in any political sense...They are as completely subject to the State as any other inhabitants can be.\" Reflecting the paternal control the State of Maine exerted for 155 plus years, from the inception of Maine as a state in 1820 until the Passamaquoddy v Morton decision in January 1975, the Maine Legislature passed numerous laws controlling and regulating the Wabanaki. The compilation of these laws was commonly referred to as the blue book, State of Maine: A Compilation of Laws Pertaininig to Indians, prepared by the now defunct Department of Indian Affairs.  Another example of the State of Maine denying the political rights of the Wabanaki applies to voting. The audience may be unaware that the State of Maine, not Alabama or Mississippi or some other state we might want to believe is more racist and less progressive than the Pine Tree State, was the last state in the US to grant the Wabanaki the right to vote in state elections. It happened in 1967. Despite all the colonial oppression directed at the Wabanaki, they have endured and have refused to become acculturated and assimilated. Unbelievably, Wabanaki Tribal Governments continue to find themselves constrained by laws rooted in the Doctrine of Christian Discovery and Domination. The most significant of these laws is the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1980. The Act resulted in response to a land claim initially brought by the Passamaquoddy Tribe and later joined by the Penobscot Nation. During the last year of negotiations that produced the settlement agreement, the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians joined the process.  The Settlement Act consists of two acts that function together, a state act known as the Maine Implementing Act, and the federal act titled the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act. The state act would not have effect or force of law without the federal act. The reason is the Federal Government has principal authority iin governmental relations with Indian Tribes, not the individual states. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution states, \"Congress shall have the power to regulate Commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.\" Though the Maine Implementing Act would not have effect without Congress ratifying it when it enacted the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act in 1980, disputes involving the settlement agreement most often focus on the state act. Several initiatives have been attempted during the settlement agreements' nearly 40-year history to address some of its flaws and produce a more just agreement. The Maine Indian Tribal-State Commission (MITSC), a body created as part of the Maine Implementing Act to monitor the implementation of the Act and to make recommendations to the signatories, found in 2012: \"These Acts are in serious nonconformance with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), both in the process leading up to their enactment and in how they have been implemented. The Acts have created structural inequities that have resulted in conditions that have risen to the level of human rights violations.\" (in MITSC's letter May 16, 2012 to Mr. James Anaya, UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples) Several provisions in the Maine Implementing Act reflect the Doctrine of Christian Discovery and Domination. The most egregious in my opinion is Section 6204: \"6204 Laws of the State to Apply to Indian Lands. Except as otherwise provided in this Act, all Indians, Indian nations, and tribes and bands of Indians in the State and any lands or other natural resources owned by them, held in trust for them by the United States or by any other person or entity shall be subject to the laws of the State and to the civil and criminal jurisdiction of the courts of the State to the same extent as any other person or lands or other natural resources therein.\" [1979] In 2019, leadership exercised by the Wabanaki Tribal Governments with active support from individuals and groups committed to a more just Wabanaki-State of Maine relationship has resulted in the creation of a Task Force on changes to the  Implementing Act. The Task Force was directed to: \"...review An Act to Implement the Maine Indian Claims Settlement and the Micmac Settlement Act and make recommendations to the Legislature for legislation regarding any suggested changes to those Acts. Recommendations of the task force must be made by consensus. For the purposes of this order, \"consensus\" means consensus between representatives on the task force of the tribe or tribes affected by the suggested changes and a majority of the other voting members of the task force.\" (129th Maine State Legislature, Joint Order Establishing the Task Force on Changes to the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Implementing Act) All of us...can help expunge this repugnant, colonial, and evil Doctrine of Christian Discovery and Domination from Maine law. I urge you to contact your State Representative and State Senator. Tell them to support the changes submitted by the Wabanaki Tribal Governments that include striking Section 6204. Let's stop oppressing the Wabanaki and all Original Peoples throughout the world. Editor's note: The Task Force Final Report with 22 Recommendations was submitted to the Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary of the Maine Legislature in January 2020. Once the Committee had transformed these recommendations into LD 2094 An Act to Implement the Recommendations of the Task Force on Changes to the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Implementing Act, several public hearings were held in February, followed by worksessions in early March with tribal counsel and relevant committees weighing in. At that point, work was halted by the pandemic. LD 2094 will be carried over to any special session of the legislature.",
    "externalUrl": "https://www.wabanakireach.org/maine_s_original_sin"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/newcomb-derrico-conversation-video/",
    "title": "Video: Steve Newcomb (Shawnee/Lenape) and Peter d'Errico continue a decades-long conversation about Indigenous Peoples",
    "publishedAt": "2024-12-03T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Steve Newcomb (Shawnee/Lenape) and Peter d'Errico continue a decades-long conversation about Indigenous Peoples. Their discussion includes the following topics and more: Oyate Woyaka, the latest film project Steve has worked on, now showing on PBS, the story of Lakota language history, loss, and revitalization. The claim of a \"right of domination\" inherent in US federal anti-Indian law since its founding in Johnson v. McIntosh The foundation of legalized domination in 15th century papal bulls and similar \"Christian Discovery\" documents How English terminology obscures domination behind common words The relation of race and gender critiques to a theory of domination How domination extends beyond human relations to the entire natural world",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "video",
      "land-theft",
      "doctrineofdiscovery",
      "federalindianlaw",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Steve Newcomb (Shawnee/Lenape) and Peter d'Errico continue a decades-long conversation about Indigenous Peoples. Their discussion includes the following topics and more: Oyate Woyaka, the latest film project Steve has worked on, now showing on PBS, the story of Lakota language history, loss, and revitalization. The claim of a \"right of domination\" inherent in US federal anti-Indian law since its founding in Johnson v. McIntosh The foundation of legalized domination in 15th century papal bulls and similar \"Christian Discovery\" documents How English terminology obscures domination behind common words The relation of race and gender critiques to a theory of domination How domination extends beyond human relations to the entire natural world",
    "externalUrl": "https://vimeo.com/1034826967"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/newcomb-derrico-substack/",
    "title": "Post: Steve Newcomb (Shawnee/Lenape) and Peter d'Errico continue a decades-long conversation about Indigenous Peoples",
    "publishedAt": "2024-12-03T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Steve Newcomb Talks With Peter d’Errico .",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "blog",
      "land-theft",
      "doctrineofdiscovery",
      "federalindianlaw"
    ],
    "textContent": "Steve Newcomb Talks With Peter d'Errico.",
    "externalUrl": "https://peterderrico.substack.com/p/steve-newcomb-talks-with-peter-derrico?utm_source=post-email-title"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/olrcf/",
    "title": "Onondaga Land Rights and Our Common Future:The Quest for Justice",
    "publishedAt": "2025-02-18T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Onondaga Land Rights and Our Common Future:The Quest for Justice Details Monday, March 10, 6:30 pm Syracuse Stage, 820 E Genesee St, Syracuse Come commemorate the 20th anniversary of the historic filing of the Onondaga Land Rights Action. Onondaga leaders and educators Jeanne Shenandoah (Onondaga Nation, Eel Clan), Onondaga elder and Traditional Medicine Keeper and Haiwhagai’i Jake Edwards (Onondaga Nation, Eel Clan) will share important history and reflect on progress made. Onondaga Nation General Counsel Joe Heath will review the legal history, including the case currently before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Despite the fact that the US courts rejected the Onondaga Nation’s call for justice and healing, important progress has been made, including the recent return of 1,000 acres of land in the Tully Valley. The treaties upon which the Onondaga Land Right Action is based remain in effect and all people have a responsibility to uphold them. On March 11, 2005, the Onondaga petitioned the federal court in Syracuse to declare that New York violated Treaties, the Constitution, and federal laws when it took some 4,000 square miles of Onondaga Land (an area that stretches south past Binghamton and north past Watertown). The State of New York, the City of Syracuse, Onondaga County, and five corporations for illegal land takings and damage were sued by Onondaga Nation for inflicting harm on the environment. Learn more here: https://www.onondaganation.org/land-rights/ Syracuse Stage is wheelchair accessible and CART will be available for program accessibility. Following the program there will be a reception with light refreshments. There will be tables from different organizations for getting involved. The program is organized by the American Indian Law Alliance, the Indigenous Values Initiative, Neighbors of the Onondaga Nation, and Syracuse Peace Council. For more information contact American Indian Law Alliance aila@aila.ngo www.aila.ngo",
    "tags": [
      "Law",
      "Event",
      "Education",
      "Resources",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "Onondaga Land Rights and Our Common Future:The Quest for Justice Details Monday, March 10, 6:30 pm Syracuse Stage, 820 E Genesee St, Syracuse Come commemorate the 20th anniversary of the historic filing of the Onondaga Land Rights Action. Onondaga leaders and educators Jeanne Shenandoah (Onondaga Nation, Eel Clan), Onondaga elder and Traditional Medicine Keeper and Haiwhagai’i Jake Edwards (Onondaga Nation, Eel Clan) will share important history and reflect on progress made. Onondaga Nation General Counsel Joe Heath will review the legal history, including the case currently before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Despite the fact that the US courts rejected the Onondaga Nation’s call for justice and healing, important progress has been made, including the recent return of 1,000 acres of land in the Tully Valley. The treaties upon which the Onondaga Land Right Action is based remain in effect and all people have a responsibility to uphold them. On March 11, 2005, the Onondaga petitioned the federal court in Syracuse to declare that New York violated Treaties, the Constitution, and federal laws when it took some 4,000 square miles of Onondaga Land (an area that stretches south past Binghamton and north past Watertown). The State of New York, the City of Syracuse, Onondaga County, and five corporations for illegal land takings and damage were sued by Onondaga Nation for inflicting harm on the environment. Learn more here: https://www.onondaganation.org/land-rights/ Syracuse Stage is wheelchair accessible and CART will be available for program accessibility. Following the program there will be a reception with light refreshments. There will be tables from different organizations for getting involved. The program is organized by the American Indian Law Alliance, the Indigenous Values Initiative, Neighbors of the Onondaga Nation, and Syracuse Peace Council. For more information contact American Indian Law Alliance aila@aila.ngo www.aila.ngo",
    "externalUrl": "https://aila.ngo/onondaga-land-rights-our-common-future-the-quest-for-justice/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/onondaga-lake/",
    "title": "Healing the Sacred: The Fight to Restore Onondaga Lake and Honor Indigenous Land",
    "publishedAt": "2025-09-01T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "The Onondaga Nation is petitioning the Organization of American States (OAS) for land rights to Onondaga Lake, a notoriously polluted body of water in Central New York State. The Onondaga Nation is one of six nations of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy (Iroquois), and Onondaga Lake is the sacred site where Gayanashagowa, the Great Law of Peace, was established.",
    "tags": [
      "law",
      "religion",
      "values",
      "environment",
      "featured",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "Abstract The Onondaga Nation is petitioning the Organization of American States (OAS) for land rights to Onondaga Lake, a notoriously polluted body of water in Central New York State. The Onondaga Nation is one of six nations of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy (Iroquois), and Onondaga Lake is the sacred site where Gayanashagowa, the Great Law of Peace, was established. As Keepers of the Central Fire, the Onondaga Nation bears the responsibility of maintaining unity and peace within the Haudenosaunee Confederacy. This article examines the history of the lake, its significance to the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, and the consequences of its desecration through industrial pollution. By juxtaposing Haudenosaunee teachings with the European Christian Doctrine of Discovery, we reveal how clashing worldviews led to violence, land theft, and genocide against the Haudenosaunee and other Indigenous Nations. Specifically, we apply Steven T. Newcomb’s Domination Code to analyze the settler-colonial justification for resource extraction, which left behind ecological and social devastation. We argue that returning Onondaga Lake to the Onondaga Nation is a vital step toward restoring this sacred place, bringing long-overdue healing to its people, the surrounding communities, and the natural world. The protection and restoration of Onondaga Lake is not only essential for its future but for the well-being of all. The restoration of Indigenous sacred spaces is a catalyst for meaningful social and ecological change.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/ijr/essay2/healing-the-sacred/",
    "externalUrl": "https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/ijr/vol9/iss1/2/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/crosscurrents/essay1/200/",
    "title": "200 Years of Johnson v. M'Intosh (JVM): Indigenous Responses to the Religious Foundations of Racism",
    "publishedAt": "2025-06-28T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "In 2022 Syracuse University received a Henry Luce Foundation grant to support the work of Philip P. Arnold and the Indigenous Values Initiative's Doctrine.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "crosscurrents",
      "philip-p-arnold",
      "adam-dj-brett",
      "sandra-bigtree",
      "200-years-of-johnson",
      "religious-studies",
      "psychology",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"200 Years of Johnson v. M'Intosh (JVM): Indigenous Responses to the Religious Foundations of,\" an Outcome archive entry by Philip P. Arnold, Sandra Bigtree, Adam DJ Brett. The entry belongs to the crosscurrents collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses In 2022 Syracuse University received a Henry Luce Foundation grant to support the work of Philip P. Arnold and the Indigenous Values Initiative's Doctrine of Discovery Project (doctrineofdiscovery.org).. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including INTRODUCTION The 200th anniversary of JvM provided an excellent moment to challenge the theology and jurisprudence of the DoCD and this critical Supreme Court decision. The project delved into a range of products and written works such are included in this volume. The essays, podcasts, conference, and public outreach activities of the project grant have helped to raise awareness about the harmful impacts of the DoCD. 200 Years of Johnson v. M'intosh In the 1823 US Supreme Court decision, Johnson v M'Intosh, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, \"… discovery gave title to government … [and]. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/crosscurrents/essay1/200/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/crosscurrents/essay1/200/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/crosscurrents/essay2/before-religion/",
    "title": "Before Religion",
    "publishedAt": "2025-06-27T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "It is a classic misinterpretation to refer to all Natives as always being in harmony with themselves and their surroundings. As in, categorizing. Outcome.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "crosscurrents",
      "sawatis-frushell",
      "poetry",
      "religion",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Before Religion,\" an Outcome archive entry by Sawatis Frushell. The entry belongs to the crosscurrents collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses It is a classic misinterpretation to refer to all Natives as always being in harmony with themselves and their surroundings. As in, categorizing, denomination, caste, grade,order and grouping. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including INTRODUCTION It is a classic misinterpretation to refer to allNatives as always being in harmony withthemselves and their surroundings. As in,categorizing, denomination, caste, grade,order and grouping. With the above sentences in mind, I'll refer toonly my people's past.We weren't always at peace or in harmonywith ourselves and the earth. We struggledand fought with our own people. Wesuffered insult and reproach and turned toviolence in return for that insult and reproach. At one time, we were anything but united. Welived the epitome of survival.We needed guidance. Our understanding ofcreation was there in our minds. Our need tostop feuding was also there in our minds. Wewere on the brink of destruction to oursurroundings and ourselves.. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/crosscurrents/essay2/before-religion/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/crosscurrents/essay2/before-religion/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/crosscurrents/essay2/book-notes/",
    "title": "Book Notes: New Books in the Study of Domination",
    "publishedAt": "2025-06-11T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Brett and Hill review several books, including The Urgency of Indigenous Values by Philip P. Arnold It points readers to the Outcome archive for context.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "crosscurrents",
      "adam-dj-brett",
      "betty-lyons",
      "education",
      "psychology",
      "nonfiction",
      "sustainability",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Book Notes: New Books in the Study of Domination,\" an Outcome archive entry by Adam DJ Brett, Betty Hill (Lyons). The entry belongs to the crosscurrents collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Brett and Hill review several books, including The Urgency of Indigenous Values by Philip P. Arnold. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including INTRODUCTION Arnold, Philip P. 2023 The Urgency of Indigenous Values. Haudenosaunee and Indigenous Worlds. Syracuse University Press. Boaz, Danielle N. 2021. Banning Black Gods: Law and Religions of the African Diaspora. Africana Religions. University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press. Boaz, Danielle N. 2023. Voodoo: The History of a Racial Slur. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Butler, Anthea D. 2021. White Evangelical Racism: The Politics of Morality in America. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press. Chaves, João B. 2022. The Global Mission of the Jim Crow South: Southern Baptist Missionaries and the Shaping of Latin American Evangelicalism. Perspectives on Baptist Identities. Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press. Chaves, João B., and. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/crosscurrents/essay2/book-notes/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/crosscurrents/essay2/book-notes/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/crosscurrents/essay2/challenges/",
    "title": "The Challenges of Revoking the Papal Bulls: A View-from-the-Shore Analysis of Recent Statements by Christian Churches",
    "publishedAt": "2025-06-18T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Let us set the context for this discussion. The context begins with the free existence of our Native nations and peoples, extending back to the beginning of.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "crosscurrents",
      "papal-documents",
      "dominance",
      "ships",
      "vatican-city",
      "francis",
      "pope",
      "joint-statement-responses",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"The Challenges of Revoking the Papal Bulls: A View from the Shore Analysis of,\" an Outcome archive entry by Steven T. Newcomb. The entry belongs to the crosscurrents collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Let us set the context for this discussion. The context begins with the free existence of our Native nations and peoples, extending back to the beginning of our. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including INTRODUCTION the context Let us set the context for this discussion. The context begins with the free existence of our Native nations and peoples, extending back to the beginning of our time through our oral histories and traditions, contrasted with the system of domination that was carried by ship across the ocean and imposed on everyone and everything. From that starting point we end up with a non Christian view from the shore with our Ancestors looking out at the invading ships sailing from Western Christendom, and a view from the ship perspective, with the colonizers moving toward our Ancestors. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/crosscurrents/essay2/challenges/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/crosscurrents/essay2/challenges/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/crosscurrents/essay2/comments/",
    "title": "Comments on the Bishop's Panel: Transcription of Conference Presentation",
    "publishedAt": "2025-06-19T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Greetings to you all. I'm Haiwhagai'i, Onondaga Nation, Eel Clan. I have to start off with gratitude for seeing all of your faces here. It is a bit awkward.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "crosscurrents",
      "jake-haiwhagai-edwards",
      "sustainability",
      "healing",
      "acctax",
      "psychology",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Comments on the Bishop's Panel: Transcription of Conference Presentation,\" an Outcome archive entry by Jake Haiwhagai'i Edwards. The entry belongs to the crosscurrents collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Greetings to you all. I'm Haiwhagai'i, Onondaga Nation, Eel Clan. I have to start off with gratitude for seeing all of your faces here. It is a bit. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including INTRODUCTION The Christian establishments invaded our lands—to this day. We appreciate the work that you guys are mentioning you're doing, but one drop of rain will spoil that promise on paper—one tear drop will spoil that promise and make it unreadable. So, promises mean nothing, nothing in terms of trust. It's almost like \"put your land in trust of the United States government.\" It's the same hard work when there is no trust. So, in talking about this future to come, we are looking for peace, just as we were in the past when we first met. When we first met the Catholics, the Jesuits,. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/crosscurrents/essay2/comments/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/crosscurrents/essay2/comments/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/crosscurrents/essay2/construction/",
    "title": "The Construction of Indigenous Americans and Spanish Conquistadors in Theodore de Bry's Engravings",
    "publishedAt": "2025-06-16T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "The primary visual sources depicting the treatment of Indigenous peoples by conquerors, particularly the works of Protestant engraver Theodore de Bry, offer.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "crosscurrents",
      "isabel-v-maine-torres",
      "psychology",
      "engraving",
      "sustainability",
      "protestantism",
      "atrocities",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"The Construction of Indigenous Americans and Spanish Conquistadors in Theodore de Bry's Engravings,\" an Outcome archive entry by Isabel V. Maine-Torres. The entry belongs to the crosscurrents collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses The primary visual sources depicting the treatment of Indigenous peoples by conquerors, particularly the works of Protestant engraver Theodore de Bry, offer valuable insights into the interactions between. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including INTRODUCTION When looking at primary, visual sources that depict the treatment of Indigenous peoples by conquerors, Protestant engraver Theodore de Bry's works are incredibly popular and insightful.1 De Bry, born in 1528 and working until his death in 1598, illustrated and wrote his own books containing engravings that depicted the customs, communities, and atrocities committed against Indigenous Americans as they came into contact with European explorers. Aside from his own writing, de Bry also illustrated a version of Bartolomé de Las Casas's Brevísima relación de la destrucción de las Indias almost 50 years after it was written.2 In Brevísima relación, Las. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/crosscurrents/essay2/construction/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/crosscurrents/essay2/construction/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/crosscurrents/essay2/contributors/",
    "title": "Contributors",
    "publishedAt": "2025-06-09T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Contributors This Content This entry connects Doctrine of Discovery scholarship, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, and historical accountability.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "crosscurrents",
      "contributors",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Contributors,\" an Outcome archive entry by The Association for Public Religion and Intellectual Life (APRIL). The entry belongs to the crosscurrents collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Contributors This Content. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including Contributors Philip P. Arnold is Professor in the Department of Religion, and a core faculty member of Native American and Indigenous Studies at Syracuse University. Sandra Bigtree (Mohawk, Bear Clan), is a citizen of the Mohawk Nation at Akwesasne. Adam DJ Brett works with the American Indian Law Alliance, Indigenous Values Initiative, and Syracuse University. Sawatis Frushell (Mohawk, Bear Clan) is a Haudenosaunee Poet. Jake Haiwhagai'i Edwards (Onondaga, Eel Clan) grew up among his elders of the Onondaga Nation learning and sharing the messages from the original instructions, passing on history and knowledge of the natural world. Betty Hill (Lyons) (Onondaga Nation, Snipe Clan), is Executive Director American Indian Law Alliance. Whatweni:neh Freida J. Jacques (Onondaga, Turtle Clan) has served the Turtle Clan for over 40 years as a Haudenosaunee cultural liaison. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/crosscurrents/essay2/contributors/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/crosscurrents/essay2/contributors/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/crosscurrents/essay2/cultivating-grace-mindset-elca/",
    "title": "Cultivating a G.R.A.C.E. Mindset: Adaptive Leadership in the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America",
    "publishedAt": "2025-06-25T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America acknowledges and repents for its complicity in the harms of colonialism towards Native American and Alaska Native.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "crosscurrents",
      "lee-m-miller-ii",
      "lutheran-churches",
      "sustainability",
      "psychology",
      "complicity",
      "indigenous-peoples",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Cultivating a G.R.A.C.E. Mindset: Adaptive Leadership in the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America,\" an Outcome archive entry by Rev Lee M. Miller II. The entry belongs to the crosscurrents collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America acknowledges and repents for its complicity in the harms of colonialism towards Native American and Alaska Native peoples. The church commits to. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including Download Citation RIS Format CSL JSON Format archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/crosscurrents/essay2/cultivating-grace-mindset-elca/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/crosscurrents/essay2/cultivating-grace-mindset-elca/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/crosscurrents/essay2/dear-autocrat/",
    "title": "DEAR AUTOCRAT(S)",
    "publishedAt": "2025-06-22T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "We never strived to be your equals Or fought for that sameness of identity There was no reason for uprising Against your anthropocentric prototyped pattern.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "crosscurrents",
      "sawatis-frushell",
      "poetry",
      "autocracy",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"DEAR AUTOCRAT(S),\" an Outcome archive entry by Sawatis Frushell. The entry belongs to the crosscurrents collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses We never strived to be your equals Or fought for that sameness of identity There was no reason for uprising Against your anthropocentric prototyped pattern Foreseen long before. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including INTRODUCTION We never strived to be your equalsOr fought for that sameness of identityThere was no reason for uprisingAgainst your anthropocentric prototyped patternForeseen long before your arrival Because we had established equivalent equityMillennium prior to your pilgrimage of biblical conquestAnd your utopian misunderstanding of our communitiesAnd your fear of the unknown We never wanted to be equalizedBy the progression of crookednessBent on the achievement of possession over allWe didn't fight for equalityWe fought as the land that fights to sustain all life possibleWe gave you the benefit of calling you brothers and sistersLong before you realised the understanding of balance We gave you the opportunity to learn reciprocityAnd the accurate meaning of great. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/crosscurrents/essay2/dear-autocrat/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/crosscurrents/essay2/dear-autocrat/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/crosscurrents/essay2/documenting-domination-in-international-relations-through-the-doctrine-of-discovery/",
    "title": "Documenting Domination in International Relations Through the Doctrine of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2025-06-12T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "The American Indian Law Alliance (AILA) was founded in 1989 by Tonya Gonnella Frichner as an Indigenous, non profit organization advocating for sovereignty.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "crosscurrents",
      "adam-dj-brett",
      "betty-lyons",
      "religious-studies",
      "psychology",
      "sustainability",
      "sovereignty",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Documenting Domination in International Relations Through the Doctrine of Discovery,\" an Outcome archive entry by Adam DJ Brett, Betty Hill (Lyons). The entry belongs to the crosscurrents collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses The American Indian Law Alliance (AILA) was founded in 1989 by Tonya Gonnella Frichner as an Indigenous, non profit organization advocating for sovereignty, human rights, and social justice. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including INTRODUCTION The American Indian Law Alliance (AILA) was founded in 1989 by Tonya Gonnella Frichner, 1974–2015, (Onondaga Nation, Snipe Clan). She founded the organization as an Indigenous, non profit, non partisan organization that works with Indigenous nations, communities and organizations in our struggle for sovereignty, human rights and social justice for our peoples. AILA continues to work to support and advocate for Indigenous nations and peoples at the international level. In 2010 Tonya Gonnella Frichner in her role as the Special Rapporteur for the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues submitted the Preliminary Study of The Impact on Indigenous Peoples. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/crosscurrents/essay2/documenting-domination-in-international-relations-through-the-doctrine-of-discovery/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/crosscurrents/essay2/documenting-domination-in-international-relations-through-the-doctrine-of-discovery/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/crosscurrents/essay2/joint/",
    "title": "Joint Statement Of The Dicasteries For Culture And Education And For Promoting Integral Human Development On The \"Doctrine Of Discovery\"",
    "publishedAt": "2025-06-24T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "The Catholic Church strives to promote universal fraternity and respect for the dignity of every human being, condemning acts of violence, oppression, and.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "crosscurrents",
      "psychology",
      "catholic-churches",
      "sustainability",
      "oppression",
      "social-justice",
      "cultural-values",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Joint Statement Of The Dicasteries For Culture And Education And For Promoting Integral Human,\" an Outcome archive entry by Holy See Press Office. The entry belongs to the crosscurrents collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses The Catholic Church strives to promote universal fraternity and respect for the dignity of every human being, condemning acts of violence, oppression, and social injustice. While acknowledging past. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including Download Citation RIS Format CSL JSON Format archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/crosscurrents/essay2/joint/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/crosscurrents/essay2/joint/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/crosscurrents/essay2/lithuanian/",
    "title": "Christian Nationalism in the Lithuanian Context",
    "publishedAt": "2025-06-14T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "The transition of Lithuania from a pagan to a Roman Catholic culture began with Pope Innocent IV's issuance of Bulls in 1251. Mindaugas, Grand Duke of.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "crosscurrents",
      "eglute-trinkauskaite",
      "psychology",
      "nationalism",
      "religion",
      "christians",
      "catholics",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Christian Nationalism in the Lithuanian Context,\" an Outcome archive entry by Eglutė Trinkauskaitė. The entry belongs to the crosscurrents collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses The transition of Lithuania from a pagan to a Roman Catholic culture began with Pope Innocent IV's issuance of Bulls in 1251. Mindaugas, Grand Duke of Lithuania, was. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including INTRODUCTION papal bulls in the lithuanian context In 1251, Pope Innocent IV (r. 1243–1254) issued a series of Bulls and orders that began the transition of Lithuania from a pagan culture to a Roman Catholic one. In 1251, Mindaugas (1203–1263), Grand Duke of Lithuania, was baptized Christian and on July 17, 1251, Pope Innocent IV issued a papal bull placing the Kingdom of Lithuania under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. In 1253, Mindaugas was crowned the first—and only—King of Lithuania. A few years earlier, Innocent IV had commanded the Dominican Order to lead a crusade against the pagans of Prussia and in Livonia, an area bordering the. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/crosscurrents/essay2/lithuanian/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/crosscurrents/essay2/lithuanian/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/crosscurrents/essay2/religious-origins/",
    "title": "The Religious Origins of White Supremacy and The Doctrine of Christian Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2025-06-12T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "As we wrap up this volume and grant period we would like to express our deepest gratitude to S.B. Rodriguez Plate and the entire team of CrossCurrents for.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "crosscurrents",
      "adam-dj-brett",
      "philip-p-arnold",
      "sandra-bigtree",
      "education",
      "secularism",
      "sustainability",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"The Religious Origins of White Supremacy and The Doctrine of Christian Discovery,\" an Outcome archive entry by Philip P. Arnold, Sandra Bigtree, Adam DJ Brett. The entry belongs to the crosscurrents collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses As we wrap up this volume and grant period we would like to express our deepest gratitude to S.B. Rodriguez Plate and the entire team of CrossCurrents for. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including INTRODUCTION Teaching the Doctrine of Discovery Philip P. Arnold along with Adam DJ Brett and Sebastian Modrow have developed an advanced undergraduate/graduate syllabus centered around this work. The proposed course is entitled The Religious Origins of White Supremacy: Johnson v. M'Intosh and the Doctrine of Christian Discovery Syllabus. Likewise, Arnold is also teaching a course on the religious dimensions of white supremacy. These two courses, one proposed and one happening in the Spring of 2024, are both explorations of ways to teach and integrate not only the lessons from the conference but also digital humanities pedagogies like. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/crosscurrents/essay2/religious-origins/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/crosscurrents/essay2/religious-origins/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/crosscurrents/essay2/roots/",
    "title": "The Roots of Christian Nationalism Go Back Further Than You Think",
    "publishedAt": "2025-06-23T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "The term \"white Christian nationalism\" has emerged in recent years to describe a worldview that has become central to the contemporary Republican Party..",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "crosscurrents",
      "robert-p-jones",
      "nationalism",
      "christianity",
      "christians",
      "oppression",
      "slave-trade",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"The Roots of Christian Nationalism Go Back Further Than You Think,\" an Outcome archive entry by Robert P. Jones. The entry belongs to the crosscurrents collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses The term \"white Christian nationalism\" has emerged in recent years to describe a worldview that has become central to the contemporary Republican Party. This ideology has deep roots. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including Download Citation RIS Format CSL JSON Format archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/crosscurrents/essay2/roots/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/crosscurrents/essay2/roots/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/crosscurrents/essay2/routing/",
    "title": "Routing Out Supremacy's Religious Roots: From Skin Color Back Through Bible Code to City-State Coercion",
    "publishedAt": "2025-06-13T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Perkinson discusses the origins of colonialism and white supremacy, tracing it back to the relationship with the land. He explores the shift from pastoral.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "crosscurrents",
      "james-w-perkinson",
      "psychology",
      "sustainability",
      "nomads",
      "nominalism",
      "humans",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Routing Out Supremacy's Religious Roots: From Skin Color Back Through Bible Code to City,\" an Outcome archive entry by James W. Perkinson. The entry belongs to the crosscurrents collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Perkinson discusses the origins of colonialism and white supremacy, tracing it back to the relationship with the land. He explores the shift from pastoral nomad lifeways to city. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including INTRODUCTION beginning in the middle (\"east\") I begin in the middle—as in fact we all do all the time. But today it has special cache—at least in connection with one particular direction, as in \"Middle East.\" In the main, I want to talk about colonialism in history. But that demands recognizing its most blatant spectacle \"feeding\" the capitalist machine today. So yes, the Mid East, in all of our news feeds. But of course, on a round planet, we ultimately fool ourselves if we think there really is such a thing as \"east\" that is distinct from \"west.\" Go far. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/crosscurrents/essay2/routing/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/crosscurrents/essay2/routing/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/crosscurrents/essay2/statement-doctrine-discovery-episcopal/",
    "title": "Statement on the Doctrine of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2025-06-26T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "The Episcopal Church's commitment to justice and equality is challenged by its historical complicity in the Doctrine of Discovery. The Episcopal Diocese of.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "crosscurrents",
      "bishop-dede",
      "duncan-probe",
      "episcopal-churches",
      "sustainability",
      "equality",
      "discovery",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Statement on the Doctrine of Discovery,\" an Outcome archive entry by Bishop Dede Duncan-Probe. The entry belongs to the crosscurrents collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses The Episcopal Church's commitment to justice and equality is challenged by its historical complicity in the Doctrine of Discovery. The Episcopal Diocese of Central New York acknowledges its. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including Download Citation RIS Format CSL JSON Format archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/crosscurrents/essay2/statement-doctrine-discovery-episcopal/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/crosscurrents/essay2/statement-doctrine-discovery-episcopal/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/crosscurrents/essay2/things/",
    "title": "Things We Already Knew Before the Prophecy of I Am",
    "publishedAt": "2025-06-10T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "I am the meadow And the tall grasses I am the stone That rolled away I am the water That flows through all life possible I am the tree That shades Outcome.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "crosscurrents",
      "sawatis-frushell",
      "poetry",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Things We Already Knew Before the Prophecy of I Am,\" an Outcome archive entry by Sawatis Frushell. The entry belongs to the crosscurrents collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses I am the meadow And the tall grasses I am the stone That rolled away I am the water That flows through all life possible I am the. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including INTRODUCTION I am the meadow And the tall grasses I am the stone That rolled away I am the water That flows through all life possible I am the tree That shades, warms, and reaches deep and high I am the bee hive That ensures pollination I am the salt Of the earth and the teardrops of relatives I am the rafter and foundationOf a place called homeI am the bird That flies without propelling I am the chipmunk Who wears the Two Row on its back I am the sand That bears the footprints of time I am the earth That quakes with no. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/crosscurrents/essay2/things/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/crosscurrents/essay2/things/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/crosscurrents/essay2/toc/",
    "title": "Table of Contents",
    "publishedAt": "2025-06-08T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Article Table of Content This entry connects Doctrine of Discovery scholarship, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, and historical accountability..",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "crosscurrents",
      "table-of-content",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Table of Contents,\" an Outcome archive entry by The Association for Public Religion and Intellectual Life (APRIL). The entry belongs to the crosscurrents collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Article Table of Content. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including Download Citation RIS Format CSL JSON Format archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/crosscurrents/essay2/toc/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/crosscurrents/essay2/toc/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/crosscurrents/essay2/toward/",
    "title": "Toward a Kinder Future",
    "publishedAt": "2025-06-20T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "The Church needs to make commitments to undo the damage of instilling white superiority beliefs. Churches worldwide can be part of a campaign to change the.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "crosscurrents",
      "freida-jacques",
      "sustainability",
      "psychology",
      "emotions",
      "boarding-schools",
      "dominance",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Toward a Kinder Future,\" an Outcome archive entry by Whatweni:neh Freida J. Jacques. The entry belongs to the crosscurrents collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses The Church needs to make commitments to undo the damage of instilling white superiority beliefs. Churches worldwide can be part of a campaign to change the effects of. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including Download Citation RIS Format CSL JSON Format archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/crosscurrents/essay2/toward/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/crosscurrents/essay2/toward/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/crosscurrents/essay2/travel/",
    "title": "Travelling Along the River of Life",
    "publishedAt": "2025-06-21T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Lyons discusses the journey in the Doctrine of Discovery, highlighting his experience presenting at the United Nations in 2001. He focuses on the history of.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "crosscurrents",
      "oren-lyons",
      "sustainability",
      "psychology",
      "inequality",
      "racism",
      "albert-gore-jr",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Travelling Along the River of Life,\" an Outcome archive entry by Oren Lyons. The entry belongs to the crosscurrents collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Lyons discusses the journey in the Doctrine of Discovery, highlighting his experience presenting at the United Nations in 2001. He focuses on the history of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy,. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including Download Citation RIS Format CSL JSON Format archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/crosscurrents/essay2/travel/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/crosscurrents/essay2/travel/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/crosscurrents/essay2/wedding/",
    "title": "An Unholy Wedding: Christianity, Civilizational Supremacy, and the In/visibility of \"Race\" in Post-colonial Philippines",
    "publishedAt": "2025-06-15T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "An often heard truism among homeland Filipinos in conversations with their diasporic counterparts in the United States is the notion that race and racism.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "crosscurrents",
      "s-lily-mendoza",
      "psychology",
      "christianity",
      "sustainability",
      "enactment",
      "tourism",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"An Unholy Wedding: Christianity, Civilizational Supremacy, and the In/visibility of \"Race\" in Post colonial,\" an Outcome archive entry by S. Lily Mendoza. The entry belongs to the crosscurrents collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses An often heard truism among homeland Filipinos in conversations with their diasporic counterparts in the United States is the notion that race and racism are irrelevant categories when. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including INTRODUCTION race: an irrelevant category in the philippine situation? An often heard truism among homeland Filipinos in conversations with their diasporic counterparts in the United States is the notion that race and racism are irrelevant categories when it comes to the Philippines. \"Don't export your racism to us,\" is the usual protest. \"There's no racism in the Philippines. We all descend from the islands' original peoples.\" Wary—and rightfully so—of the often decontextualized exportation of debates and discourses to the home country (as has been the case historically in a kind of center periphery trajectory), one interlocutor quips: \"You cannot employ. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/crosscurrents/essay2/wedding/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/crosscurrents/essay2/wedding/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/featured/domination-translator/",
    "title": "The Domination Translator Series - Complete Index",
    "publishedAt": "2026-01-01T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "A comprehensive 15 part extended essay by Steven T. Newcomb examining how the Doctrine of Discovery has shaped U.S. Supreme Court rulings and American law.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "featured",
      "domination-translator",
      "education",
      "steven-t-newcomb",
      "doctrine-of-discovery",
      "law",
      "indigenous-rights",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"The Domination Translator Series Complete Index,\" an Outcome archive entry by Steven T. Newcomb. The entry belongs to the featured collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses A comprehensive 15 part extended essay by Steven T. Newcomb examining how the Doctrine of Discovery has shaped U.S. Supreme Court rulings and American law.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including The Domination Translator Series Complete Collection A comprehensive 15 part extended essay by Steven T. Newcomb examining the Doctrine of Discovery in U.S. Supreme Court rulings and American law. All 15 Parts 1. Introduction: The Domination Translator Series — Overview of the series and methodology 2. Fletcher v. Peck (1810) — The first Supreme Court case to reference the Doctrine of Discovery 3. The Marshall Trilogy: Johnson v. McIntosh (1823) — Chief Justice John Marshall's foundational ruling establishing discovery doctrine as U.S. law 4. The Marshall Trilogy: Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) — Defining indigenous nations as \"domestic dependent nations\" 5. The Marshall Trilogy: Worcester v. Georgia (1832) — Affirming tribal. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/domination-translator/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/domination-translator/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/featured/domination-translator/domination-translator-01/introduction/",
    "title": "The Domination Translator Series: An Extended Essay on Various U.S. Supreme Court Rulings and Other Topics - Part 1",
    "publishedAt": "2026-01-01T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "How did the U.S. justify 'ultimate dominion' over Native nations and lands? This series examines the Doctrine of Discovery in Supreme Court rulings. Outcome.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "featured",
      "domination-translator",
      "domination-translator-01",
      "education",
      "steven-t-newcomb",
      "doctrine-of-discovery",
      "law",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"The Domination Translator Series: An Extended Essay on Various U.S. Supreme Court Rulings and,\" an Outcome archive entry by Steven T. Newcomb. The entry belongs to the featured collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses How did the U.S. justify 'ultimate dominion' over Native nations and lands? This series examines the Doctrine of Discovery in Supreme Court rulings.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including Introduction to the Domination Translator Series The Domination Translator Series provides an in depth analysis of how the Doctrine of Discovery—a medieval principle of Christian supremacy used to justify European colonization—has shaped American law from the founding of the republic to the present day. Through detailed examination of landmark Supreme Court cases, presidential doctrines, and legal precedents, this series demonstrates how this doctrine continues to underpin federal Indian law and property rights. About the Author Steven T. Newcomb is a scholar and advocate dedicated to analyzing and documenting the Doctrine of Discovery's impact on indigenous sovereignty and rights. His work has been instrumental in raising. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/domination-translator/domination-translator-01/introduction/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/domination-translator/domination-translator-01/introduction/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/featured/domination-translator/domination-translator-02/fletcher-v-peck/",
    "title": "Fletcher v. Peck (1810) - Domination Translator Series - Part 2",
    "publishedAt": "2026-01-02T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "The Fletcher v. Peck case examined whether the U.S. courts would recognize Indian title to land, and how colonial charters justified domination. Outcome.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "featured",
      "domination-translator",
      "domination-translator-02",
      "education",
      "steven-t-newcomb",
      "doctrine-of-discovery",
      "law",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Fletcher v. Peck (1810) Domination Translator Series Part 2,\" an Outcome archive entry by Steven T. Newcomb. The entry belongs to the featured collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses The Fletcher v. Peck case examined whether the U.S. courts would recognize Indian title to land, and how colonial charters justified domination.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including Fletcher v. Peck (1810) Domination Translator Series Part 2 The Fletcher v. Peck case examined whether the U.S. courts would recognize Indian title to land, and how colonial charters justified domination. About This Article This article is Part 02 of the comprehensive Domination Translator Series, which traces how the Doctrine of Discovery has shaped American law and policy from the founding of the republic to the present day. Key Concepts The Domination Translator Series examines: How medieval principles of Christian supremacy became U.S. law The role of Supreme Court decisions in perpetuating discovery doctrine Contemporary impacts on Native nations and sovereignty Legal arguments and counterarguments regarding indigenous rights Read the Full. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/domination-translator/domination-translator-02/fletcher-v-peck/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/domination-translator/domination-translator-02/fletcher-v-peck/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/featured/domination-translator/domination-translator-03/johnson-mcintosh/",
    "title": "The Marshall Trilogy: Johnson v. McIntosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823) - Domination Translator Series - Part 3",
    "publishedAt": "2026-01-03T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "The 1823 landmark Johnson v. McIntosh case established the Doctrine of Discovery as U.S. law, denying Native nations' property rights. Outcome archive context.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "featured",
      "domination-translator",
      "domination-translator-03",
      "education",
      "steven-t-newcomb",
      "doctrine-of-discovery",
      "law",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"The Marshall Trilogy: Johnson v. McIntosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823) Domination Translator,\" an Outcome archive entry by Steven T. Newcomb. The entry belongs to the featured collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses The 1823 landmark Johnson v. McIntosh case established the Doctrine of Discovery as U.S. law, denying Native nations' property rights.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including The Marshall Trilogy: Johnson v. McIntosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823) Domination Translator Series Part 3 The 1823 landmark Johnson v. McIntosh case established the Doctrine of Discovery as U.S. law, denying Native nations' property rights. About This Article This article is Part 03 of the comprehensive Domination Translator Series, which traces how the Doctrine of Discovery has shaped American law and policy from the founding of the republic to the present day. Key Concepts The Domination Translator Series examines: How medieval principles of Christian supremacy became U.S. law The role of Supreme Court decisions in perpetuating discovery doctrine Contemporary impacts on Native nations and sovereignty Legal. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/domination-translator/domination-translator-03/johnson-mcintosh/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/domination-translator/domination-translator-03/johnson-mcintosh/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/featured/domination-translator/domination-translator-04/cherokee-nation-georgia/",
    "title": "The Marshall Trilogy: Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) - Domination Translator Series - Part 4",
    "publishedAt": "2026-01-04T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "In 1831, the Cherokee Nation sought Supreme Court protection from Georgia's laws designed to annihilate their political existence. Outcome archive context.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "featured",
      "domination-translator",
      "domination-translator-04",
      "education",
      "steven-t-newcomb",
      "doctrine-of-discovery",
      "law",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"The Marshall Trilogy: Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) Domination Translator Series Part 4,\" an Outcome archive entry by Steven T. Newcomb. The entry belongs to the featured collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses In 1831, the Cherokee Nation sought Supreme Court protection from Georgia's laws designed to annihilate their political existence.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including The Marshall Trilogy: Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) Domination Translator Series Part 4 In 1831, the Cherokee Nation sought Supreme Court protection from Georgia's laws designed to annihilate their political existence. About This Article This article is Part 04 of the comprehensive Domination Translator Series, which traces how the Doctrine of Discovery has shaped American law and policy from the founding of the republic to the present day. Key Concepts The Domination Translator Series examines: How medieval principles of Christian supremacy became U.S. law The role of Supreme Court decisions in perpetuating discovery doctrine Contemporary impacts on Native nations and sovereignty Legal arguments and counterarguments regarding indigenous rights Read the Full. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/domination-translator/domination-translator-04/cherokee-nation-georgia/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/domination-translator/domination-translator-04/cherokee-nation-georgia/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/featured/domination-translator/domination-translator-05/worcester-georgia/",
    "title": "The Marshall Trilogy: Worcester v. Georgia (1832) - Domination Translator Series - Part 5",
    "publishedAt": "2026-01-05T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "The 1832 Worcester v. Georgia ruling protected Native nations from state laws, yet affirmed federal domination under the Doctrine of Discovery. Outcome.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "featured",
      "domination-translator",
      "domination-translator-05",
      "education",
      "steven-t-newcomb",
      "doctrine-of-discovery",
      "law",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"The Marshall Trilogy: Worcester v. Georgia (1832) Domination Translator Series Part 5,\" an Outcome archive entry by Steven T. Newcomb. The entry belongs to the featured collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses The 1832 Worcester v. Georgia ruling protected Native nations from state laws, yet affirmed federal domination under the Doctrine of Discovery.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including The Marshall Trilogy: Worcester v. Georgia (1832) Domination Translator Series Part 5 The 1832 Worcester v. Georgia ruling protected Native nations from state laws, yet affirmed federal domination under the Doctrine of Discovery. About This Article This article is Part 05 of the comprehensive Domination Translator Series, which traces how the Doctrine of Discovery has shaped American law and policy from the founding of the republic to the present day. Key Concepts The Domination Translator Series examines: How medieval principles of Christian supremacy became U.S. law The role of Supreme Court decisions in perpetuating discovery doctrine Contemporary impacts on Native nations and sovereignty Legal arguments and counterarguments regarding indigenous. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/domination-translator/domination-translator-05/worcester-georgia/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/domination-translator/domination-translator-05/worcester-georgia/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/featured/domination-translator/domination-translator-06/monroe-doctrine/",
    "title": "The Monroe Doctrine (1823) - Domination Translator Series - Part 6",
    "publishedAt": "2026-01-06T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "The Monroe Doctrine (1823) extended U.S. claims of 'ultimate dominion' over the Western Hemisphere, following the Doctrine of Discovery. Outcome archive.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "featured",
      "domination-translator",
      "domination-translator-06",
      "education",
      "steven-t-newcomb",
      "doctrine-of-discovery",
      "law",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"The Monroe Doctrine (1823) Domination Translator Series Part 6,\" an Outcome archive entry by Steven T. Newcomb. The entry belongs to the featured collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses The Monroe Doctrine (1823) extended U.S. claims of 'ultimate dominion' over the Western Hemisphere, following the Doctrine of Discovery.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including The Monroe Doctrine (1823) Domination Translator Series Part 6 The Monroe Doctrine (1823) extended U.S. claims of 'ultimate dominion' over the Western Hemisphere, following the Doctrine of Discovery. About This Article This article is Part 06 of the comprehensive Domination Translator Series, which traces how the Doctrine of Discovery has shaped American law and policy from the founding of the republic to the present day. Key Concepts The Domination Translator Series examines: How medieval principles of Christian supremacy became U.S. law The role of Supreme Court decisions in perpetuating discovery doctrine Contemporary impacts on Native nations and sovereignty Legal arguments and counterarguments regarding indigenous rights Read the Full Series Explore the complete Domination Translator. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/domination-translator/domination-translator-06/monroe-doctrine/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/domination-translator/domination-translator-06/monroe-doctrine/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/featured/domination-translator/domination-translator-07/martin-waddell/",
    "title": "Martin v. Waddell (1842) - Domination Translator Series - Part 7",
    "publishedAt": "2026-01-07T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Martin v. Waddell (1842) applied the Doctrine of Discovery to oyster beds, asserting European discovery gave absolute property rights. Outcome archive context.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "featured",
      "domination-translator",
      "domination-translator-07",
      "education",
      "steven-t-newcomb",
      "doctrine-of-discovery",
      "law",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Martin v. Waddell (1842) Domination Translator Series Part 7,\" an Outcome archive entry by Steven T. Newcomb. The entry belongs to the featured collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Martin v. Waddell (1842) applied the Doctrine of Discovery to oyster beds, asserting European discovery gave absolute property rights.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including Martin v. Waddell (1842) Domination Translator Series Part 7 Martin v. Waddell (1842) applied the Doctrine of Discovery to oyster beds, asserting European discovery gave absolute property rights. About This Article This article is Part 07 of the comprehensive Domination Translator Series, which traces how the Doctrine of Discovery has shaped American law and policy from the founding of the republic to the present day. Key Concepts The Domination Translator Series examines: How medieval principles of Christian supremacy became U.S. law The role of Supreme Court decisions in perpetuating discovery doctrine Contemporary impacts on Native nations and sovereignty Legal arguments and counterarguments regarding indigenous rights Read the Full Series Explore the complete Domination Translator. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/domination-translator/domination-translator-07/martin-waddell/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/domination-translator/domination-translator-07/martin-waddell/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/featured/domination-translator/domination-translator-08/roosevelt-corollary/",
    "title": "President 'Teddy' Roosevelt's Monroe Doctrine Corollary - Domination Translator Series - Part 8",
    "publishedAt": "2026-01-08T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Teddy Roosevelt's 1904 Monroe Doctrine Corollary asserted U.S. imperial dominion over the Western Hemisphere and its indigenous peoples. Outcome archive.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "featured",
      "domination-translator",
      "domination-translator-08",
      "education",
      "steven-t-newcomb",
      "doctrine-of-discovery",
      "law",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"President 'Teddy' Roosevelt's Monroe Doctrine Corollary Domination Translator Series Part 8,\" an Outcome archive entry by Steven T. Newcomb. The entry belongs to the featured collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Teddy Roosevelt's 1904 Monroe Doctrine Corollary asserted U.S. imperial dominion over the Western Hemisphere and its indigenous peoples.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including President 'Teddy' Roosevelt's Monroe Doctrine Corollary Domination Translator Series Part 8 Teddy Roosevelt's 1904 Monroe Doctrine Corollary asserted U.S. imperial dominion over the Western Hemisphere and its indigenous peoples. About This Article This article is Part 08 of the comprehensive Domination Translator Series, which traces how the Doctrine of Discovery has shaped American law and policy from the founding of the republic to the present day. Key Concepts The Domination Translator Series examines: How medieval principles of Christian supremacy became U.S. law The role of Supreme Court decisions in perpetuating discovery doctrine Contemporary impacts on Native nations and sovereignty Legal arguments and counterarguments regarding indigenous rights Read the Full Series Explore the complete. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/domination-translator/domination-translator-08/roosevelt-corollary/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/domination-translator/domination-translator-08/roosevelt-corollary/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/featured/domination-translator/domination-translator-09/tee-hit-ton/",
    "title": "Tee Hit Ton Indians v. United States (1955) - Domination Translator Series - Part 9",
    "publishedAt": "2026-01-09T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Tee Hit Ton v. U.S. (1955) denied Native peoples compensation for lands taken by the U.S. government under the Doctrine of Discovery. Outcome archive context.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "featured",
      "domination-translator",
      "domination-translator-09",
      "education",
      "steven-t-newcomb",
      "doctrine-of-discovery",
      "law",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Tee Hit Ton Indians v. United States (1955) Domination Translator Series Part 9,\" an Outcome archive entry by Steven T. Newcomb. The entry belongs to the featured collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Tee Hit Ton v. U.S. (1955) denied Native peoples compensation for lands taken by the U.S. government under the Doctrine of Discovery.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including Tee Hit Ton Indians v. United States (1955) Domination Translator Series Part 9 Tee Hit Ton v. U.S. (1955) denied Native peoples compensation for lands taken by the U.S. government under the Doctrine of Discovery. About This Article This article is Part 09 of the comprehensive Domination Translator Series, which traces how the Doctrine of Discovery has shaped American law and policy from the founding of the republic to the present day. Key Concepts The Domination Translator Series examines: How medieval principles of Christian supremacy became U.S. law The role of Supreme Court decisions in perpetuating discovery doctrine Contemporary impacts on Native nations and sovereignty Legal arguments. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/domination-translator/domination-translator-09/tee-hit-ton/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/domination-translator/domination-translator-09/tee-hit-ton/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/featured/domination-translator/domination-translator-10/white-university/",
    "title": "White v. University of California (9th Cir., 2014) - Domination Translator Series - Part 10",
    "publishedAt": "2026-01-10T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "UC professors attempted to prevent repatriation of Kumeyaay Nation ancestral remains, invoking tribal sovereignty immunity doctrines. Outcome archive context.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "featured",
      "domination-translator",
      "domination-translator-10",
      "education",
      "steven-t-newcomb",
      "doctrine-of-discovery",
      "law",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"White v. University of California (9th Cir., 2014) Domination Translator Series Part 10,\" an Outcome archive entry by Steven T. Newcomb. The entry belongs to the featured collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses UC professors attempted to prevent repatriation of Kumeyaay Nation ancestral remains, invoking tribal sovereignty immunity doctrines.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including White v. University of California (9th Cir., 2014) Domination Translator Series Part 10 UC professors attempted to prevent repatriation of Kumeyaay Nation ancestral remains, invoking tribal sovereignty immunity doctrines. About This Article This article is Part 10 of the comprehensive Domination Translator Series, which traces how the Doctrine of Discovery has shaped American law and policy from the founding of the republic to the present day. Key Concepts The Domination Translator Series examines: How medieval principles of Christian supremacy became U.S. law The role of Supreme Court decisions in perpetuating discovery doctrine Contemporary impacts on Native nations and sovereignty Legal arguments and counterarguments regarding indigenous rights Read the Full Series Explore the complete. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/domination-translator/domination-translator-10/white-university/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/domination-translator/domination-translator-10/white-university/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/featured/domination-translator/domination-translator-11/cayuga-pataki/",
    "title": "The Haudenosaunee Cases: Cayuga Indian Nation v. Pataki (2nd Cir. June 28, 2005) - Domination Translator Series - Part 11",
    "publishedAt": "2026-01-11T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Cayuga Nation v. Pataki (2005) explored Haudenosaunee land claims and the suppressed 1922 Everett Report on Native treaty rights. Outcome archive context.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "featured",
      "domination-translator",
      "domination-translator-11",
      "education",
      "steven-t-newcomb",
      "doctrine-of-discovery",
      "law",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"The Haudenosaunee Cases: Cayuga Indian Nation v. Pataki (2nd Cir. June 28, 2005) Domination,\" an Outcome archive entry by Steven T. Newcomb. The entry belongs to the featured collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Cayuga Nation v. Pataki (2005) explored Haudenosaunee land claims and the suppressed 1922 Everett Report on Native treaty rights.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including The Haudenosaunee Cases: Cayuga Indian Nation v. Pataki (2nd Cir. June 28, 2005) Domination Translator Series Part 11 Cayuga Nation v. Pataki (2005) explored Haudenosaunee land claims and the suppressed 1922 Everett Report on Native treaty rights. About This Article This article is Part 11 of the comprehensive Domination Translator Series, which traces how the Doctrine of Discovery has shaped American law and policy from the founding of the republic to the present day. Key Concepts The Domination Translator Series examines: How medieval principles of Christian supremacy became U.S. law The role of Supreme Court decisions in perpetuating discovery doctrine Contemporary impacts on Native nations and sovereignty Legal arguments. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/domination-translator/domination-translator-11/cayuga-pataki/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/domination-translator/domination-translator-11/cayuga-pataki/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/featured/domination-translator/domination-translator-12/oneida-county/",
    "title": "The Haudenosaunee Cases: Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida (Aug. 9th 2010) - Domination Translator Series - Part 12",
    "publishedAt": "2026-01-12T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida (2010) examined equitable defenses used to bar Native land claims spanning centuries. Outcome archive context.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "featured",
      "domination-translator",
      "domination-translator-12",
      "education",
      "steven-t-newcomb",
      "doctrine-of-discovery",
      "law",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"The Haudenosaunee Cases: Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida (Aug. 9th 2010) Domination,\" an Outcome archive entry by Steven T. Newcomb. The entry belongs to the featured collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida (2010) examined equitable defenses used to bar Native land claims spanning centuries.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including The Haudenosaunee Cases: Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida (Aug. 9th 2010) Domination Translator Series Part 12 Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida (2010) examined equitable defenses used to bar Native land claims spanning centuries. About This Article This article is Part 12 of the comprehensive Domination Translator Series, which traces how the Doctrine of Discovery has shaped American law and policy from the founding of the republic to the present day. Key Concepts The Domination Translator Series examines: How medieval principles of Christian supremacy became U.S. law The role of Supreme Court decisions in perpetuating discovery doctrine Contemporary impacts on Native nations and sovereignty Legal arguments. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/domination-translator/domination-translator-12/oneida-county/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/domination-translator/domination-translator-12/oneida-county/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/featured/domination-translator/domination-translator-13/onondaga-new-york/",
    "title": "The Haudenosaunee Cases: Onondaga Nation v. N.Y. (Argued Oct. 12, 2012, decided October 19, 2012) - Domination Translator Series - Part 13",
    "publishedAt": "2026-01-13T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Onondaga Nation's lawsuit to recover ancestral lands was dismissed using federal Indian law doctrines based on discovery and domination. Outcome archive.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "featured",
      "domination-translator",
      "domination-translator-13",
      "education",
      "steven-t-newcomb",
      "doctrine-of-discovery",
      "law",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"The Haudenosaunee Cases: Onondaga Nation v. N.Y. (Argued Oct. 12, 2012, decided October 19,,\" an Outcome archive entry by Steven T. Newcomb. The entry belongs to the featured collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Onondaga Nation's lawsuit to recover ancestral lands was dismissed using federal Indian law doctrines based on discovery and domination.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including The Haudenosaunee Cases: Onondaga Nation v. N.Y. (Argued Oct. 12, 2012, decided October 19, 2012) Domination Translator Series Part 13 Onondaga Nation's lawsuit to recover ancestral lands was dismissed using federal Indian law doctrines based on discovery and domination. About This Article This article is Part 13 of the comprehensive Domination Translator Series, which traces how the Doctrine of Discovery has shaped American law and policy from the founding of the republic to the present day. Key Concepts The Domination Translator Series examines: How medieval principles of Christian supremacy became U.S. law The role of Supreme Court decisions in perpetuating discovery doctrine Contemporary impacts on Native nations and sovereignty. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/domination-translator/domination-translator-13/onondaga-new-york/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/domination-translator/domination-translator-13/onondaga-new-york/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/featured/domination-translator/domination-translator-14/mcgirt-oklahoma/",
    "title": "McGirt v. Oklahoma (U.S. Supreme Court, July 2020) - Domination Translator Series - Part 14",
    "publishedAt": "2026-01-14T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020) upheld Creek Nation jurisdiction while affirming federal plenary power based on the Doctrine of Discovery. Outcome archive context.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "featured",
      "domination-translator",
      "domination-translator-14",
      "education",
      "steven-t-newcomb",
      "doctrine-of-discovery",
      "law",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"McGirt v. Oklahoma (U.S. Supreme Court, July 2020) Domination Translator Series Part 14,\" an Outcome archive entry by Steven T. Newcomb. The entry belongs to the featured collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020) upheld Creek Nation jurisdiction while affirming federal plenary power based on the Doctrine of Discovery.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including McGirt v. Oklahoma (U.S. Supreme Court, July 2020) Domination Translator Series Part 14 McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020) upheld Creek Nation jurisdiction while affirming federal plenary power based on the Doctrine of Discovery. About This Article This article is Part 14 of the comprehensive Domination Translator Series, which traces how the Doctrine of Discovery has shaped American law and policy from the founding of the republic to the present day. Key Concepts The Domination Translator Series examines: How medieval principles of Christian supremacy became U.S. law The role of Supreme Court decisions in perpetuating discovery doctrine Contemporary impacts on Native nations and sovereignty Legal arguments and counterarguments regarding indigenous rights Read. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/domination-translator/domination-translator-14/mcgirt-oklahoma/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/domination-translator/domination-translator-14/mcgirt-oklahoma/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/featured/domination-translator/domination-translator-15/king-mountain/",
    "title": "U.S. v. King Mountain Tobacco Co., Inc. (9th Cir. Court, August 13, 2012) - Domination Translator Series - Part 15",
    "publishedAt": "2026-01-15T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "U.S. v. King Mountain Tobacco (2012) asserted federal excise tax authority over Yakama Nation based on plenary power doctrine. Outcome archive context.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "featured",
      "domination-translator",
      "domination-translator-15",
      "education",
      "steven-t-newcomb",
      "doctrine-of-discovery",
      "law",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"U.S. v. King Mountain Tobacco Co., Inc. (9th Cir. Court, August 13, 2012) Domination,\" an Outcome archive entry by Steven T. Newcomb. The entry belongs to the featured collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses U.S. v. King Mountain Tobacco (2012) asserted federal excise tax authority over Yakama Nation based on plenary power doctrine.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including U.S. v. King Mountain Tobacco Co., Inc. (9th Cir. Court, August 13, 2012) Domination Translator Series Part 15 U.S. v. King Mountain Tobacco (2012) asserted federal excise tax authority over Yakama Nation based on plenary power doctrine. About This Article This article is Part 15 of the comprehensive Domination Translator Series, which traces how the Doctrine of Discovery has shaped American law and policy from the founding of the republic to the present day. Key Concepts The Domination Translator Series examines: How medieval principles of Christian supremacy became U.S. law The role of Supreme Court decisions in perpetuating discovery doctrine Contemporary impacts on Native nations and sovereignty Legal arguments. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/domination-translator/domination-translator-15/king-mountain/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/domination-translator/domination-translator-15/king-mountain/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/featured/essay1/what-is-the-doctrine-of-discovery/",
    "title": "What is the Doctrine of Discovery?",
    "publishedAt": "2024-12-12T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Papal Bulls of the 15th century gave Christian explorers the right to claim lands they ‘discovered’ and lay claim to those lands for their Christian Monarchs.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "featured",
      "education",
      "paypal-bus",
      "resources",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"What is the Doctrine of Discovery?,\" an Outcome archive entry by Philip P. Arnold, Sandra Bigtree. The entry belongs to the featured collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Papal Bulls of the 15th century gave Christian explorers the right to claim lands they ‘discovered’ and lay claim to those lands for their Christian Monarchs.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including INTRODUCTION \"We were planting corn and they were planting crosses.\" Faithkeeper Oren Lyons The Doctrines of Christian Discovery (DoCD) originate with 15th century Papal Bulls that were issued by the Vatican and implemented by Monarchies, sanctioning the brutal Conquest and Colonization of non Christians who were deemed “enemies of Christ” in Africa and the Americas. These Papal Bulls were a continuation of what had been going on since at least the 8th century from Charlemagne, through the Crusades, the Inquisition, the war on witches, to the Reconquista of the Iberian Peninsula. In 1823, the “Doctrine of Discovery” was first articulated as a legal formulation in U.S. Supreme. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/essay1/what-is-the-doctrine-of-discovery/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/essay1/what-is-the-doctrine-of-discovery/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/featured/essay2/10-religous-dimensions/",
    "title": "Ten Religious Themes of the Doctrine of Christian Discovery (DoCD) that Contrast with Indigenous Values",
    "publishedAt": "2024-12-11T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "With issuance of 15th century Papal Bulls known as the Doctrine of Christian Discovery, religion has been used all over the world as a weapon against.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "featured",
      "cristian",
      "indigenous",
      "religion",
      "philip-p-arnold",
      "sandra-bigtree",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Ten Religious Themes of the Doctrine of Christian Discovery (DoCD) that Contrast with Indigenous,\" an Outcome archive entry by Philip P. Arnold, Sandra Bigtree. The entry belongs to the featured collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses With issuance of 15th century Papal Bulls known as the Doctrine of Christian Discovery, religion has been used all over the world as a weapon against Indigenous Peoples. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including INTRODUCTION With issuance of 15th century Papal Bulls known as the Doctrine of Christian Discovery, religion has been used all over the world as a weapon against Indigenous Peoples and the land. This globalized aggressive and destructive use of religion began here with the Vatican’s justification for Portugal and Spain to raid West Africa and the Americas—resulting in the near annihilation of traditions, ecosystems and human life. Today, this religious framework has been codified into law and utilized by multinational corporations to seize Indigenous lands and extract resources for profit. Religion, therefore, is relevant today as foundational to. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/essay2/10-religous-dimensions/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/essay2/10-religous-dimensions/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/featured/essay2/CEMANAHUAC/",
    "title": "Superseding the Doctrine of Discovery: World Water One",
    "publishedAt": "2024-11-25T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "CEMANAHUAC Superseding the Doctrine of Discovery: World Water One www.www.www This Outcome pointer preserves canonical archive context. Archive context.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "featured",
      "tupac-enrique-acosta",
      "cemanahuac",
      "christianity",
      "domination",
      "religion",
      "doctrine-of-discovery",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Superseding the Doctrine of Discovery: World Water One,\" an Outcome archive entry by Tupac Enrique Acosta. The entry belongs to the featured collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses CEMANAHUAC Superseding the Doctrine of Discovery: World Water One www.www.www. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including The continental call to consciousness and courage will be emitted today at dawn during the Tlanexpapalotl (Butterfly Sun) ceremonies of the Izcalli Abya Yala . The date corresponds to the spring equinox north of the equator, and the fall equinox in the south which will occur on March 20, 2023. As was the case ten years ago, the call by the Continental Commission Abya Yala is being led by the same three convening organizations of Indigenous Peoples: Techantit, Vision Maya, and TONATIERRA. Now advancing beyond the initial ten year phase of the Dismantling of the Doctrine of Discovery of Christendom, the Continental Commission will coordinate and synchronize with ceremonial protocols appropriate to each particular nation and territory, the EMERGENCE and REGENERATION of the Original. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/essay2/CEMANAHUAC/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/essay2/CEMANAHUAC/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/featured/essay2/animals-doctrine-discovery/",
    "title": "Animal Nations and the Doctrine of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2024-11-30T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Democracy didn’t come across on the Mayflower. Indeed not. Nor with the Niña nor Santa Maria. Certainly not. Democracy was here. Archive context. Archive.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "featured",
      "tracy-basile",
      "free-exercise",
      "indigenous-people",
      "law",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Animal Nations and the Doctrine of Discovery,\" an Outcome archive entry by Tracy Basile. The entry belongs to the featured collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Democracy didn’t come across on the Mayflower. Indeed not. Nor with the Niña nor Santa Maria. Certainly not. Democracy was here.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including All beings everywhere are sentient. For thousands of years, traditional elders have taught this to their children, to live in relationship to and have respect for the natural world. Since Europeans arrived on the shores of Turtle Island, the Western mindset of commodification and ownership, dominion and profit, have ripped apart Indigenous peoples’ relationships of reciprocity with the natural world, especially with the animals. What accounts for this destruction is something buried deep down in Western civilization — the false narrative of human exceptionalism. I used to work as an editor and reporter in the nonprofit world of animal rights. I was concerned with the plight of animals, both wild and domesticated. The more I. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/essay2/animals-doctrine-discovery/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/essay2/animals-doctrine-discovery/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/featured/essay2/beginning-analysis-settler-colonialism/",
    "title": "Part 2: The beginning of an Analysis of Settler Colonialism Emerges at AMC 2022",
    "publishedAt": "2024-11-19T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "In the 1600s when enslaved Africans disembarked en masse and travel weary to this land mass, they arrived in a place where hundreds of Indigenous groups.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "featured",
      "sarah-nahar",
      "christianty",
      "law",
      "religion",
      "environment",
      "river-series",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Part 2: The beginning of an Analysis of Settler Colonialism Emerges at AMC 2022,\" an Outcome archive entry by Sarah Nahar. The entry belongs to the featured collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses In the 1600s when enslaved Africans disembarked en masse and travel weary to this land mass, they arrived in a place where hundreds of Indigenous groups lived since. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including Introduction In the 1600s when enslaved Africans disembarked en masse and travel weary to this land mass , they arrived in a place where hundreds of Indigenous groups lived since time immemorial.[\\[1\\]]( ftn1) Since that moment The majority of the interactions between Black people and Indigenous Peoples living in the so called United States occur(red) in the bloody context of settler colonial imperialism. Black people were kidnapped, trafficked, enslaved, segregated, imprisoned, and assassinated by individuals and a system that did not value our personhood, but sought to exploit our bodies and souls.[\\[2\\]]( ftn2) Indigenous peoples were (and continue to be) exploited,. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/essay2/beginning-analysis-settler-colonialism/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/essay2/beginning-analysis-settler-colonialism/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/featured/essay2/christian-control-women-mother-earth/",
    "title": "Christian Control Of Women And Mother Earth: The Doctrine Of Discovery And The Doctrine Of Male Domination",
    "publishedAt": "2024-11-26T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "How did the world come to be? How did humans come to be? What is the origin of all living beings? The myth history of who we are begins with the creation.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "featured",
      "sally-roesch-wagner",
      "feminism",
      "christianity",
      "religion",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Christian Control Of Women And Mother Earth: The Doctrine Of Discovery And The Doctrine,\" an Outcome archive entry by Sally Roesch Wagner. The entry belongs to the featured collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses How did the world come to be? How did humans come to be? What is the origin of all living beings? The myth history of who we are. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including Mother Earth to Indigenous people is the sacred and generous creator of everything that we need to survive; to Christians it is their real estate, taken by the force of spiritual superiority. Earth is nothing but dirt, which is synonymous with evil: a dirty mind, lower than dirt, etc. The Christian earth is the resistant enemy that Adam must overpower to survive. It begins with the Bible’s creation myth. The \\ Bible’\\ s first creation story in Genesis, chapter one declares that God creates “mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/essay2/christian-control-women-mother-earth/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/essay2/christian-control-women-mother-earth/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/featured/essay2/christian-zionism/",
    "title": "The Doctrine of Discovery and Christian Zionism",
    "publishedAt": "2024-11-28T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "The Doctrine of Discovery (DoD) has a well documented and researched connection to the colonization of Turtle Island. Its ideology, however, reaches far.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "featured",
      "jonathan-brenneman",
      "christian-zionism",
      "christianity",
      "law",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"The Doctrine of Discovery and Christian Zionism,\" an Outcome archive entry by Jonathan Brenneman. The entry belongs to the featured collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses The Doctrine of Discovery (DoD) has a well documented and researched connection to the colonization of Turtle Island. Its ideology, however, reaches far beyond the continent’s bounds.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including The Doctrine of Discovery and Christian Zionism Introduction The Doctrine of Discovery (DoD) has a well documented and researched connection to the colonization of Turtle Island. Its ideology, however, reaches far beyond the continent’s bounds. What is less researched is the DoD’s connection to European colonialism in the rest of the world. In this paper, I will explore how the settler logic, clearly articulated in the Doctrine of Discovery, was and continues to be an animating factor of the colonization of Palestine through Christian Zionist political thought and action. The quintessential quote to understand the ideology of the Doctrine of Discovery can be found in Dum Diversas by Nicolas. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/essay2/christian-zionism/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/essay2/christian-zionism/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/featured/essay2/city-of-sherrill/",
    "title": "City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation, 544 U.S. 197 (2005): THE DOCTRINE OF CHRISTIAN DISCOVERY AND DOMINATION AND THE DENIAL OF TREATY RIGHTS",
    "publishedAt": "2024-12-04T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "This shameful, land mark decision by the Supreme Court was issued just three weeks after the filing of the Onondaga Nation’s Land Rights Action. Archive.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "featured",
      "joseph-j-heath",
      "indigenous",
      "oneida",
      "law",
      "rights",
      "sherrill",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation, 544 U.S. 197 (2005): THE DOCTRINE OF,\" an Outcome archive entry by Joseph J. Heath. The entry belongs to the featured collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses This shameful, land mark decision by the Supreme Court was issued just three weeks after the filing of the Onondaga Nation’s Land Rights Action.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including Less than three months Sherrill , the 2nd Circuit used that decision as the basis to dismiss the pending Cayuga land claim and in so doing, declared that Sherrill “ has dramatically altered the legal landscape ”1 for Indigenous nations’ land right cases. The Circuit used this new “equitable” rationale to also dismiss the Oneida Nation land claim in 2010 and the Onondaga Nation land rights action in 2012. FACTUAL AND LEGAL BACKGROUND: After earlier District Court rulings that illegally taken homelands could not be reclaimed in the US court system, the Oneida Nation, purchased properties from willing sellers, within the boundaries of its. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/essay2/city-of-sherrill/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/essay2/city-of-sherrill/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/featured/essay2/combahee-river/",
    "title": "Part 1: The Origins of the Combahee River Collective Statement",
    "publishedAt": "2024-11-20T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Asia, Africa, and Europe all meet in the Americas to labor over the dialectics of free and unfree This Outcome pointer preserves canonical archive context.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "featured",
      "sarah-nahar",
      "christianty",
      "law",
      "religion",
      "environment",
      "river-series",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Part 1: The Origins of the Combahee River Collective Statement,\" an Outcome archive entry by Sarah Nahar. The entry belongs to the featured collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Asia, Africa, and Europe all meet in the Americas to labor over the dialectics of free and unfree. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including Introduction “Asia, Africa, and Europe all meet in the Americas to labor over the dialectics of free and unfree, but what of the Americas themselves and the prior peoples upon whom that labor took place?” Jodi Byrd, Transit of Empire: Indigenous Critiques of Colonialism \\[A prayer\\] that “ we might come to know, love, and care for one another with deeper and more rigorous intimacy.” brontë velez In the 1600s when enslaved Africans disembarked en masse and travel weary to this land mass , they arrived in a place where hundreds of Indigenous groups lived since time immemorial.1 Since that moment The majority of the interactions between Black people and Indigenous Peoples living in the. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/essay2/combahee-river/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/essay2/combahee-river/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/featured/essay2/divine-right/",
    "title": "The Myth of Divine Right and the Doctrine of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2024-11-21T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "featured",
      "kenneth-chestek",
      "christianty",
      "law",
      "religion",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"The Myth of Divine Right and the Doctrine of Discovery,\" an Outcome archive entry by Kenneth Chestek. The entry belongs to the featured collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/essay2/divine-right/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/essay2/divine-right/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/featured/essay2/effectuating-renunciation-IUCN/",
    "title": "Effectuating Renunciation: An International Effort to Provide a Pathway to Repudiate the Doctrine of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2024-11-29T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "On September 8, 2021 the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) voted to renounce the Doctrine of Discovery by adopting Motion 048, now.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "featured",
      "christopher-sudol",
      "iucn",
      "repudiations",
      "law",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Effectuating Renunciation: An International Effort to Provide a Pathway to Repudiate the Doctrine of,\" an Outcome archive entry by Christopher Sudol. The entry belongs to the featured collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses On September 8, 2021 the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) voted to renounce the Doctrine of Discovery by adopting Motion 048, now Resolution 119 for the. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including On September 8, 2021 the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) voted to renounce the Doctrine of Discovery (DoD) by adopting Motion 048, now Resolution 119 “Renunciation of the Doctrine of Discovery to Rediscover care for Mother Earth.”1 The IUCN is an international conservation organization, formed in 1948 to “provide a neutral space in which governments, NGOs \\[Non government organizations\\], scientists, businesses, local communities, indigenous peoples’ organisations and others can work together to solve environmental challenges and achieve sustainable development.”2 IUCN’s membership comprises more than 1,400 members over 160 countries.3 Like other international organizations, the IUCN serves to gather, facilitate,. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/essay2/effectuating-renunciation-IUCN/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/essay2/effectuating-renunciation-IUCN/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/featured/essay2/imagining-shared-futures/",
    "title": "Part 4: Making Common Cause: Imagining Shared Futures",
    "publishedAt": "2024-11-17T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "In the 1600s when enslaved Africans disembarked en masse and travel weary to this land mass, they arrived in a place where hundreds of Indigenous groups.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "featured",
      "sarah-nahar",
      "christianty",
      "law",
      "religion",
      "environment",
      "river-series",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Part 4: Making Common Cause: Imagining Shared Futures,\" an Outcome archive entry by Sarah Nahar. The entry belongs to the featured collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses In the 1600s when enslaved Africans disembarked en masse and travel weary to this land mass, they arrived in a place where hundreds of Indigenous groups lived since. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including Introduction In the 1600s when enslaved Africans disembarked en masse and travel weary to this land mass , they arrived in a place where hundreds of Indigenous groups lived since time immemorial.1 Since that moment The majority of the interactions between Black people and Indigenous Peoples living in the so called United States occur(red) in the bloody context of settler colonial imperialism. Black people were kidnapped, trafficked, enslaved, segregated, imprisoned, and assassinated by individuals and a system that did not value our personhood, but sought to exploit our bodies and souls.2 Indigenous peoples were (and continue to be) exploited, infected, schooled, silenced, relegated, and murdered by individuals. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/essay2/imagining-shared-futures/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/essay2/imagining-shared-futures/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/featured/essay2/indigenous-consent-right-rooted-doctrine-discovery/",
    "title": "Indigenous Consent: A Right Rooted in the Doctrine of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2024-12-02T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Indians being the prior occupants, possess the right to the soil. It cannot be taken from them unless by their free consent… Archive context. Archive context.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "featured",
      "urszula-piasta-mansfield",
      "indigenous",
      "law",
      "rights",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Indigenous Consent: A Right Rooted in the Doctrine of Discovery,\" an Outcome archive entry by Urszula Piasta Mansfield. The entry belongs to the featured collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Indians being the prior occupants, possess the right to the soil. It cannot be taken from them unless by their free consent…. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including Consent is a fundamental Indigenous right that exists in a reciprocal relationship with all other Indigenous rights. However, the role of consent is especially critical in promoting and protecting Indigenous sovereign and territorial rights. While the above statement appears to recognize and honor that power of Indigenous consent, history soon exposed it as theatrics and mere deceit. By putting a stop to unrestrained settler incursions on Indigenous lands, the federal government used its consolidated power to induce Indigenous consent to massive land cessions, masquerading as treaty agreements. This formal ‘Indian’ policy, guided by the rationale of the Doctrine of Discovery combined with the façade of consensual relations, has laid the. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/essay2/indigenous-consent-right-rooted-doctrine-discovery/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/essay2/indigenous-consent-right-rooted-doctrine-discovery/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/featured/essay2/lyng/",
    "title": "Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association, 485 U.S. 439",
    "publishedAt": "2024-12-01T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "In 1988 the United States Supreme Court declared constitutional the federal government’s development plan in the High Country, aboriginal homeland of the.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "featured",
      "dana-lloyd",
      "free-exercise",
      "indigenous-people",
      "law",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association, 485 U.S. 439,\" an Outcome archive entry by Dana Lloyd. The entry belongs to the featured collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses In 1988 the United States Supreme Court declared constitutional the federal government’s development plan in the High Country, aboriginal homeland of the Karuk Nation of Northern California, sacred. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including This statement brings to mind Chief Justice John Marshall’s creation, in Johnson v. McIntosh (1823), of “occupancy rights” for Indigenous peoples whose lands were “discovered” by sovereign European nations, who were entitled to acquire those lands, by purchase or conquest, but had to allow Indigenous peoples to use the lands as long as they inhabited them. O’Connor, like Marshall, does not take away the nations’ rights to use the land; both subject this right to that of a(nother) sovereign nation (in both cases it is the United States), thus relativizing the sovereignty of Indigenous nations in the name of discovery. The High Country is a. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/essay2/lyng/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/essay2/lyng/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/featured/essay2/manifest-destiny/",
    "title": "Manifest Destiny",
    "publishedAt": "2024-11-27T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Manifest Destiny is a nineteenth century term designating an expansionist ideology grounded in the Doctrine of Christian Discovery and republican ideals.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "featured",
      "robert-michael-ruehl",
      "christianity",
      "manifest-destiny",
      "law",
      "religion",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Manifest Destiny,\" an Outcome archive entry by Robert Michael Ruehl. The entry belongs to the featured collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Manifest Destiny is a nineteenth century term designating an expansionist ideology grounded in the Doctrine of Christian Discovery and republican ideals that shaped the westward development of the. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including American lawyer and author John L. O’Sullivan promoted the ideology of “Manifest Destiny” twice in 1845 to justify U.S. expansion; on 27 December 1845, he wrote: Away, away with all these cobweb tissues of right of discovery, exploration, settlement, continuity, &c…. were the respective cases and arguments of the two parties as to all these points of history and law, reversed—had England all ours, and we nothing but hers—our claim to Oregon would still be best and strongest. And that claim is by the right of our manifest destiny to overspread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/essay2/manifest-destiny/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/essay2/manifest-destiny/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/featured/essay2/maya-commentary/",
    "title": "How we met the Doctrine of Discovery. A Maya commentary - Doctrine of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2024-12-05T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "It was an ordinary evening on October 9, 2018 when, scrolling down my mouse wheel randomly looking at posts on Facebook something suddenly caught my..",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "featured",
      "manuel-may-castillo",
      "law",
      "christianity",
      "maya",
      "mexico",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"How we met the Doctrine of Discovery. A Maya commentary Doctrine of Discovery,\" an Outcome archive entry by Manuel May Castillo. The entry belongs to the featured collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses It was an ordinary evening on October 9, 2018 when, scrolling down my mouse wheel randomly looking at posts on Facebook something suddenly caught my attention: A post. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including I am a believer in symbolic numerology and the cycles of time thanks to my Maya heritage. That is why I believe it was more than a coincidence that I came across this post on the 9th of October, just three days before the celebrations of the 12th of October, the mythical date of the so called “Discovery of America” or the beginning of the colonization of Yóokol K’ab , the Maya world in my mother tongue. The timing and numbers around the Lament’s post on social media definitely touched me: 3, 9 and 12 are strong numbers in the Mayan. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/essay2/maya-commentary/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/essay2/maya-commentary/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/featured/essay2/philippine/",
    "title": "The Regalian Doctrine: The Philippine Case",
    "publishedAt": "2024-11-22T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "The Philippines has over 14 17 million remaining Indigenous peoples belonging to an estimated 110 ethnolinguistic communities (between 10 20% of the total.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "featured",
      "s-lily-mendoza",
      "philippines",
      "christianty",
      "law",
      "religion",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"The Regalian Doctrine: The Philippine Case,\" an Outcome archive entry by S. Lily Mendoza. The entry belongs to the featured collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses The Philippines has over 14 17 million remaining Indigenous peoples belonging to an estimated 110 ethnolinguistic communities (between 10 20% of the total population).. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including Introduction The Philippines has over 14 17 million remaining Indigenous peoples belonging to an estimated 110 ethnolinguistic communities (between 10 20% of the total population). It also boasts of some of the most progressive legislation in the world when it comes to protecting the rights of Indigenous Peoples. One such law is the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997 with the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) as its implementing arm. Yet despite such legislation, the Philippines is notorious for having one of the highest rates of murder of Indigenous land protectors in the world (alongside Brazil), not to mention, the incidence of dispossession and displacement of tribes that happen to. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/essay2/philippine/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/essay2/philippine/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/featured/essay2/reapprasing-the-doctrine-discovery/",
    "title": "Reappraising the Doctrine of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2024-12-03T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Again, were we to inquire by what law or authority you set up a claim [to our land], I answer, none! Your laws extend not into our country, nor ever did.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "featured",
      "david-e-wilkins",
      "christian",
      "christianity",
      "curch",
      "repudiations",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Reappraising the Doctrine of Discovery,\" an Outcome archive entry by David E. Wilkins, Ph.D. The entry belongs to the featured collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Again, were we to inquire by what law or authority you set up a claim [to our land], I answer, none! Your laws extend not into our country,. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including The European doctrine of discovery principle, recognized as recently as 1986 by a federal district court as “a legal fiction,” nevertheless remains one of the most entrenched and baffling legal doctrines undergirding federal Indian policy and law. It’s continuing legal and perceptual force perpetuates a second class national status for Native nations and relegates individual Natives to a second class citizenship status with regards to their incomplete property rights. This doctrine holds, under its most widely understood and debilitating definition, that European explorers’ ‘discovery’ of land in what became known as the Americas gave the discovering European nation–and the United States as successor–absolute legal title and ownership of. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/essay2/reapprasing-the-doctrine-discovery/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/essay2/reapprasing-the-doctrine-discovery/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/featured/essay2/settler-colonialism-analyized/",
    "title": "Part 3: Using the Doctrine of Discovery to Foreground an Analysis of Settler Colonialism",
    "publishedAt": "2024-11-18T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "In the 1600s when enslaved Africans disembarked en masse and travel weary to this land mass, they arrived in a place where hundreds of Indigenous groups.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "featured",
      "sarah-nahar",
      "christianty",
      "law",
      "religion",
      "environment",
      "river-series",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Part 3: Using the Doctrine of Discovery to Foreground an Analysis of Settler Colonialism,\" an Outcome archive entry by Sarah Nahar. The entry belongs to the featured collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses In the 1600s when enslaved Africans disembarked en masse and travel weary to this land mass, they arrived in a place where hundreds of Indigenous groups lived since. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including Introduction In the 1600s when enslaved Africans disembarked en masse and travel weary to this land mass , they arrived in a place where hundreds of Indigenous groups lived since time immemorial.1 Since that moment The majority of the interactions between Black people and Indigenous Peoples living in the so called United States occur(red) in the bloody context of settler colonial imperialism. Black people were kidnapped, trafficked, enslaved, segregated, imprisoned, and assassinated by individuals and a system that did not value our personhood, but sought to exploit our bodies and souls.2 Indigenous peoples were (and continue to be) exploited, infected, schooled,. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/essay2/settler-colonialism-analyized/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/essay2/settler-colonialism-analyized/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/featured/essay2/settler-colonialism-higher-education/",
    "title": "Settler Colonialism in Higher Education: Syracuse University and the Legacy of the Doctrine of Discovery (… and Onondaga Limestone)",
    "publishedAt": "2024-11-24T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Keywords: Settler colonialism, higher education, land grant, the Whipple Report, Onondaga Nation, Syracuse University Archive context. Archive context.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "featured",
      "hugh-burnam",
      "haudenosaunee",
      "higher-education",
      "indigenous",
      "mexico",
      "onondaga",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Settler Colonialism in Higher Education: Syracuse University and the Legacy of the Doctrine of,\" an Outcome archive entry by Hugh Burnam. The entry belongs to the featured collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Keywords: Settler colonialism, higher education, land grant, the Whipple Report, Onondaga Nation, Syracuse University. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including Introduction In this article, I examine ways in which Syracuse University, a higher education institution located in Central New York, was founded from settler colonialism vis à vis the Doctrine of Discovery. I provide three historical moments in which campus leaders, legal constituents, and religious actors associated with the private interests of Syracuse University have enacted fraudulent treaty making, land theft, assimilation efforts, and forced religious conversion of Indigenous Peoples. The three key historical moments are as follows: 1. “Land Grab Beginnings”: Ezra Cornell donated to Genesee College of Lima (1865) after the college demanded for funds from The Morrill Act of 1862, which helped to secure the founding of Syracuse University, ensuring that the. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/essay2/settler-colonialism-higher-education/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/essay2/settler-colonialism-higher-education/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/featured/essay2/sherrill-v-oneida-opinion-of-the-court/",
    "title": "City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York",
    "publishedAt": "2024-12-10T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "In March 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision in City of Sherrill, New York v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York. Sherrill is a case about.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "featured",
      "dana-lloyd",
      "ginsburg",
      "law",
      "onedia",
      "scotus",
      "sherill",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York,\" an Outcome archive entry by Dana Lloyd. The entry belongs to the featured collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses In March 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision in City of Sherrill, New York v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York. Sherrill is a case. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including INTRODUCTION City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation is a case about whether the Oneida nation had sovereignty over reaquired land within its historic reservation. In 1997 and 1998, the Oneida used profits from its Turning Stone casino to purchase separate parcels of land in petitioner City of Sherrill, New York in an open market transaction. The Oneida purchased 17,000 acres of land, scattered across two counties in Upstate New York, where they operate commercial enterprises: a gasoline station, a convenience store, and a textile facility. These properties, once contained within the historic Oneida reservation, were last possessed by the Oneida as a tribal entity. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/essay2/sherrill-v-oneida-opinion-of-the-court/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/essay2/sherrill-v-oneida-opinion-of-the-court/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/featured/essay2/sublimis-deus-pastorale-officium-indecensvidetur/",
    "title": "Sublimis Deus, Pastorale Officium and Non Indecens Videtur – A Historical Dive Into the Vatican’s Failure to Rescind the Doctrine of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2024-12-08T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "In our journey of dismantling the Doctrine of Discovery and its horrible legacy, there is a recurring argument from the Catholic church and its supporters.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "featured",
      "tina-ngata",
      "christian",
      "paypal-bus",
      "indigenous",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Sublimis Deus, Pastorale Officium and Non Indecens Videtur – A Historical Dive Into the,\" an Outcome archive entry by Tina Ngata. The entry belongs to the featured collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses In our journey of dismantling the Doctrine of Discovery and its horrible legacy, there is a recurring argument from the Catholic church and its supporters, that there is. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including INTRODUCTION Before we do, however, it’s best to tidy up a small, but important related matter: why Indigenous Peoples are calling for the Vatican to rescind the Doctrine, and the difference between “rescind” and “repudiate”. We must address this because, in many of the arguments of the church, they conflate repudiation with rescindment as an evasive tactic, often citing the many times the church has repudiated the practice of slavery and Indigenous dispossession. Repudiation relates to the moral rejection and renunciation of a concept. Within the context of the Doctrine of Discovery, repudiation is most often what is called upon by. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/essay2/sublimis-deus-pastorale-officium-indecensvidetur/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/essay2/sublimis-deus-pastorale-officium-indecensvidetur/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/featured/essay2/sublimis-deus/",
    "title": "Sublimis Deus (Sublimis Dei)",
    "publishedAt": "2024-12-09T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "On the limits of Sublimis Deus (also called Sublimis Dei). This Outcome pointer preserves canonical archive context. Archive context. Archive context.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "featured",
      "tina-ngata",
      "chatolic",
      "paypal-bus",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Sublimis Deus (Sublimis Dei),\" an Outcome archive entry by Tina Ngata. The entry belongs to the featured collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses On the limits of Sublimis Deus (also called Sublimis Dei).. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including A Brief overview Every few years, when the Doctrine of Discovery gets traction, someone raises the old chestnut of Sublimis Deus as apparent proof that the Catholic church did already rescind the Doctrine and therefore it’s not necessary. I should probably do a blog post that I can just repost. Whenever Sublimis Deus (also called Sublimis Dei) is raised in this fashion I see it as a kind of red flag for groups that aren’t really ready to reckon with history, or be accountable to history, but rather be absolved of their role in history. There are numerous issues with citing Sublimis Deus in this manner. 1. It was effectively rescinded nearly exactly a year later in June 1538 through the letter Non Indecens Videtur. This is because the. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/essay2/sublimis-deus/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/essay2/sublimis-deus/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/featured/essay2/uncovering-invisible-en/",
    "title": "Uncovering the Invisible: The Doctrine of Discovery, its Impact on the Brazilian Indigenous Peoples, on the environment and how it continues to shape the Brazilian landscape today: English",
    "publishedAt": "2024-11-23T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Doctrine of Discovery, Brazilian Literature, Indigenous Peoples, Amazon Forest, Yanomami, Environment, Colonization, Imperialism, Rainforest, Indigenous.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "featured",
      "telma-alencar",
      "brazil",
      "christianty",
      "law",
      "religion",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Uncovering the Invisible: The Doctrine of Discovery, its Impact on the Brazilian Indigenous Peoples,,\" an Outcome archive entry by Telma Alencar. The entry belongs to the featured collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Doctrine of Discovery, Brazilian Literature, Indigenous Peoples, Amazon Forest, Yanomami, Environment, Colonization, Imperialism, Rainforest, Indigenous Rights, Sovereignty, Tordesillas Treaty. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including Introduction The Doctrine of Discovery has long been used for colonization and imperialism worldwide, yet its importance and influence have been largely overlooked in Brazilian studies. European nations used this international Law during the Age of Exploration to justify their colonization of lands outside of Europe. Based on the idea that Christian nations had the right to claim lands that Christians did not inhabit, the Doctrine justifies the displacement of Indigenous peoples from their traditional lands and the seizing their resources. (Miller, 2011) Information about the Doctrine in Brazilian History books, pedagogical and academic publications, articles, and research is close to none, and the case is the same for information. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/essay2/uncovering-invisible-en/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/essay2/uncovering-invisible-en/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/featured/essay2/us-government-claim-domination/",
    "title": "The U.S. Government’s Claim of a Right of Domination",
    "publishedAt": "2024-12-07T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Joseph Story is regarded as a genius and a giant in the legal profession. This Outcome pointer preserves canonical archive context. Archive context. Archive.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "featured",
      "steven-t-newcomb",
      "law",
      "us-law",
      "us-indian-law",
      "indigenous-knowledges",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"The U.S. Government’s Claim of a Right of Domination,\" an Outcome archive entry by Steven T. Newcomb. The entry belongs to the featured collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Joseph Story is regarded as a genius and a giant in the legal profession.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including The U.S. Government’s Claim of a Right of Domination Justice Joseph Story (1779 1845) Justice Joseph Story was born in Marblehead, Massachusetts on September 18, 1779, and died on September 10, 1845, at the age of sixty four. On February 3, 1812, during the presidency of James Madison, Story was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court at the age of thirty two. He is the youngest person in history to be appointed to that position. He served for thirty three years and six months as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Story’s father in law was a major investor in the massive 1795 Yazoo land fraud in Georgia, in which nearly the entire Georgia legislature was bribed. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/essay2/us-government-claim-domination/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/essay2/us-government-claim-domination/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/featured/essay2/what-repudiations-reveal/",
    "title": "What Doctrine of Discovery Statements of Religious Repudiation Reveal",
    "publishedAt": "2024-12-06T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Nations formulate doctrines that define and guide their relations toward other nations. The Monroe Doctrine, and the Truman, Carter, and Bush Doctrines are.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "featured",
      "arden-mahlberg",
      "christian",
      "christianity",
      "curch",
      "repudiations",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"What Doctrine of Discovery Statements of Religious Repudiation Reveal,\" an Outcome archive entry by Arden Mahlberg. The entry belongs to the featured collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Nations formulate doctrines that define and guide their relations toward other nations. The Monroe Doctrine, and the Truman, Carter, and Bush Doctrines are American examples.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including Nations formulate doctrines that define and guide their relations toward other nations. The Monroe Doctrine, and the Truman, Carter, and Bush Doctrines are American examples. As nations in Christendom in the 15th century had the wherewithal to explore the world by sea, popes formulated a doctrine to shape their relations with the lands and people the explorers would encounter. This came to be called the Doctrine of Discovery. While this is a religiously based doctrine, it has been adopted as legal precedent in Europe and the United States. In this essay I will explore the religious components of the Doctrine through the lens of what official statements of repudiation. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/essay2/what-repudiations-reveal/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/featured/essay2/what-repudiations-reveal/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/ijr/",
    "title": "International Journal on Responsibility",
    "publishedAt": "2025-09-02T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "The International Journal on Responsibility (IJR) (ISSN: 2576 0955) is an international, peer reviewed, interdisciplinary forum for theoretical, practical.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "ijr",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"International Journal on Responsibility,\" an Outcome archive entry by the Outcome contributors. The entry belongs to the ijr collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses The International Journal on Responsibility (IJR) (ISSN: 2576 0955) is an international, peer reviewed, interdisciplinary forum for theoretical, practical, and methodological explorations into the various and complex issues. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including The International Journal on Responsibility (IJR) (ISSN: 2576 0955) is an international, peer reviewed, interdisciplinary forum for theoretical, practical, and methodological explorations into the various and complex issues of responsibility. Animated by the question “Who or what is responsible to do what for whom?,” IJR is a broad ranging journal that incorporates insights from the full range of academic and practical inquiry from the humanities and the social and natural sciences related to addressing the diverse aspects of responsibility. archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/ijr/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/ijr/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/ijr/essay1/religious-moral/",
    "title": "Religious Moral Suasion and Material Support for the Environmental Justice Movement",
    "publishedAt": "2025-09-02T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "The Environmental Justice (EJ) movement in the United States is comprised of diverse groups of people with a variety of environmental grievances and..",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "ijr",
      "sarah-nahar",
      "christianty",
      "law",
      "religion",
      "environment",
      "religious-moral",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Religious Moral Suasion and Material Support for the Environmental Justice Movement,\" an Outcome archive entry by Sarah Nahar. The entry belongs to the ijr collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses The Environmental Justice (EJ) movement in the United States is comprised of diverse groups of people with a variety of environmental grievances and interests coming together to obtain. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including Abstract The Environmental Justice (EJ) movement in the United States is comprised of diverse groups of people with a variety of environmental grievances and interests coming together to obtain equal distribution of pollution burdens across communities, reduce environmental hazards, and ensure fair enforcement of laws and policies meant to safeguard the environment for all. The 17 Principles of Environmental Justice developed in 1991 at the First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit remains a touchstone document today. In addition to Indigenous and Black leadership, religious communities also made the Summit possible. Religious adherents and institutions have always influenced the movement by offering material. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/ijr/essay1/religious-moral/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/ijr/essay1/religious-moral/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/jcreor/",
    "title": "Vol. 5 No. 2 (2024): From Indigenous Religions to Indigenous Values",
    "publishedAt": "2024-11-14T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "The second issue of volume five of the Journal of the Council for Research on Religion (JCREOR) is a special issue, From Indigenous ‘Religions’ to. Outcome.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "jcreor",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Vol. 5 No. 2 (2024): From Indigenous Religions to Indigenous Values,\" an Outcome archive entry by the Outcome contributors. The entry belongs to the jcreor collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses The second issue of volume five of the Journal of the Council for Research on Religion (JCREOR) is a special issue, From Indigenous ‘Religions’ to Indigenous Values. Planned. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including INTRODUCTION The second issue of volume five of the Journal of the Council for Research on Religion (JCREOR) is a special issue, From Indigenous ‘Religions’ to Indigenous Values. Planned and realized in collaboration with Philip P. Arnold (Syracuse University), the Indigenous Values Initiative (IVI), and the American Indian Law Alliance (AILA), this volume offers a collection of responses and articles that speak to the themes and tensions noted in the Report on Indigenous Religious Freedom or Belief, presented by the United Nation’s Office of the External Special Rapporteur on Religious Freedom or Belief, which we have gained special permission to republish here in. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcreor/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcreor/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/jcreor/essay2/bankruptcy/",
    "title": "The Bankruptcy of the Category of Religion",
    "publishedAt": "2024-09-18T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "This article takes as its point of departure the 2022 Interim Report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, entitled.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "jcreor",
      "bankruptcy",
      "religion",
      "dana-lloyd",
      "cecilia-titizano",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"The Bankruptcy of the Category of Religion,\" an Outcome archive entry by Dana Lloyd, Cecilia Titizano. The entry belongs to the jcreor collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses This article takes as its point of departure the 2022 Interim Report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, entitled “Indigenous Peoples and. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including Author Biographies Cecilia Titizano, Santa Clara University Maria Cecilia Titizano La Fuente earned an MS in International and Agricultural Development from UC Davis and an M.T.S. in Theological Studies from the Franciscan School of Theology. A native of Bolivia, Titizano recently completed her Ph.D. in Systematic and Philosophical Theology from Graduate Theological Union. Her transdisciplinary research focuses on indigenous philosophies and spiritualities, feminist epistemology, and decoloniality. Currently, she is working on indigenous feminist theologies and decolonial intercultural hermeneutics. Titizano is a constructive comparative theologian. She specializes in Indigenous thought and Christian theology with an emphasis on Trinitarian pneumatology, feminist and liberationist theologies. She currently serves as. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcreor/essay2/bankruptcy/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcreor/essay2/bankruptcy/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/jcreor/essay2/indigenous/",
    "title": "Indigenous Values Initiative Together with the American Indian Law Alliance Submits this Report",
    "publishedAt": "2024-09-21T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "The Territorial Integrity of Mother Earth, Indigenous Peoples, and the Right to Freedom of Religion or Belief Outcome archive context. Outcome archive context.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "jcreor",
      "indigenous",
      "religion",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Indigenous Values Initiative Together with the American Indian Law Alliance Submits this Report,\" an Outcome archive entry by Indigenous Values Initiative, American Indian Law Alliance. The entry belongs to the jcreor collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses The Territorial Integrity of Mother Earth, Indigenous Peoples, and the Right to Freedom of Religion or Belief. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including Download Citation RIS Format CSL JSON Format archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcreor/essay2/indigenous/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcreor/essay2/indigenous/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/jcreor/essay2/intellectual/",
    "title": "Intellectual Acknowledgement in Favour of Religious Freedom and Justice",
    "publishedAt": "2024-09-16T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Intellectual Acknowledgement in Favour of Religious Freedom and Justice: Comparative History of Religions and Ideas as Methodology for Education Outcome.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "jcreor",
      "indigenous-peoples",
      "religious-freedom-and-justice",
      "intellectual-acknowledgment-in-education",
      "methodology-of-comparative-history-of-religions-and-ideas",
      "american-continent",
      "lars-pharo",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Intellectual Acknowledgement in Favour of Religious Freedom and Justice,\" an Outcome archive entry by Lars Kirkhusmo Pharo. The entry belongs to the jcreor collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Intellectual Acknowledgement in Favour of Religious Freedom and Justice: Comparative History of Religions and Ideas as Methodology for Education. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including Author Biography Lars Kirkhusmo Pharo, Nord University Lars Kirkhusmo Pharo (Magister Artium and Doctor Artium) is a historian of religions and ideas with special interests in the American continent. He is professor of religions and ethics at Nord University and Research Associate at The Raphael and Fletcher Lee Moses Mesoamerican Archive and Research Project (MMARP), under the direction of Professor Davíd Carrasco, currently residing at Harvard University. Download Citation RIS Format CSL JSON Format archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcreor/essay2/intellectual/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcreor/essay2/intellectual/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/jcreor/essay2/learning/",
    "title": "Learning From Reflection and Looking to the Future: Two Years on from the UN Report on Freedom of Religion or Belief and Indigenous Peoples.",
    "publishedAt": "2024-09-15T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "The article reviews how the UN Special Interim Report of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief has been used as a critical tool for.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "jcreor",
      "un-interim-report",
      "indigenous",
      "belief",
      "freedom-of-religion-or-belief",
      "un-special-procedures",
      "religion",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Learning From Reflection and Looking to the Future: Two Years on from the UN,\" an Outcome archive entry by Ahmed Shaheed, Jennifer Tridgell. The entry belongs to the jcreor collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses The article reviews how the UN Special Interim Report of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief has been used as a critical tool for promoting. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including Author Biography Ahmed Shaheed, University of Essex Dr. Shaheed is Professor of International Human Rights Law in the School of Law and Human Rights Centre at the University of Essex. He directs the Human Rights Centre's Religion and Equality Project, Project on Mobilising A Global Alliance to Counter islamophobia, and the Essex Summer School on Human Rights Research and Practice. He serves as an adviser on 'hate speech' to the United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and is a member of the Panel of Experts on Freedom of Religion or Belief convened by the Office for Democratic Institutions and. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcreor/essay2/learning/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcreor/essay2/learning/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/jcrt/issue1/",
    "title": "Vol. 24 No. 2 (Winter 2026): Challenging the Justifications of Domination Through Religion",
    "publishedAt": "2026-03-03T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Part 1: We Were Planting Corn and They Were Planting Crosses This entry connects Doctrine of Discovery scholarship, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "jcrt",
      "issue1",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Vol. 24 No. 2 (Winter 2026): Challenging the Justifications of Domination Through Religion,\" an Outcome archive entry by the Outcome contributors. The entry belongs to the jcrt collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Part 1: We Were Planting Corn and They Were Planting Crosses. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including INTRODUCTION This is the first issue in the JCRT import for Outcome. The issue collects eighteen essays from volume 24, number 2, with canonical links pointing to JCRT archive pages. archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue1/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue1/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/jcrt/issue1/alencar/",
    "title": "Silencing the Doctrine of Discovery – The Brazilian Process: Accidental Discoveries, Secret Manuscripts, Imaginary Lines and Myths",
    "publishedAt": "2026-03-03T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Alencar traces how the Doctrine of Discovery shaped Brazil through church backed silence, racial myths, and colonial violence, urging decolonial accountability.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "jcrt",
      "issue1",
      "jcrt-volume-24",
      "jcrt-issue-2",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Silencing the Doctrine of Discovery – The Brazilian Process: Accidental Discoveries, Secret Manuscripts, Imaginary,\" an Outcome archive entry by Telma Alencar. The entry belongs to the jcrt collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Alencar traces how the Doctrine of Discovery shaped Brazil through church backed silence, racial myths, and colonial violence, urging decolonial accountability.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including This article examines the historical silence surrounding the Doctrine of Christian Discovery and its impact on Brazilian society. It explores how papal bulls, known as the Doctrine of Discovery, have shaped power dynamics, enabling certain narratives while silencing others. Drawing on Michel Rolph Trouillot and Franz Fanon, the study analyzes the construction of historical silence and its connection to violence against Indigenous peoples. It argues that the Church's role in upholding elite dominance has contributed to the narrative of the Doctrine’s irrelevance, paralleling the myth of racial democracy in Brazil. The silence surrounding the Doctrine is linked to systemic racism, with Indigenous peoples experiencing unthinkable violence during colonization.. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue1/alencar/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue1/alencar/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/jcrt/issue1/barry/",
    "title": "Deconstructing the Erie Canal: Three Lessons for its Next Century",
    "publishedAt": "2026-03-03T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "In this bicentennial reflection on the Erie Canal, Renee Barry examines how celebratory public histories mask the canal's foundation in settler colonial.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "jcrt",
      "issue1",
      "jcrt-volume-24",
      "jcrt-issue-2",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Deconstructing the Erie Canal: Three Lessons for its Next Century,\" an Outcome archive entry by Renée Barry. The entry belongs to the jcrt collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses In this bicentennial reflection on the Erie Canal, Renee Barry examines how celebratory public histories mask the canal's foundation in settler colonial violence on unceded Haudenosaunee land. Drawing. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including In its bicentennial year, the Erie Canal is widely celebrated as a triumph of American ingenuity, economic growth, and national identity. This essay interrogates how that identity is constructed, what it obscures, and what possibilities for repair might emerge through deconstruction. Drawing on my work as the 2021–2023 Erie Canal Research Fellow, I analyze heritage tourism sites, archival materials, historical narratives, and contemporary state and museum publications to examine how the Canal is represented in public memory. Writing as a European American settler living on unceded Onondaga land, I argue that dominant interpretations of the Erie Canal reproduce ideological structures rooted in settler colonialism, Christian. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue1/barry/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue1/barry/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/jcrt/issue1/berlin/",
    "title": "Unselling the Classroom: Confronting History and Ourselves",
    "publishedAt": "2026-03-03T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Berlin urges teachers to confront settler colonialism and white supremacy by centering Indigenous history critical pedagogy, and accountability today.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "jcrt",
      "issue1",
      "jcrt-volume-24",
      "jcrt-issue-2",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Unselling the Classroom: Confronting History and Ourselves,\" an Outcome archive entry by Elaina Berlin. The entry belongs to the jcrt collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Berlin urges teachers to confront settler colonialism and white supremacy by centering Indigenous history critical pedagogy, and accountability today.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including College educators have a duty to confront the lived realities of white supremacy and settler colonialism as they present themselves in the classroom, the historical record, and the academy at large. This response paper engages with the ideas and experiences presented by the fellow panel authors, and it contemplates the necessary steps needed to counteract the persistence of settler colonial and white supremacist ideologies in post secondary education from the perspective of a junior historian. By devoting ourselves to the accessibility of educational materials, including diverse interpretations and accounts of the past in our courses, and not shying away from the discomfort that confronting these systems will cause, educators in college settings can work against white supremacy. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue1/berlin/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue1/berlin/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/jcrt/issue1/callan/",
    "title": "The Medieval Origins of Religious White Supremacy: English Imperialism, Crusade Defeats, and the Doctrine of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2026-03-03T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Callan traces how medieval English myths, crusade defeat, and Irish colonization shaped Christian white supremacy and fed the global Doctrine of Discovery.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "jcrt",
      "issue1",
      "jcrt-volume-24",
      "jcrt-issue-2",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"The Medieval Origins of Religious White Supremacy: English Imperialism, Crusade Defeats, and the Doctrine,\" an Outcome archive entry by Maeve Callan. The entry belongs to the jcrt collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Callan traces how medieval English myths, crusade defeat, and Irish colonization shaped Christian white supremacy and fed the global Doctrine of Discovery.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including English identity's origin myth, Bede's eighth century Ecclesiastical History of the English People , laid the foundation for European whiteness, which was adopted by western European Christians more broadly in the thirteenth century, as they sought assurance of God's preference for them over the darker skinned Muslims who had defeated them in the crusades. Concurrent with their construction of whiteness, the English developed an imperialist Christian identity defined by the whims of power, not actual Christian belief or behavior, as most fully attested in the twelfth century English invasion and subsequent colonization of Ireland. These developments gave rise in the fifteenth century to the papal letters commonly. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue1/callan/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue1/callan/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/jcrt/issue1/chaness/",
    "title": "Expecting Excellence in Education: When Content Conditions Class Consciousness",
    "publishedAt": "2026-03-03T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Chaness links white supremacy, settler colonialism, and anti Indian racism, showing how Indigenous values and pedagogy reshape critical classroom practice.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "jcrt",
      "issue1",
      "jcrt-volume-24",
      "jcrt-issue-2",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Expecting Excellence in Education: When Content Conditions Class Consciousness,\" an Outcome archive entry by Michael E. Chaness. The entry belongs to the jcrt collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Chaness links white supremacy, settler colonialism, and anti Indian racism, showing how Indigenous values and pedagogy reshape critical classroom practice.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including This article examines the tentacles between white supremacy, settler colonialism, and anti Indian racism through the lens of “utopian ideologies” (Mohawk) and “cartographies of refusal” (Simpson). The paper is the result of the author's close collaboration with contemporary Haudenosaunee communities and living and working on the ancestral lands of the Onondaga Nation. Special attention is paid to how course design, visual art, and Indigenous values can help students understand how the legacies of white supremacy, settler colonialism, and anti Indian racism continue to affect prevailing legal, political, religious, and media institutions in the United States of America. Download Citation RIS Format CSL JSON Format archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue1/chaness/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue1/chaness/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/jcrt/issue1/felese/",
    "title": "The Chosen People at Grouse Mountain",
    "publishedAt": "2026-03-03T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Felese challenges conquest based land values and shows Indigenous relational worldviews offer life affirming alternatives to extraction and alienation",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "jcrt",
      "issue1",
      "jcrt-volume-24",
      "jcrt-issue-2",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"The Chosen People at Grouse Mountain,\" an Outcome archive entry by Wendy Felese. The entry belongs to the jcrt collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Felese challenges conquest based land values and shows Indigenous relational worldviews offer life affirming alternatives to extraction and alienation. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including A powerful idealized cognitive metaphor related to conquest and dominance paired with ideological commitments to individual human rights frame the dominant way of assessing and valuing land in what is now the United States. By examining this correlation, it becomes possible to challenge hegemonic assumptions that have become so commonsensical they are rarely seen for what they are – imaginative constructs. By illuminating the connection, we can envision and mobilize traditional Indigenous ways of being that are life affirming and offer an alternative to reckless acquisition and alienation from all our relatives. Download Citation RIS Format CSL JSON Format archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context Indigenous sovereignty. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue1/felese/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue1/felese/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/jcrt/issue1/hurtado/",
    "title": "Flesh of Words: Confrontation, Navigation, and Integrity in the English Classroom",
    "publishedAt": "2026-03-03T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Hurtado uses Critical Race Theory and Latina feminisms to show how multiethnic curricula can confront colonial legacies and teach resistance in class.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "jcrt",
      "issue1",
      "jcrt-volume-24",
      "jcrt-issue-2",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Flesh of Words: Confrontation, Navigation, and Integrity in the English Classroom,\" an Outcome archive entry by Roberta Hurtado. The entry belongs to the jcrt collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Hurtado uses Critical Race Theory and Latina feminisms to show how multiethnic curricula can confront colonial legacies and teach resistance in class.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including This article offers a quasi testimonio of my experiences with education and creating an introductory multiethnic literature college course. Engaging Critical Race Theory and Latina Feminisms, specifically scholars such as Kimberlé Crenshaw, Gloria Anzaldúa and Aurora Levins Morales, it argues that curriculum construction is never apolitical and therefore requires a demystification of historical contexts as well as challenges to settler colonial legacies. This article offers a case study of how I design assignments, select readings, and work with students as they are introduced to different literatures and communities. It also offers models for self reflection and ways to cultivate classes that engage the written word as holding the flesh of. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue1/hurtado/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue1/hurtado/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/jcrt/issue1/introduction/",
    "title": "Introduction",
    "publishedAt": "2026-03-03T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Introduction to a global volume on Christian Discovery, linking law, religion, and pedagogy, with Indigenous sovereignty and decolonial justice today.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "jcrt",
      "issue1",
      "jcrt-volume-24",
      "jcrt-issue-2",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Introduction,\" an Outcome archive entry by Philip P. Arnold, Sandra Bigtree, Adam DJ Brett. The entry belongs to the jcrt collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Introduction to a global volume on Christian Discovery, linking law, religion, and pedagogy, with Indigenous sovereignty and decolonial justice today.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including This introduction sets the stage for an edited volume arising from the December 2023 conference, “The Religious Origins of White Supremacy: Johnson v. M’Intosh and the Doctrine of Christian Discovery,” held at Syracuse University. Anchored in the 200th anniversary of Johnson v. M’Intosh , the project critically interrogates the enduring influence of the Doctrine of Christian Discovery (DoCD) and its foundational role in shaping United States Indian Law, racism, land dispossession, and Christian imperialism. Through collaboration among scholars, activists, and Indigenous communities, the volume is organized around three core themes: religion, law, and pedagogy. Essays explore the DoCD’s theological and legal architecture, its entrenchment of white supremacy, and strategies for dismantling legal and educational systems of. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue1/introduction/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue1/introduction/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/jcrt/issue1/jimenez/",
    "title": "Dismantling White Supremacy in the Classroom and Beyond",
    "publishedAt": "2026-03-03T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Jimenez shows criminal justice education must confront white supremacy by centering race, power and oppression to transform teaching and policies now.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "jcrt",
      "issue1",
      "jcrt-volume-24",
      "jcrt-issue-2",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Dismantling White Supremacy in the Classroom and Beyond,\" an Outcome archive entry by Celinet Duran Jimenez. The entry belongs to the jcrt collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Jimenez shows criminal justice education must confront white supremacy by centering race, power and oppression to transform teaching and policies now.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including This article examines the ubiquity of white supremacy and its impact on educational environments. White supremacy is an imminent threat to education at all levels; it shapes curricula that further marginalize non white perspectives and distort historical accuracy. The current paper details the importance of confronting white supremacy in criminal justice education, specifically, as the U.S. criminal legal system is built by and for white supremacy. Criminal justice coursework only benefits from conversations centering race, power, and oppression, as these are the foundations that continue to reverberate throughout law and policy. Through a personalized lens, the author addresses the power of identity and representation in their pedagogical contributions to the field. Download Citation. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue1/jimenez/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue1/jimenez/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/jcrt/issue1/lakshmi/",
    "title": "Other Forms of Dwelling: A Dalit – Feminist Perspective",
    "publishedAt": "2026-03-03T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Lakshmi frames Dalit feminist values alongside Indigenous frameworks to show alternative forms of dwelling, relation, and resistance beyond colonial modernity.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "jcrt",
      "issue1",
      "jcrt-volume-24",
      "jcrt-issue-2",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Other Forms of Dwelling: A Dalit – Feminist Perspective,\" an Outcome archive entry by Shrutika Lakshmi. The entry belongs to the jcrt collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Lakshmi frames Dalit feminist values alongside Indigenous frameworks to show alternative forms of dwelling, relation, and resistance beyond colonial modernity.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including This paper is an attempt to bring together different values from different socio cultural contexts together with an intention to weave a meaningful narrative. For this reason, this paper will focus on the ‘Indigenous Values’ as explained by Philip Arnold in his book The Urgency of Indigenous Values as a basic structural framework to think about the Dalit women of the Indian subcontinent in consonance with these values and urgency. Similar to the indigenous values are the values lived and experienced by these Dalit women who help us to explore the different frameworks of existing in this shared world. To be precise, this paper is an earnest attempt to talk about the other ways. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue1/lakshmi/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue1/lakshmi/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/jcrt/issue1/modrow/",
    "title": "Charting the Doctrine in the Colonial Archive: Papal Bulls and the Translation of the ‘Discovery’ Purpose",
    "publishedAt": "2026-03-03T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Modrow shows how papal bulls transformed crusade theology into global colonial strategy, legitimizing Indigenous dispossession and imperial expansion.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "jcrt",
      "issue1",
      "jcrt-volume-24",
      "jcrt-issue-2",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Charting the Doctrine in the Colonial Archive: Papal Bulls and the Translation of the,\" an Outcome archive entry by Sebastian Modrow. The entry belongs to the jcrt collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Modrow shows how papal bulls transformed crusade theology into global colonial strategy, legitimizing Indigenous dispossession and imperial expansion.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including The following chapter is intended to give an overview over the role and function of a particular set of papal bulls that together helped define the Doctrine of Christian Discovery, an ideology that, as a precursor of international law, helped define the rules of European colonial conquest. The chapter will explain the evolution of this Doctrine as a dialectical process between worldviews and positions of the papacy and the Iberian monarchies and the progressing results of the ‘discovery’ process, that is, the early process of European overseas expansion. Through selective close reading of the bulls’ texts, I will then focus on the bulls’ central contribution to the DoCD, which I see. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue1/modrow/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue1/modrow/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/jcrt/issue1/nagle/",
    "title": "“Engineering Marvel”: Towards Resisting the Affective Politics of Erie Canal Heritage",
    "publishedAt": "2026-03-03T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Nagle critiques Erie Canal heritage marketing, showing how engineered marvel obscures Haudenosaunee dispossession and calls settlers to affective resistance.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "jcrt",
      "issue1",
      "jcrt-volume-24",
      "jcrt-issue-2",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"“Engineering Marvel”: Towards Resisting the Affective Politics of Erie Canal Heritage,\" an Outcome archive entry by Danielle S. Nagle. The entry belongs to the jcrt collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Nagle critiques Erie Canal heritage marketing, showing how engineered marvel obscures Haudenosaunee dispossession and calls settlers to affective resistance.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including The Erie Canal is widely regarded as an engineering marvel; it is a symbol of American ingenuity, progress, and power, and it helped establish the U.S. global empire. In light of the 2025 canal bicentennial, however, there is a need for more critically conscious truth–telling regarding the lesser known and more complicated aspects of Erie Canal heritage. Most notably, this includes broken treaties with the Six Nations of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy and the illegal theft of lands from Haudenosaunee peoples by New York State as facilitated by the Doctrine of Christian Discovery. However, inaction among settlers complicit in these ongoing struggles cannot be addressed solely through intellectual means; it requires critical affective. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue1/nagle/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue1/nagle/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/jcrt/issue1/nahar/",
    "title": "Using the Doctrine of Discovery to Increase Shared Language and Conceptual Frameworks Between Black and Indigenous Feminist Organizing",
    "publishedAt": "2026-03-03T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Nahar argues Doctrine of Discovery can build shared language between Black and Indigenous feminisms, strengthening solidarity against settler colonial power.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "jcrt",
      "issue1",
      "jcrt-volume-24",
      "jcrt-issue-2",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Using the Doctrine of Discovery to Increase Shared Language and Conceptual Frameworks Between Black,\" an Outcome archive entry by Sarah Nahar. The entry belongs to the jcrt collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Nahar argues Doctrine of Discovery can build shared language between Black and Indigenous feminisms, strengthening solidarity against settler colonial power.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including The majority of the interactions, historic and contemporary, between Black people and Indigenous Peoples living in the so called United States occur(red) in the bloody context of settler colonial imperialism. In response to lived conditions, feminisms developed in various Black and Indigenous communities as part of resisting settler colonialism, racism, sexism, capitalism and classism, and other forms of oppression. Feminist movements in Black and Indigenous communities have been proximate, overlapping, and mutually reinforcing, but also in tension with one another; competing at times, collaborative at others. Though both expansive areas of collective work, Black feminisms and Indigenous feminisms tend to center different aspects of the struggle for liberation. Some. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue1/nahar/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue1/nahar/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/jcrt/issue1/preface/",
    "title": "A Preface to Challenging the Justifications of Domination Through Religion: “We Were Planting Corn, and They Were Planting Crosses”",
    "publishedAt": "2026-03-03T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Preface to a special issue examining Christian Discovery’s role in white supremacy, law, and education, with decolonial paths grounded in Indigenous justice.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "jcrt",
      "issue1",
      "jcrt-volume-24",
      "jcrt-issue-2",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"A Preface to Challenging the Justifications of Domination Through Religion: “We Were Planting Corn,,\" an Outcome archive entry by Philip P. Arnold, Sandra Bigtree, Adam DJ Brett. The entry belongs to the jcrt collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Preface to a special issue examining Christian Discovery’s role in white supremacy, law, and education, with decolonial paths grounded in Indigenous justice.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including This introduction sets the stage for an edited volume arising from the December 2023 conference, \" The Religious Origins of White Supremacy: Johnson v. M'Intosh and the Doctrine of Christian Discovery ,\" held at Syracuse University. Anchored in the 200th anniversary of Johnson v. M'Intosh, the project critically interrogates the enduring influence of the Doctrine of Christian Discovery (DoCD) and its foundational role in shaping United States Indian Law, racism, land dispossession, and Christian imperialism. Through collaboration among scholars, activists, and Indigenous communities, the volume is organized around three core themes: religion, law, and pedagogy. Essays explore the DoCD's theological and. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue1/preface/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue1/preface/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/jcrt/issue1/radhakrishnan/",
    "title": "Schools, Teachers, and Teacher Educators: Education Through the Disruption of White Supremacy",
    "publishedAt": "2026-03-03T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Radhakrishnan examines how U.S. schooling reproduces white supremacy and identifies teacher education strategies to disrupt curriculum, instruction, and policy.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "jcrt",
      "issue1",
      "jcrt-volume-24",
      "jcrt-issue-2",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Schools, Teachers, and Teacher Educators: Education Through the Disruption of White Supremacy,\" an Outcome archive entry by Ritu Radhakrishnan. The entry belongs to the jcrt collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Radhakrishnan examines how U.S. schooling reproduces white supremacy and identifies teacher education strategies to disrupt curriculum, instruction, and policy.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including This article examines the entrenchment White Supremacy in the American educational system, and the implications of these beliefs on teacher education and teacher preparation. Efforts at Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Social Justice have multiple barriers to pierce to create significant change. Schools are a reproduction of larger society and normalized White Supremacy. In this article, I offer a brief historical analysis of the underlying systems that shape the curriculum, standards, and instruction that reproduce White Supremacy in K 12 U.S. schools and offer opportunities for resistance, change, and...disruption. Download Citation RIS Format CSL JSON Format archive context Indigenous sovereignty legal history religious analysis land memory accountability public scholarship canonical record archive context. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue1/radhakrishnan/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue1/radhakrishnan/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/jcrt/issue1/somayajula/",
    "title": "Hindu Political Theology: Beyond Hindutva’s Political Monotheism",
    "publishedAt": "2026-03-03T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Somayajula reads Hindutva as political theology, showing how Hindu nationalism flattens religious diversity and urging a more inclusive Hindu identity.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "jcrt",
      "issue1",
      "jcrt-volume-24",
      "jcrt-issue-2",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Hindu Political Theology: Beyond Hindutva’s Political Monotheism,\" an Outcome archive entry by Pranay Somayajula. The entry belongs to the jcrt collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Somayajula reads Hindutva as political theology, showing how Hindu nationalism flattens religious diversity and urging a more inclusive Hindu identity.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including This paper, presented in December 2023 at the “Religious Origins of White Supremacy: Johnson v. M’Intosh and the Doctrine of Christian Discovery” conference at Syracuse University, analyzes the rise of Hindutva, or Hindu nationalism, through the framework of ‘political theology’ that was developed in the early 20th century by the German jurist Carl Schmitt. In the essay, I explore the ways that Hindutva ideology invokes political–theological concepts to construct a unitary ‘Hindu’ identity that is conceived not only in religious terms, but in racial and civilizational terms as well. I draw upon Schmitt’s conception of political theology, as well as the work of scholars such as Anustup Basu who have characterized Hindutva as a form of. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue1/somayajula/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue1/somayajula/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/jcrt/issue1/trinkauskaite/",
    "title": "Baltic Religion: The Sacred Things",
    "publishedAt": "2026-03-03T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Trinkauskaite explores Baltic sacred traditions and sutartinės, linking domestic deities and revivalist practice to collective ethics beyond hierarchy.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "jcrt",
      "issue1",
      "jcrt-volume-24",
      "jcrt-issue-2",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Baltic Religion: The Sacred Things,\" an Outcome archive entry by Eglutė Trinkauskaitė, Ellen B. Cutler. The entry belongs to the jcrt collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Trinkauskaite explores Baltic sacred traditions and sutartinės, linking domestic deities and revivalist practice to collective ethics beyond hierarchy.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including In this chapter, I expand on the most vibrant traditional Baltic practices discussed in the Mapping the Doctrine of Discovery podcast and in my earlier work on edible mushroom gathering, sacred dimensions of wood, and the significance of beekeeping traditions (Trinkauskaitė 2008; 2019). Subjects include polyphonic songs called sutartinės, and traditional homesteads and their attendant deities. Baltic and Prussian domestic gods were believed to live with humans—in cellars, granaries, and barns, lurking in corners or behind a stove. Relationships with spirits and divinities often define home. Ethnomusicologists emphasize the egalitarian nature of polyphonic singing. In their rhetorical and performative strategy, sutartinės are similar to the Haudenosaunee Thanksgiving Address. Their modern resurgence signals the urgent need for more. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue1/trinkauskaite/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue1/trinkauskaite/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/jcrt/issue1/wagner/",
    "title": "Christian Control of Women and Mother Earth: The Doctrine of Discovery and the Doctrine of Male Domination",
    "publishedAt": "2026-03-03T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Wagner links church patriarchy and the Doctrine of Discovery to colonial violence, calling for Indigenous rematriation to restore women and the Earth.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "jcrt",
      "issue1",
      "jcrt-volume-24",
      "jcrt-issue-2",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Christian Control of Women and Mother Earth: The Doctrine of Discovery and the Doctrine,\" an Outcome archive entry by Sally Roesch Wagner. The entry belongs to the jcrt collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Wagner links church patriarchy and the Doctrine of Discovery to colonial violence, calling for Indigenous rematriation to restore women and the Earth.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including This article explores the historical, religious, and legal foundations of Western domination over women, Indigenous peoples, and the Earth, tracing them to Christian creation myths, Papal authority, and colonial law. Genesis establishes a hierarchy: men are given authority over the Earth and all living beings, while women are subordinated as punishment for Eve’s quest for knowledge. These theological principles were enforced through papal bulls such as Summis desiderantes affectibus (1484) and Inter Caetera (1493), sanctioning the persecution of women as witches, the appropriation of Indigenous lands, and male control over reproduction, labor, and spirituality. The Doctrine of Discovery codified these hierarchies into law, granting colonial and. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue1/wagner/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue1/wagner/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/jcrt/issue2/",
    "title": "Vol. 25 No. 1 (Spring 2026): Challenging the Justifications of Domination through Law: Indigenous Resistance and the Undoing of Christian Empire",
    "publishedAt": "2026-04-16T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Part 2: Indigenous Resistance and the Undoing of Christian Empire This entry connects Doctrine of Discovery scholarship, Indigenous sovereignty, law..",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "jcrt",
      "issue2",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Vol. 25 No. 1 (Spring 2026): Challenging the Justifications of Domination through Law: Indigenous,\" an Outcome archive entry by the Outcome contributors. The entry belongs to the jcrt collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Part 2: Indigenous Resistance and the Undoing of Christian Empire. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including INTRODUCTION This second Outcome import from The Journal for Cultural and Religious Theory presents JCRT 25.1, Challenging the Justifications of Domination through Law: Indigenous Resistance and the Undoing of Christian Empire . The issue grows out of the 2023 Mapping the Doctrine of Discovery Conference at Syracuse University and serves as the law focused companion to JCRT 24.2. Where the first volume emphasized the religious justifications of conquest and domination, this issue turns directly to federal Indian law, treaty interpretation, colonial jurisprudence, and the legal afterlives of the Doctrine of Christian Discovery. Across these essays, legal analysis and personal reflection remain tied to Indigenous resistance, sovereignty, and the work of restoring right relations. Together, the nine pieces in. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue2/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue2/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/jcrt/issue2/conclusion/",
    "title": "Conclusion: Dismantling the Doctrine of Christian Discovery Cultivating Right Relations",
    "publishedAt": "2026-04-16T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "The conclusion calls for decolonization beyond legal reform, centering Indigenous law, land return, and right relations to resist Christian Discovery.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "jcrt",
      "issue2",
      "jcrt-volume-25",
      "jcrt-issue-1",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Conclusion: Dismantling the Doctrine of Christian Discovery Cultivating Right Relations,\" an Outcome archive entry by Philip P. Arnold, Sandra Bigtree, Adam DJ Brett. The entry belongs to the jcrt collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses The conclusion calls for decolonization beyond legal reform, centering Indigenous law, land return, and right relations to resist Christian Discovery.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including This conclusion reaffirms the central thesis of the volume: the Doctrine of Christian Discovery (DoCD) is a persistent and pervasive system of domination, shaping legal, theological, and cultural structures that perpetuate Indigenous dispossession and white supremacy. Drawing upon scholarship and activism presented at the 2023 Syracuse University conference, the essays reveal how the DoCD is embedded in law, education, tourism, and national identity, sustaining the authority of settler colonialism. The contributors emphasize that true change requires more than legal reform; it demands metaphysical and cultural disobedience to the ideologies underpinning Christian empire and racial capitalism. Enacting justice calls for decolonial approaches—centering Indigenous cosmologies, fostering relationality, and transforming. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue2/conclusion/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue2/conclusion/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/jcrt/issue2/derrico/",
    "title": "Federal Anti-indian Law: Why a Challenge to “Christian Discovery” Creates a Metaphysical Crisis for the US",
    "publishedAt": "2026-04-16T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Peter d'Errico argues that U.S. anti Indian law rests on Christian Discovery, and that challenging it exposes a metaphysical crisis in U.S. law today.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "jcrt",
      "issue2",
      "jcrt-volume-25",
      "jcrt-issue-1",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Federal Anti indian Law: Why a Challenge to “Christian Discovery” Creates a Metaphysical Crisis,\" an Outcome archive entry by Peter d'Errico. The entry belongs to the jcrt collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Peter d'Errico argues that U.S. anti Indian law rests on Christian Discovery, and that challenging it exposes a metaphysical crisis in U.S. law today.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including The legal doctrine of \"Christian Discovery\" remains the foundation of United States federal anti Indian law, yet it is rarely challenged directly in litigation. This essay argues that confronting the doctrine poses not merely a legal challenge but a metaphysical crisis for the United States itself. Through close analysis of the nineteenth century \"Marshall Trilogy\"— Johnson v. McIntosh , Cherokee Nation v. Georgia , and Worcester v. Georgia —the essay demonstrates that federal Indian law is grounded in an explicit claim of Christian European land appropriation and a corresponding denial of Indigenous sovereignty. The essay critiques common misreadings of these cases that treat dicta about. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue2/derrico/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue2/derrico/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/jcrt/issue2/goudy/",
    "title": "Right & Respectful Relations: A Memoir of the Road to the Historic Yakama Nation Amicus Brief Challenging ‘Christian Discovery’ in Washington State V. Cougar Den",
    "publishedAt": "2026-04-16T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Jode Goudy recounts how the Yakama Nation built a historic amicus brief, connecting treaty rights, sovereignty, and opposition to Christian Discovery.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "jcrt",
      "issue2",
      "jcrt-volume-25",
      "jcrt-issue-1",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Right & Respectful Relations: A Memoir of the Road to the Historic Yakama Nation,\" an Outcome archive entry by Jode Goudy. The entry belongs to the jcrt collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Jode Goudy recounts how the Yakama Nation built a historic amicus brief, connecting treaty rights, sovereignty, and opposition to Christian Discovery.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including This personal memoir, Right & Respectful Relations , chronicles his journey as Chairman of the Yakama Nation Tribal Council and his involvement in the historic amicus brief challenging the Doctrine of Christian Discovery in Washington State v. Cougar Den . Drawing on his experience as Chief Operating Officer of King Mountain Tobacco, Goudy reflects on the complexities of asserting Yakama treaty rights under the 1855 Treaty, which guarantees the Nation \"exclusive use and benefit\" of its lands and unfettered access to public roadways, protected under the U.S. Constitution. The details of the interplay of federal, state, and tribal law, including the challenges posed by historical legal precedent tracing. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue2/goudy/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue2/goudy/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/jcrt/issue2/heath/",
    "title": "The Doctrine of Christian Discovery and Domination: How It Has Been Used by United States Courts to Deny Treaty Rights & Dismiss the Haudenosaunee Land Rights Cases",
    "publishedAt": "2026-04-16T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Joseph J. Heath shows how U.S. courts use Christian Discovery to deny Haudenosaunee treaty and land rights, and calls for its repudiation in U.S. law.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "jcrt",
      "issue2",
      "jcrt-volume-25",
      "jcrt-issue-1",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"The Doctrine of Christian Discovery and Domination: How It Has Been Used by United,\" an Outcome archive entry by Joseph J. Heath. The entry belongs to the jcrt collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Joseph J. Heath shows how U.S. courts use Christian Discovery to deny Haudenosaunee treaty and land rights, and calls for its repudiation in U.S. law.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including This article examines how the doctrine of Christian discovery and domination continues to serve as the foundational legal justification used by United States courts to deny treaty rights and dismiss Indigenous land rights claims, with particular focus on Haudenosaunee nations. Centering the Supreme Court's decision in City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation (2005), the article critiques the Court's revival of colonial doctrine through a fabricated \"equitable\" defense mislabeled as laches. It traces Sherrill's jurisprudential roots to Johnson v. M'Intosh (1823), where Chief Justice John Marshall embedded Christian European claims of domination into United States law as a mechanism for Indigenous dispossession. The. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue2/heath/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue2/heath/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/jcrt/issue2/miller/",
    "title": "The International Law of Colonialism: The Doctrine of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2026-04-16T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Robert J. Miller traces how the Doctrine of Discovery became international law, enabling colonial claims over Indigenous land, rights and sovereignty.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "jcrt",
      "issue2",
      "jcrt-volume-25",
      "jcrt-issue-1",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"The International Law of Colonialism: The Doctrine of Discovery,\" an Outcome archive entry by Robert J. Miller. The entry belongs to the jcrt collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Robert J. Miller traces how the Doctrine of Discovery became international law, enabling colonial claims over Indigenous land, rights and sovereignty.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including Six hundred years ago, the Church and Spain and Portugal began developing the international law of Christian European colonization. That law is better known today as the Doctrine of Discovery. Joined by England, France, Russia, and Holland, European countries used this law to claim and acquire the lands, assets, sovereign rights, and even the existence of Indigenous nations and peoples. When the United States was formed, it also adopted this colonizing legal regime. This international law still applies today and is very relevant to Indigenous nations and peoples and seriously impacts their rights and existence even now. This chapter lays out the ten elements, or factors, that comprise the Doctrine. These elements. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue2/miller/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue2/miller/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/jcrt/issue2/newcomb/",
    "title": "My Decades-long Inquiry Into the Doctrine of Christian Discovery and Domination",
    "publishedAt": "2026-04-16T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Steven Newcomb reflects on decades studying Christian Discovery, showing how law and language normalized domination over Native nations for centuries.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "jcrt",
      "issue2",
      "jcrt-volume-25",
      "jcrt-issue-1",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"My Decades long Inquiry Into the Doctrine of Christian Discovery and Domination,\" an Outcome archive entry by Steven T. Newcomb. The entry belongs to the jcrt collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Steven Newcomb reflects on decades studying Christian Discovery, showing how law and language normalized domination over Native nations for centuries.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including The author Steven Newcomb (Shawnee/Lenape) reflects on his lifelong study of the Doctrine of Christian Discovery and Domination, tracing its origins, legal codifications, and enduring impact on Native nations. Motivated by reading Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee at age fifteen, Newcomb situates his inquiry within his family history, including Shawnee and Delaware ancestry and his grandparents' experiences in U.S. Indian boarding schools designed to eradicate Native languages and culture. Newcomb examines the 1493 papal bull Inter Caetera , which sanctioned European Christian domination over non Christian peoples, and the 1823 U.S. Supreme Court ruling Johnson v. McIntosh , which codified the legal principle that \"discovery\" granted title and authority. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue2/newcomb/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue2/newcomb/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/jcrt/issue2/postscript/",
    "title": "A Postscript: Sovereignty is Still the Issue",
    "publishedAt": "2026-04-16T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "This postscript argues Indigenous nations need full sovereignty, rejecting settler carve outs and urging a healing return to precolonial lifeways now.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "jcrt",
      "issue2",
      "jcrt-volume-25",
      "jcrt-issue-1",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"A Postscript: Sovereignty is Still the Issue,\" an Outcome archive entry by Adam DJ Brett, Betty Hill (Lyons), Nethanial Belmont. The entry belongs to the jcrt collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses This postscript argues Indigenous nations need full sovereignty, rejecting settler carve outs and urging a healing return to precolonial lifeways now.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including This postscript reflects on two special issues that interrogate religious and legal justifications of domination and argues that questions of sovereignty remain constitutive for the field of Indigenous studies today. In contrast to proliferating carve‑outs such as food, energy, gaming, or cannabis sovereignty, the authors contend that such adjectival sovereignties concede excessive ground to settler colonial frameworks premised on tribal recognition, regulation, and permission. They assert that Indigenous nations are sovereign nations rather than administratively defined “tribes,” and that sovereignty must be conceptualized as a lived, ongoing practice rather than a delegated or derivative status. Accordingly, the postscript calls for an understanding of Indigenous sovereignty as grounded in land,. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue2/postscript/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue2/postscript/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/jcrt/issue2/rodgers-falk/",
    "title": "An Intergenerational and Perpetual Imperium of Domination and Subjugation of Indigenous Peoples: The Doctrine of Christian Discovery and Royal Supremacy",
    "publishedAt": "2026-04-16T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Phillip Rodgers Falk argues that native title and colonial sovereignty preserve Indigenous subordination through terra nullius and racial hierarchies.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "jcrt",
      "issue2",
      "jcrt-volume-25",
      "jcrt-issue-1",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"An Intergenerational and Perpetual Imperium of Domination and Subjugation of Indigenous Peoples: The Doctrine,\" an Outcome archive entry by Phillip Rodgers-Falk. The entry belongs to the jcrt collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Phillip Rodgers Falk argues that native title and colonial sovereignty preserve Indigenous subordination through terra nullius and racial hierarchies.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including This paper traces the historical and legal evolution of sovereignty in relation to Indigenous land rights, exploring how colonial legal systems have sustained race based power structures through legal fictions such as terra nullius and res nullius . It argues that the colonial legal system has consistently framed Indigenous peoples as usufructuaries , entitled to the \"use\" of land but not ownership, while maintaining the ultimate sovereignty of the colonial state. The paper examines the conceptual parallels between Blackstone's doctrine of occupancy, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. McIntosh (1823), and the modern recognition of native title , particularly in Australia's landmark Mabo v. Queensland (1992) decision. Occupancy and. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue2/rodgers-falk/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue2/rodgers-falk/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/jcrt/issue2/schwartzberg/",
    "title": "An Appeal to the American People—Overturning “Federal Indian Law”",
    "publishedAt": "2026-04-16T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Steven J. Schwartzberg urges Americans to overturn Federal Indian Law by confronting the colonial assumptions that still shape U.S. jurisprudence now.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "jcrt",
      "issue2",
      "jcrt-volume-25",
      "jcrt-issue-1",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"An Appeal to the American People—Overturning “Federal Indian Law”,\" an Outcome archive entry by Steven J. Schwartzberg. The entry belongs to the jcrt collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Steven J. Schwartzberg urges Americans to overturn Federal Indian Law by confronting the colonial assumptions that still shape U.S. jurisprudence now.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including The famous \"Marshall trilogy\"— Johnson v. Mclntosh , Cherokee Nation v. Georgia , and Worcester v. Georgia —is repugnant to the written Constitution of the United States as well as to the international laws and usages that have been a part of life on Turtle Island (this continent) since millennia before the first eurochristians invaded and which still constitute the true unwritten constitution of this land and the deepest legitimate source of \"the law.\" Rooted in that licentious hybrid of fifteenth century religious jurisprudence and ethnonationalism known as the doctrine of Christian discovery, the \"Marshall trilogy\" established a legal framework that has systematically denied to the peoples of the Native Nations their. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue2/schwartzberg/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue2/schwartzberg/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/podcast/essay1/s06/",
    "title": "Eve Reyes-Aguirre: Environment & Creation",
    "publishedAt": "2024-12-11T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "The podcast explores how a centuries old Christian doctrine encouraged conquest and colonization of non Christians and how its legacies still affect various.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "podcast",
      "eve-reyes-aguirre",
      "law",
      "theology",
      "religion",
      "conference",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Eve Reyes Aguirre: Environment & Creation,\" an Outcome archive entry by Eve Reyes Aguirre. The entry belongs to the podcast collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses The podcast explores how a centuries old Christian doctrine encouraged conquest and colonization of non Christians and how its legacies still affect various lands and peoples. Special guest:. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including Introduction We begin this episode with a land acknowledgement. The podcast explores how a centuries old Christian doctrine encouraged conquest and colonization of non Christians and how its legacies still affect various lands and peoples. Special guest: Eve Reyes Aguirre, community organizer with Tonatierra. Don't forget to leave us a review wherever you get your podcasts. Show Notes Indigenous rights, workers' rights, and the Doctrine of Discovery. 0:03 Indigenous rights and worker protections in Phoenix. 4:02 Labor exploitation and advocacy for farmworkers. 9:20 Indigenous rights and colonialism at a UN conference. 17:55 Indigenous rights, climate change, and violence against women. 24:08 Missing Indigenous women and femicide. 31:16 Resources. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay1/s06/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay1/s06/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/podcast/essay2/s4e5/",
    "title": "S04E05: Rekindling Culture and Healing History: A Dialogue on Decolonization and Indigenous Land Connection",
    "publishedAt": "2024-05-07T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "S. Lily Mendoza and Jim Perkinson unpack white supremacy, decolonial praxis, and Indigenous resurgence. It points readers to the Outcome archive for context.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "podcast",
      "doctrine",
      "colonization",
      "indigenous",
      "ecology",
      "reparations",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"S04E05: Rekindling Culture and Healing History: A Dialogue on Decolonization and Indigenous Land Connection,\" an Outcome archive entry by Philip P. Arnold, Sandra Bigtree, Adam DJ Brett. The entry belongs to the podcast collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses S. Lily Mendoza and Jim Perkinson unpack white supremacy, decolonial praxis, and Indigenous resurgence.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including ⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // → Subscribe Introduction We begin this episode with a land acknowledgement. In this episode of the Mapping the Doctrine of Discovery podcast, hosts Philip P. Arnold and Sandy Bigtree interview S. Lily Mendoza and Jim Perkinson, both faculty members in Michigan. They discuss topics such as decolonization, indigeneity, white supremacy, and the criminalization of Indigenous peoples. They also touch on the role of Christianity in perpetuating colonialism and the need for a radical democratic framework that embraces diversity. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding the history of religions and the urgent need to protect the environment and. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay2/s4e5/",
    "externalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/season4/episode-05/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/podcast/essay2/s5e6/",
    "title": "S05E06: Rethinking Our Values: Indigenous Values for a Sustainable Future",
    "publishedAt": "2025-02-03T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Philip Arnold calls for a value shift rooted in Haudenosaunee teachings to ensure collective survival. It points readers to the Outcome archive for context.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "podcast",
      "doctrine",
      "ecology",
      "indigenous",
      "theology",
      "colonization",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"S05E06: Rethinking Our Values: Indigenous Values for a Sustainable Future,\" an Outcome archive entry by Philip P. Arnold, Sandra Bigtree, Adam DJ Brett. The entry belongs to the podcast collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Philip Arnold calls for a value shift rooted in Haudenosaunee teachings to ensure collective survival.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including ⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // → Subscribe Introduction We begin this episode with a land acknowledgement. In this special lecture episode, host Philip P. Arnold explores the urgent need for a “value change for survival,” drawing on indigenous worldviews—especially those of the Haudenosaunee—to challenge modern consumerism and individualism. He discusses how indigenous leadership prioritizes generosity and community well being, contrasts it with contemporary politics, and highlights movements like the “Rights of Nature” that advocate for a legal and ethical shift in how we relate to the environment. This episode is a powerful call to rethink our values and align with indigenous perspectives to ensure a sustainable. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay2/s5e6/",
    "externalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/season5/episode-06/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/podcast/essay2/s5e7/",
    "title": "S05E07: Indigenous Wisdom for Planetary Healing with Yuria Celidwen",
    "publishedAt": "2025-03-25T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Dr. Yuria Celidwen shares Indigenous contemplative science and ethics for planetary healing. It points readers to the Outcome archive for context. Outcome.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "podcast",
      "ecology",
      "indigenous",
      "theology",
      "doctrine",
      "colonization",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"S05E07: Indigenous Wisdom for Planetary Healing with Yuria Celidwen,\" an Outcome archive entry by Philip P. Arnold, Sandra Bigtree, Adam DJ Brett. The entry belongs to the podcast collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Dr. Yuria Celidwen shares Indigenous contemplative science and ethics for planetary healing.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including ⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // → Subscribe In Season 5, Episode 7 of the Mapping the Doctrine of Discovery podcast, Dr. Yuria Celidwen discusses the importance of Indigenous wisdom for planetary healing. She introduces herself as a \"truth bearer\" from the Maya Bats'ik'op tradition and explains how her cultural background and academic work seek to bridge Indigenous sciences with Western systems. Celidwen critiques dominant Western approaches to knowledge, particularly in contemplative and mindfulness studies, which often extract and commodify non Western spiritual practices while stripping them of their communal and ethical foundations. Celidwen outlines how Indigenous practices are deeply tied to land, community, and a sense of sacred interconnection among. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay2/s5e7/",
    "externalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/season5/episode-07/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/podcast/essay2/s5e8/",
    "title": "S05E08: Teaching Uncomfortable History: The Doctrine of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2025-05-18T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Dr. Holly Rine discusses teaching the Doctrine of Discovery inside Jesuit classrooms. This entry connects Doctrine of Discovery scholarship, Indigenous.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "podcast",
      "doctrine",
      "theology",
      "colonization",
      "indigenous",
      "education",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"S05E08: Teaching Uncomfortable History: The Doctrine of Discovery,\" an Outcome archive entry by Philip P. Arnold, Sandra Bigtree, Adam DJ Brett. The entry belongs to the podcast collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Dr. Holly Rine discusses teaching the Doctrine of Discovery inside Jesuit classrooms.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including ⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // → Subscribe Teaching Uncomfortable History: The Doctrine of Discovery an interview with Dr. Holly Rine In this final episode of Season 5 of the Mapping the Doctrine of Discovery podcast, Professors Philip Arnold and Sandy Bigtree sit down with Dr. Holly Rine of Le Moyne College for a powerful conversation about teaching the Doctrine of Discovery in Jesuit institutions. The Doctrine of Discovery—a legal and theological framework that justified the seizure of Indigenous lands—remains a critical, if uncomfortable, topic in contemporary education. Dr. Rine shares her experiences teaching at a Jesuit college with deep historical ties to colonial missions and the Haudenosaunee. As the first person. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay2/s5e8/",
    "externalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/season5/episode-08/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/podcast/essay4/s01/",
    "title": "Betty Lyons: Understanding the Doctrine",
    "publishedAt": "2024-02-20T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Betty Lyons confronts the Doctrine of Discovery through Haudenosaunee diplomacy and legal advocacy. This Outcome pointer preserves canonical archive context.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "podcast",
      "doctrine",
      "law",
      "indigenous",
      "theology",
      "colonization",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Betty Lyons: Understanding the Doctrine,\" an Outcome archive entry by Mitch Randall, Tanner Randall. The entry belongs to the podcast collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Betty Lyons confronts the Doctrine of Discovery through Haudenosaunee diplomacy and legal advocacy.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including ⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // Listen to the podcast on Megaphone, Spotify or Apple. Listen on Good Faith Media. Introduction We begin this episode with a land acknowledgement. The podcast explores how a centuries old Christian doctrine encouraged conquest and colonization of non Christians and how its legacies still affect various lands and peoples. Special guest: Betty Lyons, president and executive director of American Indian Law Alliance. Don't forget to leave us a review wherever you get your podcasts. Show Notes The origins and impact of the little known \"Doctrine of Christian discovery\". 0:03 Betty Lyons discusses origins of doctrine of discovery, its impact on Indigenous peoples, and efforts to revoke its principles. The Doctrine of Discovery. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay4/s01/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay4/s01/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/podcast/essay4/s02/",
    "title": "Robert P. Jones: White Supremacy’s Roots",
    "publishedAt": "2024-02-20T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Robert P. Jones examines Christian supremacy, polling data, and dismantling colonial theologies. This Outcome pointer preserves canonical archive context.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "podcast",
      "theology",
      "doctrine",
      "colonization",
      "ideology",
      "reparations",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Robert P. Jones: White Supremacy’s Roots,\" an Outcome archive entry by Mitch Randall, Tanner Randall. The entry belongs to the podcast collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Robert P. Jones examines Christian supremacy, polling data, and dismantling colonial theologies.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including ⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // Listen to the podcast on Megaphone, Spotify or Apple. Listen on Good Faith Media. Introduction We begin this episode with a land acknowledgement. The podcast explores how a centuries old Christian doctrine encouraged conquest and colonization of non Christians and how its legacies still affect various lands and peoples. Special guest: Robert P. Jones, president and founder of Public Religion Research Institute. More: https://www.prri.org/ Don't forget to leave us a review wherever you get your podcasts. Show Notes White supremacy and its connection to the Doctrine of Discovery. 0:02 Colonialism, white supremacy, and the US Constitution. 3:59 American history and the Doctrine of Discovery. 10:06 Race, history, and appropriation in the US.. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay4/s02/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay4/s02/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/podcast/essay4/s03/",
    "title": "Robert J. Miller: Property & Sovereignty",
    "publishedAt": "2024-02-20T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Robert J. Miller outlines legal strategies tribes use to counter conquest era doctrines. This Outcome pointer preserves canonical archive context. Archive.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "podcast",
      "law",
      "doctrine",
      "colonization",
      "indigenous",
      "sovereignty",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Robert J. Miller: Property & Sovereignty,\" an Outcome archive entry by Mitch Randall, Tanner Randall. The entry belongs to the podcast collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Robert J. Miller outlines legal strategies tribes use to counter conquest era doctrines.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including ⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // Listen to the podcast on Megaphone, Spotify or Apple. Listen on Good Faith Media. Introduction We begin this episode with a land acknowledgement. The podcast explores how a centuries old Christian doctrine encouraged conquest and colonization of non Christians and how its legacies still affect various lands and peoples. Special guest: Robert J. Miller, professor of law at Arizona State University. Don't forget to leave us a review wherever you get your podcasts. Show Notes Property and sovereignty with legal expert Robert J. Miller. 0:03 Sovereignty, consent, and indigenous rights. 3:32 Indigenous sovereignty and religious freedom. 9:20 The Doctrine of Discovery and its impact on indigenous peoples. 21:03 Ten Legal Elements. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay4/s03/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay4/s03/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/podcast/essay4/s04/",
    "title": "Gustavo Melo Cerqueira & Danielle N. Boaz: Religious Racism",
    "publishedAt": "2024-02-20T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Gustavo Melo Cerqueira and Danielle Boaz discuss combating religious racism across the hemisphere. This Outcome pointer preserves canonical archive context.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "podcast",
      "theology",
      "doctrine",
      "colonization",
      "ideology",
      "reparations",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Gustavo Melo Cerqueira & Danielle N. Boaz: Religious Racism,\" an Outcome archive entry by Mitch Randall, Tanner Randall. The entry belongs to the podcast collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Gustavo Melo Cerqueira and Danielle Boaz discuss combating religious racism across the hemisphere.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including ⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // Listen to the podcast on Megaphone, Spotify or Apple. Listen on Good Faith Media. Introduction We begin this episode with a land acknowledgement. The podcast explores how a centuries old Christian doctrine encouraged conquest and colonization of non Christians and how its legacies still affect various lands and peoples. Special guests: Gustavo Melo Cerqueira & Danielle N. Boaz, International Commission to Combat Religious Racism. More: Don't forget to leave us a review wherever you get your podcasts. Show Notes Gustavo Melo Cerqueira & Danielle N. Boaz: Religious Racism Religious racism in Brazil and its impact on indigenous cultures. 0:03 Gustavo Melo Cerqueira: Religious racism combats indigenous values, land. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay4/s04/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay4/s04/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/podcast/essay4/s05/",
    "title": "Steven Newcomb & JoDe Goudy: U.S. Law",
    "publishedAt": "2024-02-20T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Steven Newcomb and JoDe Goudy reflect on Indigenous law, activism, and undoing papal domination. This Outcome pointer preserves canonical archive context.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "podcast",
      "law",
      "doctrine",
      "colonization",
      "indigenous",
      "reparations",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Steven Newcomb & JoDe Goudy: U.S. Law,\" an Outcome archive entry by Mitch Randall, Tanner Randall. The entry belongs to the podcast collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Steven Newcomb and JoDe Goudy reflect on Indigenous law, activism, and undoing papal domination.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including ⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // Listen to the podcast on Megaphone, Spotify or Apple. Listen on Good Faith Media. Introduction We begin this episode with a land acknowledgement. The podcast explores how a centuries old Christian doctrine encouraged conquest and colonization of non Christians and how its legacies still affect various lands and peoples. Special guests: Steven Newcomb & JoDe Goudy, Indigenous scholars and activists. More. Don't forget to leave us a review wherever you get your podcasts. Show Notes The Doctrine of Discovery and its Impact on Indigenous Land and Culture. 0:03 The Doctrine of Discovery's influence on perception and identity. 4:06 Colonialism and its impact on indigenous cultures. 8:55 Indigenous rights and. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay4/s05/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay4/s05/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/podcast/essay4/s06/",
    "title": "Eve Reyes-Aguirre: Environment & Creation",
    "publishedAt": "2024-02-20T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Eve Reyes Aguirre shares Tonatierra community organizing against imperial Christianity. This entry connects Doctrine of Discovery scholarship, Indigenous.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "podcast",
      "ecology",
      "indigenous",
      "colonization",
      "doctrine",
      "reparations",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Eve Reyes Aguirre: Environment & Creation,\" an Outcome archive entry by Mitch Randall, Tanner Randall. The entry belongs to the podcast collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Eve Reyes Aguirre shares Tonatierra community organizing against imperial Christianity.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including ⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // Listen to the podcast on Megaphone, Spotify or Apple. Listen on Good Faith Media. Introduction We begin this episode with a land acknowledgement. The podcast explores how a centuries old Christian doctrine encouraged conquest and colonization of non Christians and how its legacies still affect various lands and peoples. Special guest: Eve Reyes Aguirre, community organizer with Tonatierra. Don't forget to leave us a review wherever you get your podcasts. Show Notes Indigenous rights, workers' rights, and the Doctrine of Discovery. 0:03 Indigenous rights and worker protections in Phoenix. 4:02 Labor exploitation and advocacy for farmworkers. 9:20 Indigenous rights and colonialism at a UN conference. 17:55 Indigenous rights, climate change, and violence against women.. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay4/s06/",
    "externalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/special/s06/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/podcast/essay4/s07/",
    "title": "João Chaves: The Doctrine of Christian Discovery's Influence in the Americas",
    "publishedAt": "2024-02-20T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "João Chaves explains how evangelical missions fueled colonization in Brazil and beyond. This Outcome pointer preserves canonical archive context. Archive.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "podcast",
      "doctrine",
      "theology",
      "colonization",
      "indigenous",
      "land",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"João Chaves: The Doctrine of Christian Discovery's Influence in the Americas,\" an Outcome archive entry by Mitch Randall, Tanner Randall. The entry belongs to the podcast collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses João Chaves explains how evangelical missions fueled colonization in Brazil and beyond.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including ⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // Listen to the podcast on Megaphone, Spotify or Apple. Listen on Good Faith Media. Introduction We begin this episode with a land acknowledgement. The podcast explores how a centuries old Christian doctrine encouraged conquest and colonization of non Christians and how its legacies still affect various lands and peoples. Special guest: João Chaves, assistant professor of the history of religion at Baylor University. Don't forget to leave us a review wherever you get your podcasts. Show Notes Doctrine of Christian Discovery's impact in the Americas. 0:03 João Chaves discusses the influence of the doctrine of Christian discovery in Latin America and South America, providing examples of its. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay4/s07/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay4/s07/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/outcome/podcast/essay4/s08/",
    "title": "Mitch Randall: Countering Conversion",
    "publishedAt": "2024-02-20T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Mitch Randall urges faith communities to reject conquest theology and stand with Indigenous nations. This Outcome pointer preserves canonical archive context.",
    "tags": [
      "outcome",
      "podcast",
      "theology",
      "doctrine",
      "colonization",
      "indigenous",
      "reparations",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Mitch Randall: Countering Conversion,\" an Outcome archive entry by Mitch Randall, Tanner Randall. The entry belongs to the podcast collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability. In brief, it addresses Mitch Randall urges faith communities to reject conquest theology and stand with Indigenous nations.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive. The source text highlights terms and contexts including ⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // Listen to the podcast on Megaphone, Spotify or Apple. Listen on Good Faith Media. Introduction We begin this episode with a land acknowledgement. The podcast explores how a centuries old Christian doctrine encouraged conquest and colonization of non Christians and how its legacies still affect various lands and peoples. Special guest: Mitch Randall, CEO of Good Faith Media. Don't forget to leave us a review wherever you get your podcasts. Show Notes The Doctrine of Discovery and its impact on indigenous rights. 0:03 Mitch Randall reflects on the conference, acknowledging the daunting historical problems faced globally, and how they are connected to a document written 600 years ago. The historical influence of. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry. Canonical link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay4/s08/",
    "externalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay4/s08/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/plenary-power/",
    "title": "Gorsuch and Thomas Attack the US Claim of \"Plenary Power\" over \"Tribes\"",
    "publishedAt": "2025-11-13T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "On November 10, 2025, Supreme Court Justices Gorsuch and Thomas teamed up to insist that the doctrine of “plenary power” over Native Peoples is not good law and never has been.",
    "tags": [
      "law",
      "religion",
      "federal-indian-law",
      "featured",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "externalUrl": "https://peterderrico.substack.com/p/gorsuch-and-thomas-attack-the-us"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/reflections-erie-canal/",
    "title": "Reflections on the Erie Canal [FULL DOCUMENTARY]",
    "publishedAt": "2025-10-11T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "In 1825, the state of New York completed the Erie Canal. Today, the singular historic purpose of the canal has been replaced by a broader significance. Together, the Erie, Champlain, Oswego, and Cayuga-Seneca canals serve communities in ways unimaginable to their creators. Now, we reflect on the two-hundred year journey of the Erie Canal and contemplate its future.",
    "tags": [
      "law",
      "religion",
      "values",
      "environment",
      "featured",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "externalUrl": "https://youtu.be/Iqfe7grWuNU?si=0I8_9TIrvwWR7ZHV"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/return-land-onodaga-lake/",
    "title": "Return land on Onondaga Lake to the Onondaga Nation (Your Letters)",
    "publishedAt": "2024-12-19T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "What a delight to read Steve Featherstone’s feature article about the long-overdue return of 1,000 acres in the Tully Valley to the Onondaga Nation. Hearing several of our Onondaga neighbors share what the historic land return means for them and their community was deeply moving (“Onondaga Nation plans a wild future for 1,000 acres of reclaimed land,” Nov. 22, 2024). All of Central New York should celebrate this small step toward justice and healing. We urge readers who haven’t done so to read the article or watch the powerful 3-minute video.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "journal",
      "featured",
      "land-theft",
      "doctrineofdiscovery",
      "race",
      "theology",
      "special-issue",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Syracuse.com Editorial Op-Ed To the Editor: What a delight to read Steve Featherstone’s feature article about the long-overdue return of 1,000 acres in the Tully Valley to the Onondaga Nation. Hearing several of our Onondaga neighbors share what the historic land return means for them and their community was deeply moving (“Onondaga Nation plans a wild future for 1,000 acres of reclaimed land,” Nov. 22, 2024). All of Central New York should celebrate this small step toward justice and healing. We urge readers who haven’t done so to read the article or watch the powerful 3-minute video. The land return in Tully is an important step, which should spur our county leadership to fulfill the commitment they made in 2011 to return land to the Onondaga on the shore of the lake which bears their name. Onondaga Lake holds deep spiritual significance to the Onondaga people as the site where the Haudenosaunee Confederacy was founded over 1,000 years ago. This is also true of Onondaga Creek, which has its headwaters in the lands recently returned to Onondaga, and which flows through their territory. Discussions over a decade ago fizzled out because the county wanted to return the highly polluted area known as Murphy’s Island, a prospect which was unacceptable to the Onondaga Nation. In recent years, the Onondaga have suggested that Maple Bay, on the northwest corner of the lake, would be a more suitable area to be returned to them. It is long past time for this process to move forward to completion. Nearly everyone in our community, and across the US, has a general understanding that European settlers terribly mistreated the Indigenous Peoples of this land. That mistreatment included the theft of nearly all land and a concerted effort, over several centuries, to destroy Indigenous cultures and ways of life. Fortunately for all of us, while those efforts devastated Indigenous nations, they were unsuccessful in their ultimate goal. The Onondaga people have continued to live on their small remaining sovereign territory (less than half a percent of their original 4,000-square-mile homeland) as good neighbors, despite the injustices they have experienced. In 2005, when the Onondaga Nation filed their historic land rights action, they built on efforts of well over two centuries to reclaim and restore land which had been taken illegally from them. Sadly, in a series of unjust decisions, the federal court system again proved to be a place with no justice for Indigenous Peoples. The federal courts consistently ruled that the Onondaga and their fellow Haudenosaunee nations were correct that their land had been taken in violation of federal law and the US Constitution. However, they dismissed the cases anyway. As a grassroots educational and advocacy organization, we call on our fellow Central New Yorkers to encourage County Executive Ryan McMahon and their county legislators to take action on this important issue. We urge the county executive to re-engage in negotiations with the Onondaga Nation to return Maple Bay to their jurisdiction. This will be a simple act of justice and one which will enhance our community by re-enabling Onondaga stewardship over part of the lake. Despite significant efforts to clean up what was once the most polluted lake in the country, Onondaga Lake remains significantly impaired. We look forward to building on the return of land in the Tully Valley by celebrating the return of Maple Bay to the Onondaga Nation in 2025. Andy Mager | Syracuse Carol Baum | Syracuse Casey Cleary-Hammarstedt | Fayetteville Cindy Squillace | Syracuse Hilary-Anne Coppola | Fayetteville Jack Manno | Syracuse Sarah Howard | Syracuse On behalf of Neighbors of the Onondaga Nation",
    "externalUrl": "https://www.syracuse.com/opinion/2024/12/return-land-on-onondaga-lake-to-the-onondaga-nation-your-letters.html"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/revoke-the-papal-bulls/",
    "title": "Revoke the Papal Bulls",
    "publishedAt": "2023-05-23T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "In response to the Papal Bulls issued 530 years ago today and tomorrow (3 and 4 May 1493): Indigenous Law Institute and Original Nations Advocates “Revoke the Papal Bulls” A View-from-the-Shore Analysis of the Vatican’s 30 March 2023 Statement on the Doctrine of Discovery",
    "tags": [
      "papal-documents",
      "dominance",
      "ships",
      "vatican-city",
      "francis",
      "pope",
      "responses",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "In response to the Papal Bulls issued 530 years ago today and tomorrow (3 and 4 May 1493): Indigenous Law Institute \\ and Original Nations Advocates \"Revoke the Papal Bulls\" A View-from-the-Shore Analysis of the\\ Vatican's 30 March 2023 Statement on the Doctrine of Discovery by Steven Newcomb (Shawnee/Lenape) The Context Let us set the context for this discussion. The context begins with the free existence of our Native nations and peoples, extending back to the beginning of our time through our oral histories and traditions, contrasted with the system of domination that was carried by ship across the ocean and imposed on everyone and everything. From that starting point we end up with a non-Christian view-from-the-shore with our Ancestors looking out at the invading ships sailing from Western Christendom, and a view-from-the-ship perspective, with the colonizers moving toward our Ancestors with the intention of establishing the Christian empire's system of domination where it did not yet exist. Below we discuss the recent Vatican Statement on the Doctrine of Discovery with a view-from-the-shore perspective, while realizing that the Vatican officials wrote their statement with a view-from-the-ship (church) perspective. The Indigenous Law Institute In 1992, Birgil Kills Straight (1940-2019) (a traditional Head Man and ceremonial leader of the Oglala Lakota Nation) and I founded the Indigenous Law Institute (ILI), and began a global campaign regarding the so-called \"Doctrine of Discovery.\" We began of efforts by calling upon then Pope John Paul II (JPII) to formally revoke a 1493 papal bull, Inter Caetera, which Pope Alexander VI issued shortly after Columbus returned to Western Christendom from the Bahamas. In 1993, we presented our call for a revocation of the papal bull of May 4, 1493 to the Parliament of the World's Religions, and assisted with the drafting of a resolution titled, \"Declaration of Vision: Toward the Next 500 Years.\" Guided by our deep appreciation of Birgil's wisdom and mentorship, we continue with our efforts, and we are maintaining our call for the Holy See to revoke the papal bull of May 4, 1493. We continue to carry on our global campaign against the patterns of domination unleashed on the planet by those ancient Vatican documents, which have been imposed on Indigenous nations and peoples and incorporated into U.S. federal Indian law and Canadian Indian law. After thirty years of effort and momentum, the Vatican Dicastery for Culture and Education, and the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development, issued a \"Joint Statement\" on the \"Doctrine of Discovery.\" The Vatican stopped short of a revocation of the May 4th papal bull, issuing instead a \"repudiation of the doctrine of discovery.\" The following analysis is intended to take a closer look at the Vatican statement, while explaining some usually overlooked connections between the Bible and what we prefer to call the Doctrine of Christian Discovery and Domination. Matthew 28:18-20 in the Bible Expresses a Mandate to Baptize All Nations. That, and the Mandate of Genesis 1:28, are Traced to a Number of Papal Bulls Issued During the Fifteenth Century The opening sentence of the Vatican's March 30th statement refers to a \"mandate received from Christ.\" That mandate is sometimes known as \"the faith-sharing mandate\" and \"The Great Commission.\" In that biblical passage from the Vulgate Bible (Matthew 28:18-20), Jesus is quoted as saying, \"All authority [potestas, in Latin] in heaven and on earth has been given to me [Jesus Christ]. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.\" (emphasis added) In other words, baptize them and make them followers of Christ. This has been described as \"the Lord's world-wide commission.\" (A New Commentary on Holy Scripture, Ed., Gore, Goudge, and Guillaume, 1928, p. 204) Some Vatican officials might say that the reference to a \"mandate\" in the March 30th Statement is not \"reducible to a single text\" from the Bible, otherwise that specific text would have been quoted. They might say that the reference to \"the mandate received from Christ\" is \"a general summary mandate that reflects Scripture, as well as the evolving understanding of the Church's mission.\" Nonetheless, the word \"mandate\" is accurately interpreted as being inclusive of what has been expressed as the \"world-wide commission\" found in Matthew 28:18-20. In the context of a world-wide mandate, the phrase \"Go therefore\" is accurately interpreted as, \"to move forward and proceed on a course or path toward the fulfillment of an intention or a destination.\" In order to fulfill the biblical mandate (intention) to make disciples of all nations, baptize them, and teach them to obey (be properly subordinate to) the commandments of Jesus, certain popes understood that it was necessary to identify or discover the distant and remote location of all non-Christian nations of the world. No Pope was going to set sail on a voyage of \"discovery.\" However, certain popes did issue documents purporting to give or grant Christian monarchs the divine right to \"discover and conquer\" the distant lands of infidels. This pattern demonstrates how the Catholic Church's Great Commission, based on Jesus Christ's directive to make disciples of, and baptize all nations, logically resulted in a papally authorized effort to \"discover,\" \"conquer,\" and establish domination over distant non-Christian nations and their lands. Pope Francis's Environmental Encyclical, Laudato Si In 2015, Pope Francis issued his Encyclical Laudato Si, which is regarded as the most comprehensive papal statement on the environment. Although we only have space to reference it in passing, we do want to acknowledge the Encyclical as being applicable to this discussion. Laudato Si begins: 1. \"LAUDATO SI', mi' Signore\" -- \"Praise be to you, my Lord\".In the words of this beautiful canticle, Saint Francis of Assisi reminds us that our common home is like a sister with whom we share our life and a beautiful mother who opens her arms to embrace us. \"Praise be to you, my Lord, through our Sister, Mother Earth, who sustains and governs us, and who produces various fruit with coloured flowers and herbs\". 2. 2\\. This sister [the Earth] now cries out to us because of the harm we have inflicted on her by our irresponsible use and abuse of the goods with which God has endowed her. We have come to see ourselves as her lords and masters, entitled to plunder her at will. The violence present in our hearts, wounded by sin, is also reflected in the symptoms of sickness evident in the soil, in the water, in the air and in all forms of life. [emphasis added] While the above style of writing sounds positive, it appropriates without attribution the \"Indigenous\" expression \"Mother Earth,\" and the words of the above passage lack both historical context and any acknowledgment of Indigenous peoples. Use of the third person \"we\" and \"our\" is ambiguous. To whom do \"we\" and \"our\" refer? No doubt the Holy See has used those words with the intention of referencing humanity as a whole. The document is written in a manner that implies that the Vatican and the Holy See have always subscribed to St. Francis of Assissi's view of nature. What seems odd about the above use of language by Pope Francis, however, is that it fails to acknowledge the worldviews and perspectives of Indigenous peoples, and the fact that they do not consider themselves to be \"lords and masters\" of the Earth, or consider themselves entitled to \"plunder\" the Earth at will. These are Christian European conceptions that include the Vatican papal bulls of the fifteenth century (three of which we quote below), and the doctrine of Christian discovery and domination. The Book of Genesis in Laudato Si Chapter Two of Laudato Si, is titled \"The Gospel of Creation.\" There we find the subheading: \"II. The Wisdom of the Biblical Accounts.\" At paragraph 66, Pope Francis states: \"The creation accounts in the book of Genesis contain . . . profound teachings about human existence and its historical reality.\" Pope Francis says that \"human life is grounded in three fundamental and closely intertwined relationships: with God, with our neighbour and with the earth itself.\" He further says that \"three vital relationships have been broken, both outwardly and within us.\" He continues: This rupture is sin. The harmony between the Creator, humanity and creation as a whole was disrupted by our presuming to take the place of God and refusing to acknowledge our creaturely limitations. This in turn distorted our mandate to \"have dominion\" over the earth (cf. Gen 1:28), to \"till it and keep it\" (Gen 2:15). As a result, the originally harmonious relationship between human beings and nature became conflictual (cf. Gen 3:17-19). Harmony is defined in Webster's as, \"agreement between the parts of a design or composition giving unity of effect or an aesthetically pleasing whole.\" (emphasis added) Webster's also defines harmony as, \"A systematic arrangement of parallel passages, as of the Gospels, to show their agreement.\" The opposite of \"agreement\" is \"disagreement,\" \"a state being at variance.\" To disagree is \"to fail to agree, to differ.\" Webster's defines \"genesis\" as, \"to be born,\" and \"The coming into being of anything,\" as well as, and in a biblical context, \"a first account of creation.\" In a sense Genesis of the Bible forms the premise of the story of creation and of the Christian European universe. Strangely, however, part of the mandate from God which is portrayed in Genesis 1:28---to subdue and dominate---assumes a position of hostility, enmity, and opposition toward the Earth, and, by implication, and eventually, toward the Indigenous nations and peoples of the Earth. The term subdue suggests \"to conquer and bring into subjection\" which are terms of war. Pope Francis's claim in Laudato Si that there was an original \"harmony\" between \"the Creator, humanity and creation as a whole\" is contradicted by the Latin words in Gen. 1:28 found in the Vulgate Bible: \". . .Crescite et multiplicamini [grow and multiply] et replete terram [and fill the earth], et subicite eam [and subdue [i.e., dominate] it], et dominamini piscibus maris [i.e., dominate the fish of the sea], et volatilibus caeli [and the birds of the air] et universis animantibus [and all living things], quae moventur [which are moving] super terram [above ground].\" Laudato Si refers to Genesis 1:28 as a \"mandate.\" Pope Francis says that humans \"presuming to take the place of God and refusing to acknowledge our creaturely limitations\"\\ was what \"distorted our mandate [from God] to 'have dominion' over the earth (cf. Gen 1:28), to 'till it and keep it' (Gen2:15).\" To distort is \"to wrest from the true meaning; to pervert.\" He appears to be saying that the mandate to \"subdue\" and \"dominate\" the Earth is a mandate to have a \"harmonious relationship\" with the Earth. Laudato Si suggests that this \"correct\" interpretation of \"subdue\" and \"dominate\" has wrongly portrayed humans as being in conflict with the Earth. However, the Latin words for mandate (imperatum, iussum, and mandatum) definitely convey a sense of domination and conflict, as do the words \"subicite\" and \"dominamini\" from Genesis 1:28 in the Latin Vulgate Bible. It thus makes no sense to conceive of a God-given mandate to subdue and dominate the Earth (and \"all living things which are moving above ground\") as creating a harmonious relationship between humans and nature. Given God's command to subdue and dominate the Earth (\"nature\"), in that context the biblical story of creation portrays humanity as being inconflict with the Earth, and by extension in conflict with the Indigenous peoples of the Earth. We see this manifested in the history of Christendom invading war against non-Christian nations and peoples and waging war against them. The Collective Punishment and Domination of Women in the Bible In Chapter Two, Laudato Si cites Genesis 3:17-19, thereby conveniently avoiding Genesis 3:16, according to which \"a loving God\" condemns Eve, and, by extension, all women after her, to an everlasting collective punishment: \"To the woman also he [God] said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions; in sorrow shall thou bring forth children, and, thou shalt be under thy husband's power [\"potestate\" in Latin], and he shall have dominion [dominabitur, in Latin (i.e., domination)] over thee.\" All across the planet women have suffered and continue to suffer from the application of this kind of theologically backed thinking and behavior toward them, based on the belief that God condemned womankind to existing \"under\" the potestate (power) of the husband and subject to the idea that \"the husband shall have dominion [domination] over his wife\" as ordained by God. As a present-day example, think of the murdered and missing Indigenous women in both Canada and the United States. Genesis 3:16 quoted above, and 3:17-19 quoted below, tell us that the deity of Genesis does not behave in the dignified manner of an Indigenous Elder, but instead judges and condemns, for the God of the Bible is depicted as saying to Adam: \"Because thou hast hearkened to the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat, cursed is the earth in thy work; with labour and toil shalt thou eat thereof all the days of thy life.\" (emphasis added) Genesis 3:18 states: \"Thorns and thistles shall it [the earth] bring forth to thee; and thou eat the herbs of the earth.\" And, at Genesis 3:19, we find: \"In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to earth, out of which thou was taken: for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return. Paragraph 66 of Laudato Si refers to \"sin\" as being \"manifest in all its destructive power in wars, the various forms of violence and abuse, the abandonment of the most vulnerable, and attacks on nature.\" The Holy See produced documents repeatedly during the fifteenth century that authorized and encouraged \"wars, [and] various forms of violence and abuse,\" as well \"attacks on nature.\" It's March 30th statement fails to acknowledge this. Paragraph 67 states \"We are not God. The earth was here before us and it has been given to us.\" Laudato Si continues: \"This allows us to respond to the charge that Judeo-Christian thinking, on the basis of the Genesis account which grants man 'dominion' over the earth (cf. Gen 1:28), has encouraged the unbridled exploitation of nature by painting him as domineering and destructive by nature. This is not a correct interpretation of the Bible as understood by the Church,\" says the Pope. Laudato Si continues: Although it is true that we Christians have at times incorrectly interpreted the Scriptures, nowadays we must forcefully reject the notion that our being created in God's image and given dominion over the earth justifies absolute domination over other creatures. [emphasis added] \"Nowadays\" is the key word. This is evidently an updated way of understanding the Bible. However, it is not the interpretation of the Bible that was used as the basis of the papal decrees from the fifteenth century, which are traced to the story of the Chosen People and the Promised Land. The Chosen People Promised Land Narrative Used Against Indigenous Nations and Peoples At Genesis 15:7 we find \"the Lord\" [Dominus, \"he who has dominated\" in Latin] telling Abram \"I am the Lord who brought thee out from Ur of the Chaldees, to gibe thee this land, and that thou mightest possess it.\" The deity does not merely give the land to Abram; he is also giving the Indigenous peoples who were already living in the \"promised land\" of Canaan. Thus the Old Testament deity says to Abram (who becomes Abraham): That day God made a covenant with Abram, saying: To thy seed will I give this land, from the river of Egypt even to the great river Euphrates. The grammatical colon indicates that a list of items is to follow, and, in this case, the items listed are the Indigenous peoples living in the land the Old Testament deity is promising to Abram: \"The Cineans and Cenezites, the Cedmonites, And the Hethites, and the Pherezites, the Raphaim also, And the Amorrhites, and the Chanaanits, and the Gergesites, and the Jebusites.\" (King James version: \"The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.\") Abram and his descendants are to receive from the deity the land and the Indigenous peoples, as it states in Psalms 2:8: \"Ask of me, and I will give thee the Gentiles for thy inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for thy possession.\" (King James version: \"Ask of me and I shall give to thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.\") Given that an inheritance is a form of property, which has been defined as \"the first establishment of socially approved physical domination over some part of the natural world\" (Liebman and Haar, Property and Law, 1986, p. 1), Psalms 2:8 presupposes a right of domination [\"property\"] over the Indigenous peoples. Additionally, in Deuteronomy 20:10-18, the Old Testament deity commands the Hebrew soldiers to apply a genocidal logic and behavior toward the Indigenous peoples living in the lands the deity promised them: But of those cities that shall be given thee, thou shalt suffer none at all to live: But shalt kill them with the edge of the sword, to wit, the Hethite, and the Amorrhite, and the Chanaanite, the Pherezite, and the Hevite, and the Jebusite, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee. [emphasis added] King James version: But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: but thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perrizites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, as the Lord thy God has commanded thee. [emphasis added] This command to \"utterly destroy\" and thereby nullify Indigenous peoples is also a biblical mandate. During the fifteenth, sixteenth, and later centuries, the Holy See and monarchies of Christendom, lifted the Old Testament narrative of the chosen people and the promised land from the geographical area of the Middle East and began carrying it over, metaphorically, to the rest of the globe, particularly to the western hemisphere. Key biblical passages provided a mental basis for the globalization of the Chosen People-Promised Land model of thought and behavior during the so-called Age of Discovery. Attitudes from the Old Testament covenant tradition have had a tremendous ability to persist in Christian European thought over time. In 1557, for example, four and a half centuries after the sacking of Jerusalem in 1099 A.D. during the First Crusade, Pedro de Santander, an official of the Catholic Church, advocated for Philip II, emperor of Spain, to apply the Old Testament conceptual tradition of the Promised Land in his treatment of the Native peoples in Florida: This is the Land of Promise, possessed by idolator, the Amorite, Amulekite, Moabit, Canaanite. This is the land promised by the Eternal Father to the Faithful, since we are commanded by God in the Holy Scripture to take it from them, being idolators, and, by reason of their idolatry and sin, to put them all to the knife, leaving no living thing save maidens and children, their cities robbed and sacked, their walls and houses leveled to the earth. The Right of Discovery In his 1888 article, \"Right of Discovery,\" B. A. Hinsdale elaborated on this Catholic way of thinking that considered it acceptable to genocidally nullify or negate the original nations and peoples of the continent. He explains the emergence of the category \"nullus,\" which, he says, Francis Lieber traced to the Catholic Church. As Hinsdale explains: Practically, discovery, when consummated [by possession], was conquest [domination], but theoretically, it was something very different. An enemy overcome in battle was nullus according to the Roman law, but another definition, and one more consonant [in keeping] with the temper of the times, was now adopted. This definition was supplied by the Roman [Catholic] Church. The new definition of nullus was, a heathen, pagan, infidel, or unbaptized person. \"Paganism, which meant being unbaptized,\" says [Dr. [Francis] Lieber](https://archive.org/details/miscellaneouswri02lieb/page/n9/mode/2up) \"deprived the individual of those rights which a true jural morality considers inherent in each human being.\" The same writer [Dr. Lieber] also states that the Right of Discovery is founded \"on the principle that what belongs to no one [may] be appropriated by the finder,\" but this principle becomes effectual only when supplemented by the Church definition of nullus. That definition supplied the lacking premise in the demonstration. Grant that res nullius is the property of the finder; that an infidel is nullus; that the American savage is an infidel, and the argument is complete. That the Church, one of whose great duties is to protect the weak and helpless, should have supplied one-half the logic that justified the spoilation and enslavement of the heathen, is one of the anomalies of history. In his essay, Hinsdale follows Francis Lieber's lead in making a direct connection between the Roman law concept of res nullius, the Catholic Church's religious concept of nullus (notice the different spelling of the two terms), and the U.S. Supreme Court ruling Johnson v. McIntosh ruling of 1823, which distinguishes between \"Christian people\" and \"natives, who were heathens\". Nullus is the basis of what we are able to accurately term the Doctrine of Pagan or Infidel Non-Existence. It isn't that the peoples don't exist physically. It's that the intellectuals of the Christian world mentally refused to allow non-Christian peoples to be regarded as possessing a right of domination (i.e., \"sovereignty,\" \"property,\" and \"dominion\") that could enable them to block and protect themselves against the Christian monarchs' claim of a right of domination against them. A number of Catholic theologians such as Bartolome de Las Casas, and Juan Sepulveda,  and Francisco de Vitoria followed these lines of argumentation in their leading positions in the intellectual world of Western Christendom during the so-called Age of Discovery. In his amazing book Imperialism, Sovereignty, and the Making of International Law(2004), international law scholar Antony Anghie points out that Francisco de Vitoria, for example, \"based his conclusion that the Indians are not sovereign on the simple assertion that they are pagans.\" Anghie further says: The distinction [that Vitoria made] between the Indians and the Spanish was . . . emphatic and well developed. Indeed, in the final analysis, the most unequivocal proposition Vitoria advances as to the character of the sovereign is that the sovereign, the entity empowered to wage a just war, cannot, by definition, be an Indian. Anghie continues: Since the Indians are by definition incapable of waging a just war, they exist within the Vitorian framework only as violators of the law. [emphasis added] The normal principles of just war, which would prohibit the enslaving of women and children, do not apply in the case of the pagan Indians: Anghie then quotes Vitoria as follows: And so when the war is at that pass [point] that the indiscriminate spoilation [plunder] of all enemy-subjects alike and the seizure of all their goods are justifiable, then it is also justifiable to carry all enemy-subjects off into captivity, whether they be guilty or guiltless. And inasmuch as war with pagans is of this type, seeing that it is perpetual and they can never make amends for the wrongs and damages they have wrought, it is indubitably lawful to carry off both the children and women of the Saracens into captivity and slavery. [^1] This Christian \"logic\" of treating non-Christians as enemies provides a rationale for the theft and kidnapping of Indian children from their families, and wrongfully forcing them into deadly boarding \"schools\" and residential \"schools\" as part of the genocidal process of intentionally destroying whatever holds a People together (e.g., their language, culture, and spiritual traditions) as a distinct nation. Anghie continues: \"Once fault is established\" [based on an imposed framework of domination] \"as the above passage suggests, the war waged against the Indians is, in Vitoria's phraseology, 'perpetual'. Similarly, in his discussion of whether it is lawful and expedient to kill all the guilty, Vitoria suggests that this may be necessary because of the unique case of the unredeemable Indian. Vitoria further states: and this is especially the case [in a war] against the unbeliever, from whom it is useless ever to hope for a just peace on any terms. And as the only remedy is to destroy all of them who can bear arms against us, provided they have already been in fault. [emphasis added] Anghie sums up by saying: \"These conclusions stand in curious juxtaposition to other parts of Vitoria's work, where he emphasizes the humanity of the Indians.\" And, \"it is the Indian who acts as the object against which the powers of sovereignty [domination] may be exercised in the most extreme ways.\" This mentality can be traced into U.S. federal Indian law and policy, such as the doctrine of the plenary power of Congress. A Hypothetical Scenario In a spirit of historical truth-telling, Pope Francis could have stated the following in Laudato Si: \"A number of my predecessors, during the fifteenth century, supported Christian monarchs to view themselves as 'lords and masters', whom we believe, were entitled, with the support of the Divine Majesty, our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy See, to plunder the Earth, and the Indigenous peoples of the Earth.\" Pope Francis would have exhibited tremendous courageous if he had stated: \"In the papal bull Romanus Pontifex of 1455, for example, we find the Holy See's support for the belief in a divine entitlement to plunder the Earth, and establish domination over the Indigenous peoples of the Earth.\" Some Text from Romanus Pontifex The connection between Romanus Pontifex, Genesis 1:28, Genesis 15:7, Matthew 28:18-20,2:8, Psalms:2:8 and other biblical passages contradicts Point 6 of the Vatican's March 30th statement, \"The 'doctrine of discovery' is not part of the teaching of the Catholic Church.\" Given that Matthew 28:18-20 is one of the central teachings of the Catholic Church, and given that a fulfillment of Matthew 28:18-20 logically requires that the location of all distant non-Christian nations be identified, it is nonsensical and farcical for the Vatican to assert that the claimed right of discovery is not part of the teachings Catholic Church. After all, Jesus Christ's mandate to \"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations and baptize them\" frames the Christian teaching to go forth to carry out Christ's \"mandate.\" From within the Christian worldview, Christ's mandate creates the claimed right to carry out the mandate. The opening of Romanus Pontifex helps to illustrate this point: Nicholas, bishop, servant of the servants of God. For a perpetual remembrance. The Roman pontiff, successor of [St. Peter] the key-bearer of the heavenly kingdom and vicar of Christ, contemplating with a father's mind all the several climes [regions] of the world and the characteristics of all the nations [emphasis added] dwelling in them [those regions] and seeking and desiring the [Christian] salvation [through the baptism and obedience] of all [infidel nations]. . . [European Treaties Bearing on the History of the United States and Its Dependencies to 1648, 1917, pp. 20-21] The phrase \"all the nations\" in the bull Romanus Pontifex matches the phrase \"all nations\" in Matthew 28\\. In order to make disciples of \"all nations\" and to baptize them, it is first necessary to identify (\"discover\") the geographical location of those nations, so that a right of Christian domination can be asserted over and against them. More Evidence of the Connection Between Matthew 28:18-20, the Papal Bull Romanus Pontifex, and the Theology of Domination Romanus Pontifex continues: The Roman pontiff \"wholesomely ordains and disposes [gives,] . . . [after] careful deliberation [upon] those things which he [the pontiff] sees will be agreeable to the Divine Majesty [i.e., God] and by [means of] which he [the pontiff] may bring the [infidel] sheep entrusted to him by God into the single divine fold, and may acquire for them the reward of eternal felicity [joy], and obtain pardon for their souls.\" [European Treaties, p. 21] The view that the pope is referring to \"infidel\" sheep is illustrated by a section of the book Kings Or People: Power and the Mandate to Rule (1978, p. 254), by Reinhard Bendix, where we find reference to a papal bull issued one year prior to Romanus Pontifex: \"The papal bull of 1454 granted Prince Henry the Navigator (1394-1460) 'the right, total and absolute, to invade, conquer, and subject all the countries which are under the rule of the enemies of Christ,' adding the missionary charge that these 'perfidious enemies of Christ should be brought into the Catholic fold'.\" Lyle N. McAlister, in Spain and Portugal in the New World (1984), explains the rationale behind the papal bulls of 1452 and 1454, as it was espoused by Cardinal Henry of Susa (d. 1271), better known as Hostiensis: When Christ came into the world, Hostiensis declared, temporal as well as spiritual lordship over all its peoples passed immediately to Him. This faculty he transmitted to His legitimate successors, the bishops of Rome, who came to be called popes. Roman pontiffs, in turn, could delegate lordship over non-Christian lands to a Christian prince, thus conveying a just title to such lands, and, if the inhabitants resisted, a just war could be waged against the recalcitrants. [^2] In Romanus Pontifex, Pope Nicholas V says he has deliberated carefully upon those things which he believes would be agreeable to God (the Divine Majesty), and by means of which he, as pontiff, may successfully bring the infidel sheep entrusted to him by God into the single divine fold, and thereby acquire for them the reward of the Catholic faith and Christian religion. As we shall see below, this is to be carried out by vanquishing and subjecting the infidels. The bull Romanus Pontifex continues: This [effort to bring the sheep entrusted to us. . . into the single divine fold] . . . will more certainly come to pass, through the aid of the Lord [Domino in Latin], if we [the pontiff] bestow suitable favors and special graces on those Catholic kings and princes, who . . . not only restrain the savage excesses of the Saracens and of other infidels . . . but also vanquish [crush] them [the infidels] and their kingdoms and habitations, though situated in the remotest parts [of the world] unknown to us, and subject [dominate] them to their [the monarchs'] own temporal dominion [domination], sparing no labor and expense, in order that those kings and princes, relieved of all obstacles, may be the more animated to the prosecution of so salutary and laudable work [of evangelism]. [emphasis added] The language from Romanus Pontifex illustrates the connection between \"the doctrine of Christian discovery\" and the Theology of Domination. \"Discover\" refers to the sailing expeditions to identify what Pope Nicholas V called those \"remote parts of the world\" where non-Christian peoples (\"infidels\") were living and where Christian domination had not yet been imposed. The pope's language expresses an intention to \"subject\" the infidels to the temporal domination (\"dominio\" in the Latin text) of the Portuguese monarchy. The language of Romanus Pontifex provides strong evidence that the Holy See at that time believed that the doctrine of Christian discovery and domination was intrinsic to \"the teaching of the Catholic Church.\" Additional Content from the Vatican's March 30th Statement on the Doctrine of Discovery The Vatican's March 30th statement claims that the \"mandate received from Christ\" causes the Catholic Church to strive to promote \"universal fraternity and respect for the dignity of every human being.\" Again, no historical context for the statement is provided. The statement says \"the Popes\" have worked to uphold that mandate by condemning \"acts of violence, oppression, social injustice and slavery, including those committed against indigenous peoples.\" The phrase \"the Popes have condemned acts of\" makes it seem as if all popes throughout the history of the Catholic Church have condemned such acts. The exception to this assertion would be any popes who encouraged Christians to commit acts of violence and oppression, slavery and social injustice against non-Christian nations and peoples. Pope Nicholas V and his documents Dum Diversas and Romanus Pontifex are glaring examples of such as exception. The Vatican's implied claim that all popes in the history of the Church condemned acts of \"violence, oppression, social injustice and slavery\" is patently ridiculous and demonstrably false given Nicholas's papal directive to King Alfonso V of Portugal in Romanus Pontifex. In fact, by using language from the 1452 papal bull Dum Diversas, Nicholas V exhorted the Portuguese king to send his representatives to the western coast of Africa in order \"to invade, capture, vanquish, and subdue\" all non-Christians, \"to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery\" and \"take away all their possessions and property.\" In the aforementioned Kings or People, Reinhold Bendix continues: \"Portugal had pioneered this expansion [of domination], but soon the other European powers vied with Portugal for commercial supremacy on the high seas and in overseas settlement. Westward expansion [of domination] to the Americas also began from the Iberian peninsula.\" (p. 255) Thus we see evidence of papal advocacy in favor of acts of violence, oppression, injustice, and slavery against non-Christian nations and peoples. The papal bulls of 1493 also express patterns of domination that were carried to the Western Hemisphere and to other areas of the globe, as illustrated in our discussion of Point 6 below. Point 3 of the Vatican statement says: \"[R]espect for the facts of history demands an acknowledgment of the human weakness and failings of Christ's disciples in every generation. Many Christians have committed evil acts against indigenous peoples for which recent Popes have asked forgiveness on numerous occasions.\" The category \"Christ's disciples\" includes the popes who called for the domination of non-Christian Indigenous nations and peoples. It is a massive trivialization to say that the language directing Christian monarchs to establish domination over non-Christians is merely evidence of \"human weakness\" and \"failings.\" Point 4 of the Vatican statement reads: \"In our own day, a renewed dialogue with indigenous peoples, especially with those [indigenous people] who profess the Catholic Faith, has helped the Church to understand better their [indigenous] values and cultures. With their help, the Church has acquired a greater awareness of their sufferings, past and present, due to the [papally sanctioned] expropriation [domination] of their lands, which they consider a sacred gift from God and their ancestors...\" In contrast to our insertion of clarifying words here, the Vatican statement does not acknowledge that some popes sanctioned the expropriation of Indigenous peoples and their lands. Point 4 refers to the \"sufferings\" of Indigenous peoples, resulting from \"policies of forced assimilation [domination], promoted by governmental authorities of the time, [policies which were] intended to eliminate their indigenous cultures\" and to [genocidally eliminate the indigenous peoples themselves]. Point 4 continues: \"As Pope Francis has emphasized, their [Indigenous peoples'] sufferings [brought about by the language of the Vatican papal bulls issued over the course of generations,] constitute a powerful summons to [the Church to] abandon the colonizing mentality and to walk with them side by side, in mutual respect and dialogue, recognizing the rights and cultural values of all individuals and peoples.\" The degree of denial exhibited in the Vatican's March 30th statement does not signal a willingness to be explicit about the consequences of the \"colonizing mentality\" that the Vatican now says needs to be \"abandoned.\" The Vatican Statement goes on to say: \"It is in this context of listening to indigenous peoples that the Church has heard the importance of addressing the concept referred to as the doctrine of discovery.\" As noted above, since 1992 the Indigenous Law Institute has communicated with priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, and with three popes by letter, and with Pope Francis in person, about the idea-patterns and behavioral patterns of domination created by the papal bulls of the fifteenth century. But the Vatican has failed to take seriously and explicitly acknowledge the central and crucial aspect of our analysis. The Vatican claims their statement is an effort to \"walk with\" indigenous peoples \"side by side,\" in \"mutual respect and dialogue.\" Yet the Vatican has declined to adopt Steven Newcomb's well-documented terminology of domination in its March 30 statement even one time. Point 4 ends by stating: \"In this regard, the Church is committed to accompany indigenous peoples and to foster efforts aimed at promoting reconciliation and healing.\" Note that the word \"reconciliation\" is a term of art in Catholic theology. It refers to a ceremony of restoration of a person's relationship with the Church. It implies that there was an original beneficial relationship between a person and the Church that can be restored. By using that word in its statement, the Vatican is implying that the invading colonizers had a beneficial relationship with the original nations that fell apart and needs to be \"restored.\" But authentic healing must be premised on a candid reckoning with past patterns of destruction in the papal bulls which continue to afflict us in the present. Point 5 of the Vatican statement reads: \"It in this context of listening to indigenous peoples that the Church has heard the importance of addressing the concept referred to as the 'doctrine of discovery'.\" Notice how the Vatican continues to make it seem as if the concept of \"discovery\" is the important issue that Indigenous nations and peoples have been calling for the Holy See to address. In actuality, what we have been wanting to discuss and address with the Vatican is the claim of a right of domination expressed in the Vatican papal bulls that has been extended throughout the world. The Vatican's statement attempts to draw the reader's attention away from the Holy See with the following words: \"The legal concept of 'discovery' was debated by colonial powers from the sixteenth century onward and found particular expression in the nineteenth century jurisprudence of courts in several countries . . .\" A discerning eye will notice that this focus on the sixteenth century avoids the fifteenth century, which is when the papal bulls in question were issued that sanctioned what happened in the sixteenth. This makes it seem as if the Catholic Church was not one of the \"colonial powers.\" Additionally, it was Catholic theologians who debated the significance of the Native identity. Point 6 of the statement begins: \"The 'doctrine of discovery' is not part of the teaching of the Catholic Church.\" This assertion has been partly dealt with above at the outset of this analysis, and in the paragraph above. Let us now add some text from the papal bull Inter Caetera issued by Pope Alexander VI, dated May 4, 1493 to show the theme of domination found in other papal bulls: Among other works well pleasing to the Divine Majesty [God] and cherished of our heart, this assuredly ranks highest, that in our times especially the Catholic faith and Christian religion be exalted and be everywhere increased and spread, that the health of souls be cared for [through baptism] and that barbarous nations be overthrown [forced under domination] and brought to the faith itself. . . . [W]e therefore are rightly led, and hold it as our duty, to grant you . . . those things whereby . . . you may be enabled for the honor of God and the spread of the Christian rule [domination] to carry forward your holy and praiseworthy purpose so pleasing to immortal God. We have indeed learned that you . . for a long time had intended to seek out and discover certain islands and mainlands remote and unknown and not hitherto discovered by others, to the end that you might bring to the worship of our Redeemer and the profession of the Catholic faith their residents and inhabitants . . .[Y]ou have purposed with the favor of [God's] divine clemency to bring under your sway [domination] the said mainlands and islands with their residents and inhabitants and to bring them to the Catholic faith. Commending in the Lord this your holy and praiseworthy purpose, and desirous that it be duly accomplished, and that the name of our Savior be carried into those regions, we exhort you very earnestly to the Lord and by your reception of holy baptism, whereby you are bound by our apostolic commands, and by the bowels of the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, enjoin strictly, that . . . you purpose also . . . to lead the people dwelling in those islands and countries to embrace the Christian religion. . . [W]e, of our own accord, . . . out of the fullness of our apostolic power, by the Authority of Almighty God conferred upon us in blessed Peter and of the vicarship of Jesus Christ, which we hold on earth, do by tenor of these presents,  . . . give, grant, and assign to you and your heirs and successors, kings of Castile and Leon, forever, together with all their dominions, cities, camps, places, and villages, with all rights, jurisdictions, and appurtenances, all islands and mainlands, found and to be found, discovered and to be discovered. . . European Treaties, 1917, [pp. 75-77] Point 6 of the Vatican statement asserts: \"Historical research clearly demonstrates that the papal documents in question, written in a specific historical period and linked to political questions, have never been considered expressions of the Catholic faith. At the same time, the Church acknowledges that these papal bulls did not adequately reflect the equal dignity and rights of indigenous peoples.\" The Vatican statement fails to say what historical research it is referencing as the basis for the above assertion. It seems strange for the Vatican to claim that the papal documents of the fifteenth century are not \"expressions of the Catholic faith.\" We have quoted above many examples of the Catholic faith in the \"Divine Majesty\" and \"Almighty God\" being invoked in those documents. Faith may be understood as having \"complete trust or confidence in someone or something\"; in the papal bull of May 4, 1493 we find a sentence that is an expression of the Catholic faith: \"We trust [confidentes, in Latin] in Him from whom empires and dominations and all good things proceed.\" An expression of faith or confidence in the deity of the Catholic Church (\"Him\") is certainly an expression of Catholic faith. In this language we see the assertion by Pope Alexander VI that the Deity of the Catholic Church is the source or origin of empires and dominations and \"all good things\" (wealth and power) that result from empires and dominations, such as the 177 million acres of land and incalculable wealth in the possession of the Vatican as a result of the fifteenth century papal bulls. Point 6 of the statement continues: \"The Church is also aware that the contents of these documents [of domination] were manipulated for political purposes by competing colonial powers in order to justify immoral acts against indigenous peoples, that were carried out, at times, [for centuries], without opposition from ecclesiastical authorities. It is only just to recognize these errors, acknowledge the terrible effects of [the Holy See's papal bulls of domination, as well as] the assimilation policies and the pain experienced by indigenous peoples, and ask for pardon [for the Church oppressing them for centuries].\" Point 6 states: \"Furthermore, Pope Francis has urged 'Never again can the Christian community allow itself to be infected by the idea that one culture is superior to others, or that it is legitimate to employ ways of coercing others' [in keeping with the patterns of domination found in the papal bulls].\" There is also no mention or disavowal of \"the idea that one religion is superior to others.\" Point 7 of the statement reads: \"In no uncertain terms, the Church's magisterium upholds the respect due to every human being. The Catholic [Universal] Church therefore repudiates those concepts that fail to recognize the inherent human rights of indigenous peoples, including what has become known as the legal and political 'doctrine of discovery'.\" This implies that the Church's magisterium has always upheld \"the respect due to every human being,\" which is obviously contradicted by the Holy See declarations that non-Christian \"pagan\" and \"infidel\" peoples are to be invaded, captured, vanquished, and subdued, reduced to perpetual slavery, so that all their possessions and property could be plundered and stripped from them, and expropriated by the Christian world. Point 8 of the statement reads: \"Numerous and repeated statements by the Church and the Popes uphold the rights of indigenous peoples. For example, in the 1537 bull Sublimus Deus, Pope Paul III wrote: 'We define and declare [...] that [...] the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the Christian faith; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and possessions and property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect'.\" While the Vatican had no difficulty quoting the positive language from the papal bull Sublimis Deus, the March 30, 2023, statement does not include any quote from the language of domination found in the earlier papal bulls. The Vatican statement also fails to include the fact that the Sublimis Deus was revoked under pressure from Spanish Emperor, Charles V. In the book Red Man's Land, White Man's Law (1971), Wilcomb Washburn quotes the papal bull Sublimis Deusissued by Pope Paul II in 1537. In part the language states that the Indians are to be considered \"truly men and that they are not only capable of understanding the Catholic Faith but, according our information, they desire exceedingly to receive it.\" That declaration was in keeping with Matthew 28:18-20, to make disciples of all nations and baptize them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Washburn then states: \"It was a noble try but to little avail. Emperor Charles ordered confiscated and returned to the Council of the Indies all copies of the bull that might have found their way to the New World. At the same time he [the Emperor] prevailed upon the Pope, ten days later, to revoke the bull. Minaya, [the Dominican priest who appealed to Pope Paul III to issue a papal bull favorable to the Indians], was imprisoned for failing to go through proper channels, was thrown in prison by the general of the Dominican order.\" (p. 13) The pope removed all ecclesiastical penalties associated with Sublimis Deus, such as excommunication and interdict. Papal Bulls Invoked in 1680 by the Spanish Crown in the Compilation of the Laws of the Indies The papal bull Sublimis Deus did not revoke the earlier papal bulls from the fifteenth century, which were made by Pope Alexander VI, for example, \"en perpetua\" (eternally or forever). In A Violent Evangelism (1992), Dr. Luis Rivera-Pagán points to the 1680 Compilation of the Leyes de Indias [Laws of the Indies], produced one hundred forty-three years after the papal bull of 1537. Rivera-Pagán states: \"In the juridical area, the Alexandrine bulls maintained their authorized character, as shown by the first sentence in the first law of the first chapter of the third book of 'the Compilation of the Leyes de Indias' (1680), which recognizes them [the papal bulls of 1493] as the first foundation for the possession in perpetuity of the Americas by the Crown of Castilla.\" (emphasis added) If those bulls had been abrogated or revoked by the papal bull of 1537, there would be no basis upon which the Spanish crown could continue to invoke them: \"By donation from the Apostolic Holy See . . . we are Lord of the Western Idies, isles and mainlands of the Ocean Sea, discovered and to be discovered and incorporated into our Royal Crown of Castile . . . [so that] they may always remain united for their greater perpetuity and firmness, we forbid them being taken away.\"... \"This law,\" says Dr. Luis Rivera-Pagan, \"is based on consecutive royal declarations by Carlos V and Philip II, who during the sixteenth century propounded the doctrine of Castilian dominion [domination] in perpetuity over the Ibero-American peoples. All those declarations alluded to the Alexandrian bulls as the crucial point of reference.\" [^3] Point 9 of the statement reads: \"More recently, the Church's solidarity with indigenous peoples has given rise to the Holy See's strong support for the principles contained in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. The implementation of those principles would improve their living conditions and help protect the rights of indigenous peoples as well as facilitate their development in a way that respects their identity, language, and culture.\" Unfortunately, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples itself does not explicitly and thoroughly address the system of domination that is being used against Indigenous nations and peoples. Conclusion Today Indigenous nations and peoples live with the psychological and other forms of wreckage brought about by the fifteenth-century Vatican documents issued by various popes. How many nations and peoples are no longer existing as a result of those documents? How many languages, evolved over thousands and thousands of years by the ancestors of original nations and peoples, are no longer existing as a result of those destructive documents? How many acres and hectares of land of the original (Indigenous) nations and peoples are now under the claim of a right of domination as a result of those papal bulls? The number of potential questions regarding all of the torment and abuse and suffering caused by the legacy of those documents is staggering. The Vatican March 30, 2023 statement on the Doctrine of Discovery heightens awareness of the roots of the patterns of domination found in the Vatican papal bulls that were adopted into United States law in the 1823 U.S. Supreme Court ruling Johnson and Graham's Lessee v. McIntosh, two hundred years ago this year. Evidence of those religious domination patterns is found in the distinction made in the Johnson ruling by Chief Justice John Marshall between \"Christian people\" and \"natives, who were heathens,\" and in his claim of United States \"ultimate dominion\" [domination]\" over \"heathen\" Native nations and their lands. The U.S. Supreme Court has made the 15th century claims of a right of domination foundational to U.S. federal anti-Indian law and policy, and the claim of the \"plenary power\" of Congress over \"Indians.\" This must be changed if there is to be any rightful relationship between the descendants of the colonizers and Indigenous nations and peoples today. The patterns of domination that were unleashed on the planet by means of the Vatican documents have had devastating consequences that have been manifested in, for example, the theft and kidnapping of our children from their loved ones and families, as well as murdered and missing Indigenous women, the expropriation of our lands and waters, the destruction of our original free existence by robbing us of our liberty and forcing us under a system of domination, the poisoning of our lands, waters, air, and our bloodstreams with toxic chemicals, the attempt to intentionally kill our languages (i.e., Linguicide), intentionally teaching the abuse of women and children, the destruction and desecration of our Sacred and Significant Places, to name just some of the ways in which the Holy See's papal bulls of the fifteenth century have destructively impacted and continue to destructively impact our original nations and peoples. How much land of our original nations does the Vatican currently hold as \"property\" throughout the Western Hemisphere? Every acre [or hectare] of land in the Western hemisphere that is in the possession of the Vatican and the Catholic Church is a result of the papal decrees of the fifteenth century that we are talking about here. If the Vatican is sincere, let's talk about its land holdings, how the church got ahold of all that land of Indigenous nations and peoples, and how much of their claim of a right of domination they are willing to pull back. [^1]: Anghie, Imperialism, Sovereignty, and the Making of International Law, p. 27, https://kingdomofhawaii.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/anghie-imperialism-sovereignity-and-the-making-of-international-law.pdf#page=49 [^2]: McAlister, Spain and Portugal in the New World, p. 52, https://ratical.org/manyworlds/StevenNewcomb/Spain+PortugalInNewWorld-McAlister.pdf#page=79 [^3]: Luis Rivera-Pagán, A Violent Evangelism, p. 32, https://archive.org/details/violentevangelis0000rive/page/32/mode/2up?q=authorized+ We at the ILI, in solidarity with Original Nations and Peoples, will continue to call upon the Holy See to not simply \"renounce\" the \"doctrine\" inherent in the papal bulls, but to revoke the papal bulls themselves. We do this as part of our effort to publicize and challenge the patterns of domination globally and to challenge the patterns of domination expressed in the Johnson v. McIntosh ruling and in other legal decisions that are based on Johnson into the 21st century.",
    "externalUrl": "https://originalfreenations.com/revoke-the-papal-bulls-our-response-to-the-vaticans-march-30-statement-on-the-doctrine-of-discovery/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/s05e04/",
    "title": "S06E04: Washington Said Burn The Corn and New Yorkers Brought Surveyors",
    "publishedAt": "2026-02-14T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Travis Bowman and Matthew Zembo trace New York’s 1779 campaigns and the deliberate dispossession of Haudenosaunee — scorched-corn tactics, falsified intelligence, and land grabs used to clear Iroquoia for settlement.",
    "tags": [
      "theology",
      "religion",
      "domination",
      "christian-nationalism",
      "podcast",
      "sloan",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // → Subscribe Introduction Travis Bowman and Matthew Zembo join Lisa Moore to expose how military strategy, political will, and intentional misinformation during the Revolutionary era were used to dispossess the Haudenosaunee. Far from defensive reprisals, the 1779 campaigns and related actions show a coordinated effort to destroy crops, erase settlements, and manufacture legal and military pretexts to take land. Key takeaways Wartime violence was used opportunistically to remove Indigenous communities and secure land for settlement. Reports and intelligence were manipulated to justify raids and scorched-earth tactics. The destruction of food supplies and villages was aimed at eroding tribal cohesion and forcing dispossession. Resources Bowman, Travis M. Clearing Iroquoia: New York’s Land Grab in the 1779 Campaigns of the American Revolution. With Matthew A. Zembo and Michael Galban, Lexington Books/Fortress Academic, 2025. Credits Music: Onondaga Social Dance songs performed by Orris Edwards and Regis Cook Producers: Jordan Loewen-Colón; Adam DJ Brett; Crow Richardson Show notes: Adam DJ Brett Citation Lisa Moore, \"S06E04 - Washington Said Burn The Corn and New Yorkers Brought Surveyors\" Mapping the Doctrine of Discovery (Podcast), 2026-01-29. .",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay3/s6e4/",
    "externalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/season6/episode-04/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/s06e03/",
    "title": "S6E03: How Rethinking God, Gender, And Nature Can Heal A Burning World",
    "publishedAt": "2026-01-27T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "With Kim Carfore we trace how dominionist readings of Genesis 1:28 fueled the Doctrine of Discovery witch burnings and modern domination systems then pull forward correctives from multiple wells Haudenosaunee wisdom.",
    "tags": [
      "law",
      "religion",
      "theology",
      "podcast",
      "ecotheology",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "In this episode, Kimberly Carfore explores ecofeminist theology and its connections to the Doctrine of Discovery, examining how dominionist interpretations of Genesis 1:28 enabled centuries of exploitation from witch burnings to Indigenous land theft, while drawing on Haudenosaunee fire stewardship practices and creation stories to propose healing alternatives that replace theological dominion with mutual care, ultimately envisioning \"Earth as Mother God\" as a framework for reorienting Christianity toward holistic relationships with the natural world.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay3/s6e3/",
    "externalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/season6/episode-03/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/s06e05/",
    "title": "S06E05: The Sloan Lecture - The Oneidas, the Best Land, and the Erie Canal - By Susan Brewer",
    "publishedAt": "2026-02-15T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Susan Brewer traces the history of the ‘best land’ in Madison County and the dispossession of the Oneida Nation during the construction of the Erie Canal.",
    "tags": [
      "theology",
      "religion",
      "domination",
      "christian-nationalism",
      "podcast",
      "sloan",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // → Subscribe Introduction Susan Brewer (Sloan Lecture) traces the history of the \"best land\" — a tract in Madison County, New York — and the ways state actors, private intermediaries, and market forces dispossessed the Oneida Nation as New York built the Erie Canal. Key themes The \"best land\" sits on historic Oneida territory and became central to canal-era speculation. The Erie Canal's celebration as innovation obscures the legal and coercive methods used to acquire Indigenous land. Historical narratives erased Oneida presence while honoring settlers who profited from dispossession. Resources Brewer, Susan A. The Best Land: Four Hundred Years of Love and Betrayal on Oneida Territory. Cornell University Press, 2024. Credits Music: Onondaga Social Dance songs performed by Orris Edwards and Regis Cook Producers: Jordan Loewen-Colón; Adam DJ Brett; Crow Richardson Show notes: Adam DJ Brett Citation Philip P. Arnold and Sandra Bigtree, \"06E06: Brewer - Sloan Lecture- The Oneidas, the Best Land, and the Erie Canal - By Susan Brewer\" Mapping the Doctrine of Discovery (Podcast), 2026-02-01. .",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay3/s6e5/",
    "externalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/season6/episode-05/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/s06e06/",
    "title": "S06E06: Sacred Waters: Trauma of the Erie Canal",
    "publishedAt": "2026-02-15T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Jake Haiwhagai’i Edwards and Philip P. Arnold discuss how the Erie Canal’s construction disrupted Haudenosaunee watersheds and produced lasting environmental and cultural trauma.",
    "tags": [
      "theology",
      "religion",
      "domination",
      "christian-nationalism",
      "podcast",
      "sloan",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // → Subscribe Introduction Jake Haiwhagai’i Edwards and Dr. Philip P. Arnold examine the ecological and cultural consequences of the Erie Canal for Haudenosaunee peoples. Water is sacred in Haudenosaunee cosmology; canal construction re-engineered watersheds, damaged relationships to place, and contributed to long-term trauma. Resources Arnold, Philip P. The Urgency of Indigenous Values. Syracuse University Press, 2023. Credits Music: Onondaga Social Dance songs performed by Orris Edwards and Regis Cook Producers: Jordan Loewen-Colón; Adam DJ Brett; Crow Richardson Show notes: Adam DJ Brett Citation Philip P. Arnold and Sandra Bigtree, \"S06E06: Sacred Waters: Trauma of the Erie Canal with Jake Edwards\" Mapping the Doctrine of Discovery (Podcast), 2026-01-31. .",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay3/s6e6/",
    "externalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/season6/episode-06/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/s06e07/",
    "title": "New Episode: Matthew Boedy on the Seven Mountains Mandate and the Threat to Democracy",
    "publishedAt": "2026-02-16T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "In our latest podcast episode, author Matthew Boedy exposes how the Seven Mountains Mandate and Turning Point USA are actively reshaping American politics through Christian nationalism.",
    "tags": [
      "theology",
      "religion",
      "domination",
      "christian-nationalism",
      "podcast",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "Our latest episode of the Mapping the Doctrine of Discovery Podcast is now live, and it's one you won't want to miss. Hosts Philip P. Arnold and Sandy Bigtree sit down with Matthew Boedy, author of the timely new book The Seven Mountains Mandate: Exposing the Dangerous Plan to Christianize America and Destroy Democracy, to unpack a powerful and often overlooked movement reshaping American politics. About the Guest Matthew Boedy is an associate professor of rhetoric and composition at the University of North Georgia. His scholarship explores the intersections of religion, politics, and public discourse---making him uniquely positioned to analyze the rhetoric and ideology driving Christian nationalism today. What You'll Learn In this episode, Boedy breaks down the Seven Mountains Mandate––a movement within certain Christian circles that seeks dominion over seven key spheres of American society: government, education, media, arts and entertainment, religion, family, and business. He traces its historical roots, its connections to the Doctrine of Discovery, and its alarming implications for democracy and Indigenous sovereignty. The conversation also exploresTurning Point USA, the organization founded by Charlie Kirk that has grown from a college student group into a nationwide movement with a $100 million budget. Boedy reveals how TPUSA targets these seven cultural institutions, aiming to replace secular influences with Christian ones. Why This Matters Understanding the Seven Mountains Mandate is essential for anyone concerned about the future of pluralism, religious freedom, and democratic governance in America. This episode connects the dots between dominionist theology, colonization, and modern political agendas---offering critical insight into ongoing threats to Indigenous rights and American democracy. Listen to the full episode →",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay3/s6e7/",
    "externalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/season6/episode-07/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/s06e08-charles-long/",
    "title": "S06E08: Remembering The Teacher: Charles H. Long (Part 1)",
    "publishedAt": "2026-02-23T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Davíd Carrasco and Raymond Carr honor Charles H. Long through memory, archival discovery, and stories that reveal his enduring scholarly and personal legacy.",
    "tags": [
      "theology",
      "religion",
      "domination",
      "christian-nationalism",
      "podcast",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "In this episode of Doctrine of Discovery, Davíd Carrasco and Raymond Carr remember their teacher, Charles H. Long, through stories, laughter, and archival fragments that still carry his voice. The conversation moves from personal recollections at the AAR to the intimate final weeks of Long’s life, when he asked to see the sun, hear the wind, and reconnect with trusted friends. As they screen footage and reflect on the Long papers, the hosts explore how Long resisted easy categorization in both scholarship and life. They examine marked-up journals, underlined passages, and family decisions about preserving his materials, revealing how reading itself became part of his intellectual method. The episode also honors the labor of care behind this archive, including family members and collaborators who documented and protected these moments. Part tribute and part methodological meditation, this first installment invites listeners into an unfolding legacy of thought, memory, and responsibility while setting the stage for deeper conversations in the episodes ahead.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay3/s6e8/",
    "externalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/season6/episode-08/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/s06e09-charles-long-part-2/",
    "title": "S06E09: The Legacy of Charles H. Long Part 2: How & Why White Supremacy Persists",
    "publishedAt": "2026-03-17T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "A conversation on Charles H. Long, the Doctrine of Discovery, whiteness, Indigenous resurgence, womanist critique, and new ways to imagine the human.",
    "tags": [
      "theology",
      "religion",
      "domination",
      "christian-nationalism",
      "podcast",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "In this episode of the Mapping the Doctrine of Discovery podcast, Philip P. Arnold, Natalie Avalos, Teresa Smallwood, Emilie Townes, and Corey D. B. Walker trace how the Doctrine of Discovery moved from papal bulls to U.S. property law while centering Haudenosaunee sovereignty, Indigenous resurgence, and Charles H. Long's call to reimagine the human. The conversation connects colonial law, whiteness, womanist critique, Black Studies, and decolonial repair. Podcast link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/season6/episode-09/",
    "externalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/season6/episode-09/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/s06e10-data-nullius/",
    "title": "S06E10: How Colonial Law Shaped Modern Data Extraction",
    "publishedAt": "2026-05-04T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Jordan Loewen-Colon traces how colonial property law survives in AI systems, data extraction, platform consent, and Indigenous data sovereignty.",
    "tags": [
      "law",
      "technology",
      "data",
      "sovereignty",
      "podcast",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "In this episode of the Mapping the Doctrine of Discovery podcast, Jordan Loewen-Colon traces a genealogy from Roman res nullius and the Doctrine of Discovery to today's data economy. The conversation names Data Nullius as a digital version of colonial erasure that turns attention, behavior, and community knowledge into extractive data, then asks what changes when data is treated as relational responsibility rather than ownerless property. Podcast link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/season6/episode-10/",
    "externalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/season6/episode-10/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/s06e11-earth-is-your-mother/",
    "title": "S06E11: What Changes When Earth Is Your Mother",
    "publishedAt": "2026-06-04T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Haudenosaunee teachings connect ceremony, matrilineal leadership, the Thanksgiving Address, and a living relationship with Mother Earth.",
    "tags": [
      "haudenosaunee",
      "ceremony",
      "mother-earth",
      "governance",
      "podcast",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "In this episode of the Mapping the Doctrine of Discovery podcast, the conversation asks what changes when Earth is not treated as an object, resource, or backdrop, but as Mother. The episode connects Haudenosaunee ceremony, matrilineal governance, the Thanksgiving Address, the Freedom School, and environmental responsibility to a renewed relationship with the living world. Podcast link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/season6/episode-11/",
    "externalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/season6/episode-11/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/s06e12-haudenosaunee-governance/",
    "title": "S06E12: How the Revolutionary War Reshaped Haudenosaunee Governance",
    "publishedAt": "2026-06-05T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Tom Porter discusses how colonization and the Revolutionary War reshaped Mohawk and Haudenosaunee leadership, identity, and survival.",
    "tags": [
      "haudenosaunee",
      "mohawk",
      "governance",
      "decolonization",
      "podcast",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "In this episode of the Mapping the Doctrine of Discovery podcast, Tom Porter discusses how colonization and the Revolutionary War reshaped Mohawk and Haudenosaunee leadership, identity, and survival. The conversation works through decolonization on the ground: restoring trust, practicing restraint, retrieving original instructions without shaming people, and making room for condolence and direct apologies. Podcast link:",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/season6/episode-12/",
    "externalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/season6/episode-12/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/s6e02-theologian-confronts-doctrine-discovery-calls-institutional-repair/",
    "title": "S6E02: A Theologian Confronts the Doctrine of Discovery and Calls for Institutional Repair",
    "publishedAt": "2026-01-23T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Jeannine Hill Fletcher exposes white Christian power and the tactics that cut Indigenous matrilineal ties to steal land",
    "tags": [
      "law",
      "religion",
      "theology",
      "podcast",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "In this episode, Jeannine Hill Fletcher confronts how white Christian institutions cultivated racial hierarchy—through indoctrination, forced conversion, marriage policies, and inherited land theft—to sever Indigenous matrilineal bonds and dismantle ties to land, arguing that justice demands reckoning with those systems and our complicity, as explored in her works Grace of the Ghosts: A Theology of Institutional Reparation and The Sin of White Supremacy: Christianity, Racism, and Religious Diversity in America.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay3/s6e2/",
    "externalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/season6/episode-02/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/the-haudenosaunee-great-binding-peace/",
    "title": "THE HAUDENOSAUNEE (IROQUOIS) GREAT BINDING PEACE",
    "publishedAt": "2025-09-02T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "What kind of worldview or religious orientation does it take to make an entire planet uninhabitable? While many think it is our dependence on fossil fuels and the population explosion that has brought us to this point of human destruction, our contention is that these problems have religious foundations which were created and continue to be used by empires as a means to hold dominion over people and the Earth. Opposition to this path of selfdestruction is something Indigenous Peoples have been trying to communicate since first contact, to not jeopardize their traditions of regenerative reciprocity which had thrived for tens of thousands of years.",
    "tags": [
      "law",
      "religion",
      "values",
      "environment",
      "featured",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/ecozoic/essay1/haudenosaunee-great-binding-peace/",
    "externalUrl": "https://fore.yale.edu/sites/default/files/NER.N9_Text_and-Covers.Final_.Web%20Version.pdf"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/link/urgency-of-indigenous-values-interview/",
    "title": "A Conversation on the Urgency of Indigenous Values",
    "publishedAt": "2025-08-31T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "A CONVERSATION WITH PHILIP P. ARNOLD AND VICTOR TAYLOR ON THE URGENCY OF INDIGENOUS VALUES",
    "tags": [
      "law",
      "religion",
      "values",
      "environment",
      "featured",
      "blog",
      "link"
    ],
    "textContent": "In short, neither this book nor the Skä·noñh—Great Law of Peace Center would have been possible without the groundbreaking work of Charles Long and the History of Religions. My wife Sandy Bigtree and I were introduced to Professor Long in the early 1980s in Boulder, Colorado where I was working for Davíd Carrasco in the Mesoamerican Archive and Research Project. I was very young and enthusiastic, but Long put me on a path to working collaboratively with Indigenous peoples by using ideas like sacred space, hierophany, and ceremonial gift exchange. The difference between Mircea Eliade and Charles Long, however, was the important elements settler-colonialism that always frame and interject themselves into our academic methodologies. First, this book addresses Long’s ideas by integrating a collaborative method, which is derived from the first formal agreement between the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) and European settlers called the Two Row Wampum. This was a co-habitation agreement between what we would now characterize as between Indigenous and settler-colonial people. It has been systematically violated since it was struck in Albany, New York in 1613. Second, “religion” is problematized as consistently used as a weapon against Indigenous Peoples. This is mapped with respect to the Doctrine of Christian Discovery, where a series of papal bulls from the Vatican are written between the 14th and 16th centuries to justify the enslavement, and seizure of lands and goods by Christian explorers when they encounter non-Christians.",
    "externalUrl": "https://jcrt.org/archives/23.2/Arnold.pdf"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/luce-reflections/",
    "title": "Insights and Reflections from Syracuse University's Conference on the Religious Origins of White Supremacy",
    "publishedAt": "2024-01-16T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "As I reflected on the discussions, I realized that without action, valuable Indigenous knowledge becomes an extracted resource often at the benefit of non-Indigenous People. In addition, solutions to problems in Indigenous communities are often prescribed to Indigenous People by the exact colonial institutions that have historically oppressed and extracted from our community and created such harmful situations in the first place. While listening to and learning about Indigenous communities is essential, so is acting alongside the leadership of community leaders willing to teach and have these conversations.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "event",
      "Conference",
      "press",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "As I reflected on the discussions, I realized that without action, valuable Indigenous knowledge becomes an extracted resource often at the benefit of non-Indigenous People. In addition, solutions to problems in Indigenous communities are often prescribed to Indigenous People by the exact colonial institutions that have historically oppressed and extracted from our community and created such harmful situations in the first place. While listening to and learning about Indigenous communities is essential, so is acting alongside the leadership of community leaders willing to teach and have these conversations.",
    "externalUrl": "https://www.hluce.org/news/articles/insights-and-reflections-from-syracuse-universitys-conference-on-the-religious-origins-of-white-supremacy/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/manifest-destiny/",
    "title": "Manifest Destiny",
    "publishedAt": "2023-03-23T07:54:46Z",
    "description": "Manifest Destiny is a nineteenth-century term designating an expansionist ideology grounded in the Doctrine of Christian Discovery and republican ideals that shaped the westward development of the United States through legal, religious, military, educational, and other cultural, structural, and systemic means; its effects are present in the twenty-first century.",
    "tags": [
      "law",
      "religion",
      "Christianity",
      "Manifest-Destiny",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Manifest Destiny is a nineteenth-century term designating an expansionist ideology grounded in the Doctrine of Christian Discovery and republican ideals that shaped the westward development of the United States through legal, religious, military, educational, and other cultural, structural, and systemic means; its effects are present in the twenty-first century. American lawyer and author John L. O'Sullivan promoted the ideology of \"Manifest Destiny\" twice in 1845 to justify U.S. expansion; on 27 December 1845, he wrote: Away, away with all these cobweb tissues of right of discovery, exploration, settlement, continuity, &c.... were the respective cases and arguments > of the two parties as to all these points of history and law, reversed---had England all ours, and we nothing but hers---our claim to Oregon would still be best and strongest. And that claim is by the right of our manifest destiny to overspread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federated self-government entrusted to us. (as quoted in Miller 2011, 338) In this editorial from New York Morning News, O'Sullivan urges readers to transcend the Doctrine of Christian Discovery (DoCD) principles of first discovery, settlement, etc., and he asks readers to embrace the uniquely Euro-American God-given right to possess the continent, to civilize it, and to spread liberty. As Natsu Taylor Saito (2010) writes, this project \"required the constant reinforcement of the racialized differentiation of Others being encountered and the presumption, embodied in the Constitution and the earliest U.S. laws, that to be American was to be 'white'\" (107). Some students, when asked, have claimed that they were taught that Manifest Destiny is a positive dimension of U.S. history because it allowed the country to \"progress\" and to become what it is today; furthermore, many students have never learned about the DoCD that existed in the background as the supporting assumption and legal foundation. While they are separate concepts, however, Manifest Destiny and the DoCD are intimately connected. The underlying values and principles shaping the DoCD set the foundation for Manifest Destiny; as encountered above, Manifest Destiny was a specifically U.S. phenomenon emerging and set within a determined geographical area with clear socio-political goals, while the DoCD was (and still is) international law with broader implications to mitigate conflicts between Christian European nations regarding land acquisition (Miller 2011; Newcomb 1992-1993). Just like the DoCD, Manifest Destiny lends itself to injustices that continue to harm Indigenous nations and peoples today, and this is important to recognize, discuss, and respond to in an effort to promote diversity, justice, and sovereignty in relation to the United States, whether internally or externally. Before O'Sullivan coined the term \"Manifest Destiny,\" international law had been guiding European explorers and settlers as they entered the Caribbean, South America, and North America (as we call the land masses today). This international law had its basis in religious proclamations from various popes; in other words, this international law was Christian International Law for European Christian nations, and it was grounded in the idea of Christian and European cultural supremacy (Miller 2011; Newcomb 1992-1993). For example, an important part of this history was a pronouncement from Pope Innocent III (1199), which made those who rejected Christ's message less than human and open to possible violent treatment and means of conversion. Also, Pope Boniface VIII (1302) made the pronouncement that salvation comes only through the Church, and the Church became the supreme authority for all salvation and well-being. Then, Pope Nicholas V (1455) and Pope Alexander VI (1493) authorized the seizing of non-Christian lands, and through this combination of proclamations the right to spread the faith and to subdue any enemies of the faith emerged. Through these papal documents, colonization and slavery gained an ideological foothold through the ideas of religious and cultural superiority, which would gain further justification from beliefs in racial superiority. (For those who are interested in exploring the Christian literature of justification for domination, see the following website for an introduction: The Literature on Justification) From these and other papal pronouncements came a set of international legal principles that helped to diminish conflicts between exploring Christian European nations, such as (1) the right of first discovery to claim non-Christian lands, (2) the actual occupancy, possession, and use of non-Christian lands, (3) the diminishment of Indigenous title to land and sovereignty, (4) the right to contiguous land surrounding the discovered land, (4) Christian supremacy, (4) European superiority, and (5) preemption, or the right of the discovering nation to trade with Indigenous nations and the right to exclude other nations from doing so (Miller 2011, 329-336). What is clear from this history is that the development of this international law was done without consultation with Indigenous peoples and other non-Europeans. Interestingly from 1500-1600, an estimated 75 million people lived in Europe, but the global population was approximately 500 million (UN World Population), which means approximately 15% of the world's European population was making unilateral decisions based on religious and cultural supremacy for the rest of the world and codifying it as Christian International Law (Newcomb 1992). The use of Christian International Law led to the colonizing foothold in North America, which provided enough security for settler independence and the consequent founding of the United States. Before the term \"Manifest Destiny\" was in use, many of the colonial leaders and the new political leaders in the United States already were speaking in terms harmonious with its expansionist values and principles shaped by the DoCD (Miller 2019). For example, in The Federalist (1788) number 14, James Madison argues for an extended republic to cover a larger geographic territory: \"It is, that in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy consequently will be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a larger region\" (60). This builds on his earlier argument in number 10: \"The two great points of difference between a Democracy and a Republic are, first, the delegation of the Government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended\" (44). In both passages, the desire for expansion through the establishment of an institutionalized government is present, and regarding the frontier of this new republic, Alexander Hamilton writes in number 24 that \"the savage tribes on our western frontier ought to be regarded as our natural enemies...\" (113). Where else would the expansion of the republic be but into the lands of the enemy? An attitude of enmity supported the push for removal or displacement alongside the belief in the inevitable extermination or demise of Indigenous peoples, all of which is present in President Andrew Jackson's second annual message to Congress on 6 December 1830: Humanity has often wept over the fate of the aborigines of this country, and philanthropy has been long busily employed in devising means to avert it, but its progress has never for a moment been arrested, and one by one have many powerful tribes disappeared from the earth. To follow to the tomb the last of his race and to tread on the graves of extinct nations excite melancholy reflections. But true philanthropy reconciles the mind to these vicissitudes as it does to the extinction of one generation to make room for another. In the monuments and fortresses of an unknown people, spread over the extensive regions of the West, we behold the memorials of a once powerful race, which was exterminated or has disappeared to make room for the existing savage tribes. Nor is there anything in this which, upon a comprehensive view of the general interests of the human race, is to be regretted. Philanthropy could not wish to see this continent restored to the conditions in which it was found by our forefathers. What good man would prefer a country covered with forests and ranged by a few thousand savages to our extensive Republic, studded with cities, towns, and prosperous farms, embellished with all the improvements which art can devise or industry execute, occupied by more than 12,000,000 happy people, and filled with all the blessings of liberty, civilization, and religion? Jackson sees the demise of Indigenous peoples as inevitable progress, and it would be folly to wish to return the land to how it was found by the first European settlers, for now the land has been improved through the civilizing \"blessings of liberty, civilization, and religion.\" Not only does Jackson have the strong desire to expand across the continent, but he clearly believes that the United States is superior because of its civilization and political liberties. For those in ascendency should be grateful for their lofty place in the forward march of history, while others are left behind and rightfully become a memory. This is Manifest Destiny in the making. This is, indeed, how Thomas Jefferson saw the racial, cultural progress playing out in North America as he explained it in a letter to William Ludlow on 6 September 1824: The idea which you present in your letter of July 30 of the progress of society from its rudest state to that it has now attained seems conformable to what may be probably conjectured. Indeed we have under our eyes tolerable proofs of it. Let a philosophic observer commence a journey from the savages of the Rocky Mountains, eastwardly towards our seacoast. These he would observe in the earliest stage of association living under no law but that of nature, subsisting and covering themselves with the flesh and skins of wild beasts. He would next find those on our frontiers in the pastoral state, raising domestic animals to supply the defects of hunting. Then succeed our own semi-barbarous citizens, the pioneers of the advance of civilization, and so in his progress he would meet the gradual shades of improving man until he would reach his, as yet, most improved state in our seaport towns. This, in fact, is equivalent to a survey, in time, of the progress of man from the infancy of creation to the present day. With little hesitation, many Euro-Americans assumed that their religion, culture, race, and political institutions were superior to the Indigenous peoples in North America. Falsely imagined or described, Indigenous peoples existed in a state of nature with no true political structures, and they were valued as inferior when compared to the elevated status of their Christian, European counterparts. The superior must displace the inferior; this idea is present across presidential speeches and letters to writings by Supreme Court justices (for example, see Book I, \"History of the Colonies,\" by Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States from 1833 or the Johnson v. McIntosh decision from 1823 for clear language of cultural, racial, and religious superiority: (Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States); for an interesting commentary covering these sources, see Steven T. Newcomb's article) While Manifest Destiny emerged in the 1800s and focused on \"the belief the United States has some unique moral virtues other countries do not possess,\" \"the idea the United States has a mission to redeem the world by spreading republican government and the American way of life around the globe,\" and that \"the United States has a divinely ordained destiny to accomplish these tasks\" (Miller 2011, 332), its effects have not been contained to the nineteenth century (Saito 2010). For example, Manifest Destiny's values clearly influenced the boarding schools that have left Indigenous families with lasting intergenerational trauma; a perfect example of this is found in Merril E. Gates's address at the Proceedings of the Board of Indian Commissioners on 7 October 1891: Therefore, it seems to me that there are two points which we want to keep constantly before us during this Conference. First, the time for fighting the Indian tribes is passed. There may be Indian riots to be quelled: let us have no more Indian \"wars.\" We do believe in a standing army; but it should be an army of Christian school-teachers! That is the army that is going to win the victory. We are going to conquer barbarism; but we are going to do it by getting at the barbarians one by one. We are going to do it by that conquest of the individual man, woman, and child which leads to the truest civilization. We are going to conquer the Indians by a standing army of school-teachers armed with ideas, winning victories by industrial training, and by the gospel of love and the gospel of work. (For this speech, see Barrows.) Not only had spending on \"educating\" Indigenous children increased from $20,000 in 1877 to $2,936,080 in 1900, but the number of children affected increased from 3,598 in 1877 to 21,568 in 1900. By 1926, approximately 86% of Indigenous children within the borders of the United States had been affected by the boarding-school system (Adams 1995, 21-27). This has had lasting effects on family life and relationships that continue to this day, so the emergence of Manifest Destiny in the 1800s and the institutionalization of its values and principles continue to affect Indigenous nations and peoples today through intergenerational trauma and lasting disruptions to families, ceremonies, and languages. From a slightly different perspective, the lasting effects of Manifest Destiny are evident today. Charles Mills (1999) is a philosopher who focused on the racial contract, which is a subset of the domination contract. Political philosophers have used the hypothetical social contract to discuss how societies have emerged to create governments by consent with freedom, rights, property, and equality as the foundation of political life; however, Mills rightly argues that these governments by consent have been created through the domination of others who did not consent, who lost their freedom, who lost rights, who lost property, and who were devalued and dehumanized. In fact, Mills argues that behind the social contract that celebrates equality, rights, and freedom is the domination contract of white supremacy that is reinforced through legal agreements, legislation, cultural reinforcement, geographical boundaries, and other tools of domination. Manifest destiny, in the language of Mills, was an extension of the domination contract that was the DoCD that legitimized contracts of racial, religious, and cultural supremacy. Once this domination contract is made explicit, current injustices make more sense and can help us to talk about social justice in a more informed, nuanced way. For example, red-lining is a systemic form of injustice that helped to segregate white families from other racial families, especially African-American families. Whites believed the presence of African-American families in white neighborhoods reduced the value of property, and this would make mortgages riskier to secure and back. Areas with high populations of African-Americans were colored red and were seen as risky for lenders. This is clearly part of a domination contract through economic, legal, and social agreements based on white supremacy. The values of Manifest Destiny are present here: unilateral agreement between whites as to the geographical placement and restrictions of those deemed inferior; the idea of white privilege to the best land and space, first by displacing Indigenous nations and peoples, then by restricting access to African Americans and other minorities to the land and resources; and after displacement, relocation, and restriction to resources, a lack of investment or support in those communities. Repeatedly throughout U.S. history, the assumed right of one white group to dominate resources and to expand at the expense of another racial group is often associated with cultural, racial, and religious superiority (Hill Fletcher 2017). When thinking about the Doctrine of Christian Discovery, Manifest Destiny, and red-lining, from this new angle, they have family resemblances, namely, the exclusion of groups of people from resources while disempowering them through the consensual group rationalization of racial, religious, or cultural inferiority. Behind the supposed consensual social contract is the domination contract; with the DoCD, the focus on a legal and political contract based on religious and cultural supremacy emerges. With Manifest Destiny, a legal and political contract based on religious, cultural, and racial supremacy emerges. Red-lining can exist only after the dispossession of Indigenous lands has taken place, but the same values, principles, and ideologies are in place; the white supremacist contract guides red-lining, but in this case, African Americans are excluded from lands and are segregated. To think about and to think through Manifest Destiny is to address not only its emergence from the DoCD and the lasting influence of this Christian International Law, but to see how Manifest Destiny's values, principles, and ideology continue to shape political discourses, legislation, military interventions, immigration, economic policies, environmental decisions, and federal law today (Saito 2010). When we see protests or read about injustices, it is a good practice to ask a couple questions: Is this issue, in some way, connected to the Doctrine of Christian Discovery? Is this issue, in some way, shaped by the values, principles, and ideology of Manifest Destiny? If you look close enough, you probably will find some connection between the history of the injustice and these important topics in U.S. history. References Adams, David Wallace. Education for Extinction: American Indians and the Boarding School Experience, 1875-1928. UP of Kansas, 1995. Barrows, Isabel C., editor. Proceeding of the Ninth Annual Meeting of the Lake Mohonk Conference of Friends of the Indian, 1891. The Lake Mohonk Conference, 1891. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World Population to 2300. United Nations, 2004. Gross, Terry. \"A 'Forgotten History' of How the U.S. Government Segregated America.\" NPR, . Accessed 9 March 2023. Hamilton, Alexander, James Madison, and John Jay. The Federalist: With Letters of Brutus, edited by Terence Ball. Cambridge UP, 2003. Hill Fletcher, Jeannine. The Sin of White Supremacy: Christianity, Racism, and Religious Diversity in America. Orbis Books, 2017. \"Historical Estimates of World Population.\" United States Census Bureau, . Accessed 9 March 2023. Jackson, Andrew. \"Second Annual Message.\" Maintained online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project, . Accessed 9 March 2023. Jefferson, Thomas. \"From Thomas Jefferson to William Ludlow, 6 September 1824.\" . Accessed 13 March 2023. Johnson & Graham's Lessee v. McIntosh, 21 U.S. 543 (1823) Miller, Robert J. \"American Indians, the Doctrine of Discovery, and Manifest Destiny.\" Wyoming Law Review, vol. 11, no. 2, 2011, pp. 329-49. ---. \"The Doctrine of Discovery: The International Law of Colonialism.\" The Indigenous Peoples' Journal of Law, Culture, and Resistance, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 35-42. Mills, Charles. The Racial Contract. Cornell UP, 1999. Newcomb, Steven T. \"The Evidence of Christian Nationalism In Federal Indian Law: The Doctrine of Discovery, Johnson v. McIntosh, and Plenary Power.\" New York University Review of Law & Social Change, vol. 20, no. 2, 1992-1993, pp. 303-342. ---. \"The U.S. Government's Claim of a Right of Domination.\" . Accessed 13 March 2023. Saito, Natsu Taylor. Meeting the Enemy: American Exceptionalism and International Law. New York UP, 2010. Story, Joseph. Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States: With a Preliminary Review of the Constitutional History of the Colonies and States Before the Adoption of the Constitution. Little, Brown, and Company, 1891, 2 vols."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/mapping-doctrine-discovery-podcast-zotero-library/",
    "title": "Mapping the Doctrine of Discovery Zotero Library",
    "publishedAt": "2024-08-07T16:27:30Z",
    "description": "Mapping the Doctrine of Discovery Zotero Library",
    "updatedAt": "2024-08-16T16:27:30Z",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "colonialism",
      "doctrine-of-discovery",
      "citations",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Mapping the Doctrine of Discovery Zotero Library",
    "externalUrl": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/5628442/mapping_the_doctrine_of_discovery"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/mapuche-soverignity/",
    "title": "Aucan Huilcaman: Chilean Constitutional Process and its Permanent Denial of the Mapuche Nation",
    "publishedAt": "2023-03-08T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "The Chilean political class that converges in the Chamber of Deputies and Senators, not only continue to act in the “old political doctrine of denial of the Mapuche People and their rights”, but also try to omit and ignore the “legal status” that currently available to Indigenous Peoples. This “legal status” comes from international law that has recognized: the “right of self-determination”, the “Mapuche Parliaments”, the “Territorial Sovereignty”, the “Free and Informed Prior Consent”, among other relevant rights that constitute the tools policies to decide whether or not to participate in a process that is clear and previously supervised and pre-established in its contents. In this case, we Mapuche have specifically decided not to participate.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "Chile",
      "South-America",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "The Chilean political class that converges in the Chamber of Deputies and Senators, not only continue to act in the \"old political doctrine of denial of the Mapuche People and their rights\", but also try to omit and ignore the \"legal status\" that currently available to Indigenous Peoples. This \"legal status\" comes from international law that has recognized: the \"right of self-determination\", the \"Mapuche Parliaments\", the \"Territorial Sovereignty\", the \"Free and Informed Prior Consent\", among other relevant rights that constitute the tools policies to decide whether or not to participate in a process that is clear and previously supervised and pre-established in its contents. In this case, we Mapuche have specifically decided not to participate.",
    "externalUrl": "https://redabyayala.blogspot.com/2023/03/aucan-huilcaman-chilean-constitutional.html"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/mennonite-reflections-mother-earths-pandemic/",
    "title": "Mennonite reflections on Mother Earth's Pandemic",
    "publishedAt": "2020-10-12T14:54:46Z",
    "description": "Members of the Mennonite Missions Network attended Mother Earth's Pandemic: The Doctrine of Discovery conference and did some post events writeup",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "conference",
      "mennonite",
      "anabaptist",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "COVID-19 pandemic grew from centuries-old roots Despite Manifest Destiny, Indigenous cultures have survived Healing Mother Earth’s Pandemic"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/miller-doctrine-of-discovery/",
    "title": "Indigenous Peoples, International Law, and Colonialism Lecture",
    "publishedAt": "2020-10-16T14:54:46Z",
    "description": "Robert J Miller, Professor of Law in the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University gave a lecture entitled “Indigenous Peoples, International Law, and Colonialism” at Washington State University for Indigenous Peoples Day 2020. One of the major points of this talk is the Doctrine of Discovery.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "video",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Robert J Miller, Professor of Law in the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State University gave a lecture entitled \"Indigenous Peoples, International Law, and Colonialism\" at Washington State University for Indigenous Peoples Day 2020. One of the major points of this talk is the Doctrine of Discovery.",
    "externalUrl": "https://youtu.be/hYBh353_QWw"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/misconcepts-mcgirt/",
    "title": "Misconceptions About McGirt v. Oklahoma",
    "publishedAt": "2020-09-01T14:54:46Z",
    "description": "Federal Indian law displaces the historical ‘starting point’ — the original free existence of Native nations...",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "law",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "The “many other legal doctrines” and the congressional “tools” are, like the “plenary power” put forth in Lone Wolf, all derivatives of “Christian discovery.” Gorsuch hid that fact in a cryptic citation to the 1868 Treatise on the American Law of Real Property by Emory Washburn. The Treatise discusses “the discovery and settlement of this country by Europeans.” Some Misconceptions About McGirt v. Oklahoma by Peter d’Errico.",
    "externalUrl": "https://blogs.umass.edu/derrico/2020/09/14/misconceptions-about-mcgirt-v-oklahoma/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/mpi-disco/",
    "title": "Indigenous Peoples And Religious Modes Of Othering A Comparative History Of Religions Perspective Two Workshops 24 And 30/31 May 2023",
    "publishedAt": "2023-05-08T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Offical Program Download PDF Introduction Two workshops 24 and 30/31 May 2023 A joint initiative by: Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity, Göttingen Diversity Studies Centre Oslo (DISCO), Oslo Metropolitan University Indigenous Values Initiative, Syracuse University Henry Luce Project, American Indian Law Alliance Details These two workshops examine  othering,  which is the conceptualization of certain categories of fellow humans as irreconcilably different, most often in depreciative and derogatory ways. Othering provides the basis of social attitudes, interactions, linguistic forms, political strategies, and legal rulings throughout history that have served to colonize, disempower, dominate, or destroy groups of people categorized on the basis of various principles of differentiation, including skin color, language, and religion. The workshops will engage the voices of Indigenous Peoples to focus on the specifically Christian bases of othering, i.e. those positing Christianity as a superior norm and non-Christian religious traditions and experiences as inferior. Christian othering has two analytical modes to be addressed in the seminars: Firstly, we address the origins and causes of othering in the history of Christianity from an Indigenous orientation: When why and in what senses are non-Christian peoples throughout the world perceived as “the other”? Christian othering has been especially evident in the treatment of Indigenous Peoples, whose perspective clarifies the detrimental impacts of “othering” presently. The roots of colonization can be found in the Doctrine of Christian Disco-very (DoCD), initiated with a series of 15th century PapalBulls that justified enslavement, land theft, and resource extraction initially by explorers of Portugal and Spain who were raiding Africa and the American continent. TheDoCD justified the superiority of the European Christian states and thereby reinforced the law in many postcolonial national states for expropriating territory and violating rights of Indigenous Peoples. Religious codes of domination, based in “Christendom,” have permeated multiple dimensions of society and government. Discovery was motivated by the marginalization and destruction of Jews was a defining feature of several Christian polities from the Middle Ages through the early modern period. While anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim racism can be seen to be secularized in our time, these prejudices and practices still bear the imprint of Christian othering. Secondly, we will examine our own academic traditions in order to investigate othering in scholarship and in university teaching as this is produced by hegemonic Christian and Eurocentric approaches and perspectives. As an alternative, the comparative history of religions (Eliade, Long, Carrasco) engages traditions outside of the Western academy as an equally viable point of departure. The proper study of the history of religions in, for instance, the Americas, the Islamic world, and India, provides examples of great intellectual traditions beyond Europe and the Anglo-American US. Much has been said about the Western biases in the academic study of religion but the starting point for these workshops is the belief that research in comparative history of religions can potentially offer methods and perspectives for knowing and valuing other cultures that need to be heeded in these urgent times. The two workshops will represent important steps in developing the themes and structure of a larger, culminating event, the Religious Origins-Conference 8-10 Dec. 2023 at Syracuse University. The Religious Origins of White Supremacy: Johnson v. M’Intosh and the Doctrine of Christian Discovery Description of Workshop 1 : Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity, Göttingen (24 May) Before contact with Christian explorers, Indigenous Peoples around the world inhabited a diversity of physical environments from which emanated their cultures, languages and ceremonies. This “superdiversity” (Vertovec) came under assault beginning with the 15th century Vatican theological and legal formulation called the “Doctrine of Christian Discovery” (DoCD)—which continues today. This workshop will connect the “new humanism” of renowned Historian of Religions Davíd Carrasco with voices of Indigenous Peoples and academics on how the DoCD has been inculcated into the neo-colonialism of our past and present. An examination of “religious othering” can contribute to understanding colonialism over centuries as well as the persistence of anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and other modes of discrimination. The workshop will focus on discussion, following brief (5-7 minute) “Impulsvorträge” or kick-off statements by each invited speaker. Tentative Program: 24 May 2023 Morning Session I – 9.00-10.30AM (Local Time) Lecture: Davíd Carrasco (Harvard) on diversity and religious othering Steve Vertovec (Max Planck Institute) Philip Arnold (Syracuse) Lars Kirkhusmo Pharo (Nord) Break 10.30-11.00AM (coffee and snacks) Morning Session II –11.00-12.30 (Local Time) Betty Lyons (Onandaga Nation/American Indian Law Alliance) Sandy Bigtree (Mohawk Nation/Indigenous Values Initiative) Manuel May Castillo (LMU Munich) Lunch – 12.30-2.00PM Afternoon Session I – 2.00-3.30PM Matt Sheedy (Bonn) Sebastian Modrow (Syracuse) Riem Spielhaus (Göttingen) Break 3.30-4.00PM Afternoon Session II – 4.00-5.30PM Andreas Gruenschloss (Göttingen) Adam DJ Brett (Syracuse) Edin Kozaric (OsloMet) Summation — (5.30-6.00PM) Dinner at 7.00PM Description of Workshop 2: Diversity Studies Centre Oslo (DISCO), Oslo Metropolitan University (30/31 May) Bringing together academic perspectives in the comparative history of religions with Indigenous Peoples helps to reveal the fundamental challenges necessary in sustaining a multi-racial, ethnic and religious democratic society. In the 18th century, the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) “Great Law of Peace” inspired the Founding Fathers of the US and the development of Western Democracy, which has spread around the world, but key ideas related to the environment, women and “superdiversity” had been excluded. Bringing traditional Haudenosaunee voices together with the Sámi, Mesoamerican and Māori traditions can clarify the continuing impact of the DoCD. The Americas, Scandinavia, and New Zealand are all multicultural and multireligious societies with Indigenous, Jewish, and Muslim populations. A comparative history of religions orientation can help explain the persistent presence of Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia as well as colonialism over the centuries. This workshop can provide approaches and theoretical conceptions of valuing contributions of different cultures, languages, and religions. The workshop will focus on discussion, following brief (5-7 minute) “Impulsvorträge” or kick-off statements by each invited speaker. Tentative program: 30-31 May 2023 30 May Public directed discussion led by Torkel Brekke – 6 PM Betty Lyons (Onondaga Nation; American Indian Law Alliance) Laila Susanne Vars (Sámi University of Applied Sciences) 31 May Workshop Morning Session I – 9.00-10.30 AM Lecture: Davíd Carrasco (Harvard) on diversity and religious othering Torkel Brekke (DISCO) Philip Arnold (Syracuse) & Sandy Bigtree (Mohawk Nation; Indigenous Values Initiative) Lars Kirkhusmo Pharo (Nord) and Casper Jacobsen (Copenhagen) Break 10.30-11.00AM (coffee and snacks) Morning Session II – 11.00-12.30 Betty Lyons (Onondaga Nation; American Indian Law Alliance) Laila Susanne Vars (Sámi University of Applied Sciences) Tina Ngata (Māori) Lunch – 12.30-2.00PM Afternoon Session I – 2.00-3.30PM Brian Konkol (Syracuse) Sebastian Modrow (Syracuse) Eglutė Trinkauskaitė (Maryland Institute College of Art) Break 3.30-4.00PM Afternoon Session II – 4.00-5.30PM May Lisbeth Brew (Nord) Jake Edwards (Onondaga Nation; Indigenous Values Initiative) Steve Newcomb (Lenape/Delaware; Indian Law Institute) Summation — (5.30-6.00PM) Dinner at 7.00PM Program Download PDF",
    "tags": [
      "Conference",
      "Europe",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Offical Program Download PDF{: .btn .btn--danger .btn--x-large} Introduction Two workshops 24 and 30/31 May 2023 A joint initiative by: Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity, Göttingen Diversity Studies Centre Oslo (DISCO), Oslo Metropolitan University Indigenous Values Initiative, Syracuse University Henry Luce Project, American Indian Law Alliance Details These two workshops examine othering, which is the conceptualization of certain categories of fellow humans as irreconcilably different, most often in depreciative and derogatory ways. Othering provides the basis of social attitudes, interactions, linguistic forms, political strategies, and legal rulings throughout history that have served to colonize, disempower, dominate, or destroy groups of people categorized on the basis of various principles of differentiation, including skin color, language, and religion. The workshops will engage the voices of Indigenous Peoples to focus on the specifically Christian bases of othering, i.e. those positing Christianity as a superior norm and non-Christian religious traditions and experiences as inferior. Christian othering has two analytical modes to be addressed in the seminars: Firstly, we address the origins and causes of othering in the history of Christianity from an Indigenous orientation: When why and in what senses are non-Christian peoples throughout the world perceived as \"the other\"? Christian othering has been especially evident in the treatment of Indigenous Peoples, whose perspective clarifies the detrimental impacts of \"othering\" presently. The roots of colonization can be found in the Doctrine of Christian Disco-very (DoCD), initiated with a series of 15th century PapalBulls that justified enslavement, land theft, and resource extraction initially by explorers of Portugal and Spain who were raiding Africa and the American continent. TheDoCD justified the superiority of the European Christian states and thereby reinforced the law in many postcolonial national states for expropriating territory and violating rights of Indigenous Peoples. Religious codes of domination, based in \"Christendom,\" have permeated multiple dimensions of society and government. Discovery was motivated by the marginalization and destruction of Jews was a defining feature of several Christian polities from the Middle Ages through the early modern period. While anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim racism can be seen to be secularized in our time, these prejudices and practices still bear the imprint of Christian othering. Secondly, we will examine our own academic traditions in order to investigate othering in scholarship and in university teaching as this is produced by hegemonic Christian and Eurocentric approaches and perspectives. As an alternative, the comparative history of religions (Eliade, Long, Carrasco) engages traditions outside of the Western academy as an equally viable point of departure. The proper study of the history of religions in, for instance, the Americas, the Islamic world, and India, provides examples of great intellectual traditions beyond Europe and the Anglo-American US. Much has been said about the Western biases in the academic study of religion but the starting point for these workshops is the belief that research in comparative history of religions can potentially offer methods and perspectives for knowing and valuing other cultures that need to be heeded in these urgent times. The two workshops will represent important steps in developing the themes and structure of a larger, culminating event, the Religious Origins-Conference 8-10 Dec. 2023 at Syracuse University. The Religious Origins of White Supremacy: Johnson v. M’Intosh and the Doctrine of Christian Discovery Description of Workshop 1: Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity, Göttingen (24 May) Before contact with Christian explorers, Indigenous Peoples around the world inhabited a diversity of physical environments from which emanated their cultures, languages and ceremonies. This \"superdiversity\" (Vertovec) came under assault beginning with the 15th century Vatican theological and legal formulation called the \"Doctrine of Christian Discovery\" (DoCD)---which continues today. This workshop will connect the \"new humanism\" of renowned Historian of Religions Davíd Carrasco with voices of Indigenous Peoples and academics on how the DoCD has been inculcated into the neo-colonialism of our past and present. An examination of \"religious othering\" can contribute to understanding colonialism over centuries as well as the persistence of anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and other modes of discrimination. The workshop will focus on discussion, following brief (5-7 minute) \"Impulsvorträge\" or kick-off statements by each invited speaker. Tentative Program: 24 May 2023 Morning Session I -- 9.00-10.30AM (Local Time) Lecture: Davíd Carrasco (Harvard) on diversity and religious othering Steve Vertovec (Max Planck Institute) Philip Arnold (Syracuse) Lars Kirkhusmo Pharo (Nord) Break 10.30-11.00AM (coffee and snacks) Morning Session II --11.00-12.30 (Local Time) Betty Lyons (Onandaga Nation/American Indian Law Alliance) Sandy Bigtree (Mohawk Nation/Indigenous Values Initiative) Manuel May Castillo (LMU Munich) Lunch -- 12.30-2.00PM Afternoon Session I -- 2.00-3.30PM Matt Sheedy (Bonn) Sebastian Modrow (Syracuse) Riem Spielhaus (Göttingen) Break 3.30-4.00PM Afternoon Session II -- 4.00-5.30PM Andreas Gruenschloss (Göttingen) Adam DJ Brett (Syracuse) Edin Kozaric (OsloMet) Summation --- (5.30-6.00PM) Dinner at 7.00PM Description of Workshop 2: Diversity Studies Centre Oslo (DISCO), Oslo Metropolitan University (30/31 May) Bringing together academic perspectives in the comparative history of religions with Indigenous Peoples helps to reveal the fundamental challenges necessary in sustaining a multi-racial, ethnic and religious democratic society. In the 18th century, the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) “Great Law of Peace” inspired the Founding Fathers of the US and the development of Western Democracy, which has spread around the world, but key ideas related to the environment, women and “superdiversity” had been excluded. Bringing traditional Haudenosaunee voices together with the Sámi, Mesoamerican and Māori traditions can clarify the continuing impact of the DoCD. The Americas, Scandinavia, and New Zealand are all multicultural and multireligious societies with Indigenous, Jewish, and Muslim populations. A comparative history of religions orientation can help explain the persistent presence of Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia as well as colonialism over the centuries. This workshop can provide approaches and theoretical conceptions of valuing contributions of different cultures, languages, and religions. The workshop will focus on discussion, following brief (5-7 minute) “Impulsvorträge” or kick-off statements by each invited speaker. Tentative program: 30-31 May 2023 30 May Public directed discussion led by Torkel Brekke – 6 PM Betty Lyons (Onondaga Nation; American Indian Law Alliance) Laila Susanne Vars (Sámi University of Applied Sciences) 31 May Workshop Morning Session I – 9.00-10.30 AM Lecture: Davíd Carrasco (Harvard) on diversity and religious othering Torkel Brekke (DISCO) Philip Arnold (Syracuse) & Sandy Bigtree (Mohawk Nation; Indigenous Values Initiative) Lars Kirkhusmo Pharo (Nord) and Casper Jacobsen (Copenhagen) Break 10.30-11.00AM (coffee and snacks) Morning Session II – 11.00-12.30 Betty Lyons (Onondaga Nation; American Indian Law Alliance) Laila Susanne Vars (Sámi University of Applied Sciences) Tina Ngata (Māori) Lunch – 12.30-2.00PM Afternoon Session I – 2.00-3.30PM Brian Konkol (Syracuse) Sebastian Modrow (Syracuse) Eglutė Trinkauskaitė (Maryland Institute College of Art) Break 3.30-4.00PM Afternoon Session II – 4.00-5.30PM May Lisbeth Brew (Nord) Jake Edwards (Onondaga Nation; Indigenous Values Initiative) Steve Newcomb (Lenape/Delaware; Indian Law Institute) Summation — (5.30-6.00PM) Dinner at 7.00PM Program Download PDF{: .btn .btn--danger .btn--x-large}"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/native-american-religious-freedomafter-trump/",
    "title": "Native American Religious Freedom after Trump",
    "publishedAt": "2020-12-14T14:54:46Z",
    "description": "We should note that from the perspective of Native Americans, religious freedom has never been a good tool.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "doctrine-discovery",
      "religious-freedom",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "We should note that from the perspective of Native Americans, religious freedom has never been a good tool.",
    "externalUrl": "https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/responses/native-american-religious-freedom-after-trump"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/native-americans-british-18th-century/",
    "title": "Native Americans and the British in the 18th century",
    "publishedAt": "2024-06-30T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "While Britain’s American Colonies grew, Native American tribes became increasingly reliant on European powers for trade goods, especially metal objects and firearms. Our records shed light on relations with the Creek nation and the Cherokee, for example, before and during the Revolutionary War.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "colonialism",
      "TNA",
      "The-National-Archive",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "While Britain's American Colonies grew, Native American tribes became increasingly reliant on European powers for trade goods, especially metal objects and firearms. Our records shed light on relations with the Creek nation and the Cherokee, for example, before and during the Revolutionary War.",
    "externalUrl": "https://beta.nationalarchives.gov.uk/explore-the-collection/explore-by-time-period/georgians/native-americans-18th-century/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/new-book-in-the-court-of-the-conqueror/",
    "title": "New Book: In The Court of the Conqueror",
    "publishedAt": "2024-06-12T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "ANNOUNCEMENT Artists’ Book Release Details In the Court of the Conqueror featuring Patty Ortiz with George Emilio Sanchez Curator & Editor, Cydney Payton MAZZY PRESS, Monterey, CA Production, binding, design by Small Editions, Brooklyn, NY Clamshell construction by Sarah Smith",
    "tags": [
      "book",
      "play",
      "book-release",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "ANNOUNCEMENT Artists' Book Release Details In the Court of the Conqueror featuring Patty Ortiz with George Emilio Sanchez Curator & Editor, Cydney Payton MAZZY PRESS, Monterey, CA Production, binding, design by Small Editions, Brooklyn, NY Clamshell construction by Sarah Smith Letterpress printing by Sarah Nichols Letterpress plates by Boxcar Press Images by Patty Ortiz Text by George Emilio Sanchez Curator and Editor, Cydney Payton MAZZY PRESS, Monterey, CA Available: June 10, 2024 Edition Size: 15 Presale Price: $2,500.00 until July 15, 2024 To purchase or for more information email info@ortizysanchez.com Annoucement Patty Ortiz and George Emilio Sanchez (Ortiz y Sanchez) are proud to present their inaugural artists' book In the Court of the Conqueror. The book is a MAZZY PRESS project conceived and curated by Cydney Payton as a memory of experiencing the performance and video work In the Court of Conqueror at Abrons Arts Center, NY in 2022. In the Court of Conqueror is a collaborative work by Ortiz y Sanchez that includes performance and videos. The work is both a monologue by Sanchez and a collection of related images that Ortiz imagined as video responses to the performance. In the Court of the Conqueror confronts the 200-year-old history of the US Supreme Court rulings diluting Tribal Sovereignty of Native Nations. The piece weaves the autobiographical story of Sanchez's search for his indigenous roots with citations of legal case law related to Indigenous Nations where federal, state, and tribal sovereigns abut and conflict. The book was means to enclose the project and viewing experience into another model for future audiences. The artists' book becomes a translation of the ephemeral nature of performative art. Tactile, with distinctive visual layers, the book offers viewers an opportunity to interact with a time-based staged work that no longer exists. While the original content and context arrive anew in this form, the critical questions about laws and indigeneity remain. This limited edition linen covered book contains numerous elements. Ortiz offers an original cyanotype containing a ghostly image of a historic map of the Texas territories. A digital artwork with still images from Ortiz's the video installation takes the form of a leporello. A handsewn booklet show us excerpts from Sanchez's original script in a new poetic format. Letterpress documents provide context and descriptions of the overall project. About the Artists, Curator and Small Editions Patty Ortiz is a visual artist who lives and works in Brooklyn, NY and San Antonio, TX. Her artistic practice moves from drawing to video and often looks to institutional critique and social practice. Alongside her work as an artist, she was an Executive Director of the Museo de las Americas in Denver, CO and the Guadalupe Cultural Arts Center in San Antonio. Her work has been exhibited internationally in Mexico, Chile, and the Netherlands. Her public art commissions can be seen in Denver International Airport and The Jeppeson Corporation in Frankfort, Germany. Recognition includes awards from the National Endowment for the Arts. Ortiz holds an MFA from University of Texas. pattyortiz.net George Emilio Sanchez is a writer, performance artist and social justice activist who lives and works in Fort Greene, NY. He has been performing original works since 1992 and is recognized as a leading performance artist in the arena of social practice. His work has received prestigious support from the Fulbright Program (Peru), New York Foundation for the Arts, The MacDowell Colon, and the Rockefeller Foundation to name a few. Sanchez is the Chairperson of the Performing and Creative Arts Department at the College of Staten Island/City University of New York where he has taught for over three decades. Sanchez holds an MFA from Bard College, NY and a Master of Legal Studies in Indigenous Peoples Law from University of Oklahoma. georgeemiliosanchez.com Cydney Payton is writer and curator who lives and works in Monterey, CA. She founded MAZZY PRESS in 2022 as a curatorial project where the book or enclosure operates as an architectural space to present innovative collaborations between artists and writers. The inaugural project was In the Long Window with visual artist Alan Scarritt. In the Court of Conqueror is the second project of MAZZY PRESS. Payton has an extensive background in contemporary art as a museum director and curator. Her curatorial focus is on the relationship between contemporary art and experimental architecture. Payton holds an MA in Curatorial Practice from California College of the Arts. cydneypayton.com Small Editions Small Editions is a book and print design studio, a book bindery, an artists' book publishing house, and an educational workshop space. The studio was founded in 2012 by Kimberly McClure and Corina Reynolds. Since 2019 Hannah Yukiko Pierce has been the owner and director. smalleditions.nyc Press Release Press Release (PDF)"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/new-translation-inter-caetera/",
    "title": "Annoucing a New Translation of Inter Caetera",
    "publishedAt": "2024-05-23T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Translation differences between this new translation and Davenport’s occur more often in tone than in content. Of the latter, the most important is probably this: When discussing the religious aims of these expeditions and conquests, the pope states that it is a priority for him that those barbarian peoples  ad fidem ipsam reducantur , which Davenport translates as being “brought to the faith itself.” However, since the semantics of the verb  reducere  carry an element of ‘back/return’ due to its prefix ‘re-‘, we decided to translate the clause as “bringing them back to the faith”, the implications of which Sebastian Modrow is exploring in a separate piece of scholarship. With slight variations, this papal request to return the local populations to the true faith occurs multiple times throughout the bull. Citation formats Bibtex citation RIS XML",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "translation",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Translation differences between this new translation and Davenport's occur more often in tone than in content. Of the latter, the most important is probably this: When discussing the religious aims of these expeditions and conquests, the pope states that it is a priority for him that those barbarian peoples ad fidem ipsam reducantur, which Davenport translates as being \"brought to the faith itself.\" However, since the semantics of the verb reducere carry an element of 'back/return' due to its prefix 're-', we decided to translate the clause as \"bringing them back to the faith\", the implications of which Sebastian Modrow is exploring in a separate piece of scholarship. With slight variations, this papal request to return the local populations to the true faith occurs multiple times throughout the bull. Citation formats Bibtex citation RIS XML",
    "externalUrl": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org/inter-caetera/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/newcomb-sublimis-deus/",
    "title": "On the Papal Bull, Sublimis Deus",
    "publishedAt": "2022-08-09T18:54:46Z",
    "description": "The bull  Sublimis Deus  was not retroactive. It could not be projected back in time. It could not remove the death, destruction, and dehumanization that the Holy See had unleashed for more than four decades on the basis of the Alexandrian bulls of 1493. Nor did Pope Paul II intend for the bull  Sublimis Deus  to liberate the Original Free Nations from the Spanish Catholic system of domination that had already been imposed on them based on the Alexandrian papal bulls. The most that the Indians could hope for as a result of the bull  Sublimis Deus  was to be “free”  under  or  beneath  the Spanish crown’s domination. The history of political reality in the fifteenth and later centuries reveals that the Catholic Church never intended for the bull  Sublimis Deus  to remove Spain’s claim of sovereignty and dominium (it’s claimed right of domination) from the Original Free Nations. Pope Paul III and the Holy See remained protective of Spain’s claim to political sovereignty (domination) over the Original Nations. In fact, Pope Alexander VI had specified in his document  Inter Caetera  bull of May 4, 1493 that the Christian empire’s ( imperii Christiani ) system of domination was to hold the “ barbare nationes ” (original free nations) in subjection (“ subjicere ”) and domination “forever” and “in perpetuity.” And the centuries-long effectiveness of Pope Alexander VI’s authorization is demonstrated by the fact that the claim of a right of domination imposed in the past continues to be imposed on our Nations and Peoples in the present by state governments.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "doctrine-discovery",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "The bull Sublimis Deus was not retroactive. It could not be projected back in time. It could not remove the death, destruction, and dehumanization that the Holy See had unleashed for more than four decades on the basis of the Alexandrian bulls of 1493. Nor did Pope Paul II intend for the bull Sublimis Deus to liberate the Original Free Nations from the Spanish Catholic system of domination that had already been imposed on them based on the Alexandrian papal bulls. The most that the Indians could hope for as a result of the bull Sublimis Deus was to be “free” under or beneath the Spanish crown’s domination. The history of political reality in the fifteenth and later centuries reveals that the Catholic Church never intended for the bull Sublimis Deus to remove Spain’s claim of sovereignty and dominium (it’s claimed right of domination) from the Original Free Nations. Pope Paul III and the Holy See remained protective of Spain’s claim to political sovereignty (domination) over the Original Nations. In fact, Pope Alexander VI had specified in his document Inter Caetera bull of May 4, 1493 that the Christian empire’s (imperii Christiani) system of domination was to hold the “barbare nationes” (original free nations) in subjection (“subjicere”) and domination “forever” and “in perpetuity.” And the centuries-long effectiveness of Pope Alexander VI’s authorization is demonstrated by the fact that the claim of a right of domination imposed in the past continues to be imposed on our Nations and Peoples in the present by state governments.",
    "externalUrl": "https://indiancountrytoday.com/archive/on-the-papal-bull-sublimis-deus"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/neym-quaker-indian-boarding-schools-findings/",
    "title": "NEYM Quaker Indian Boarding Schools Research Group",
    "publishedAt": "2024-09-26T18:54:46Z",
    "description": "The New England Yearly Meeting of Friends (NEYM), Quaker embarked on a several year work to meet Secretary Haaland’s request for religious bodies to look at their involvement in the Industrial Boarding Schools. Here is what they have found. Please note some of the material is disturbing.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "doctrine-of-discovery",
      "boarding-schools",
      "residential-schools",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "The New England Yearly Meeting of Friends (NEYM), Quaker embarked on a several year work to meet Secretary Haaland's request for religious bodies to look at their involvement in the Industrial Boarding Schools. Here is what they have found. Please note some of the material is disturbing.",
    "externalUrl": "https://neym.org/quaker-indian-boarding-schools-research-group"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/now-streaming-doctrine-discovery-unmasking-domination-code/",
    "title": "Now Streaming: The Doctrine of Discovery: Unmasking the Domination Code",
    "publishedAt": "2020-12-09T14:54:46Z",
    "description": "Watch Now Now Streaming Details The iconic film The Doctrine of Discovery: Unmasking the Domination Code is now streaming on Vimeo. You can rent or purchase the film. The film is a collaborative effort between Dakota filmmaker and Director Sheldon Wolfchild and Co-Producer Steven Newcomb (Shawnee, Lenape). You can learn more at Original Free Nations",
    "tags": [
      "video",
      "film",
      "doctrine-discovery",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Watch Now Now Streaming{: .btn .btn--warning .btn--x-large} Details The iconic film The Doctrine of Discovery: Unmasking the Domination Code is now streaming on Vimeo. You can rent or purchase the film. The film is a collaborative effort between Dakota filmmaker and Director Sheldon Wolfchild and Co-Producer Steven Newcomb (Shawnee, Lenape). You can learn more at Original Free Nations",
    "externalUrl": "https://vimeo.com/ondemand/dominationcode"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/oak-flat-doctrine-of-discovery/",
    "title": "Oak Flat and Pope Alexander VI’s Papal Decree of Domination in U.S. Law",
    "publishedAt": "2021-02-02T14:54:46Z",
    "description": "Steven Newcomb (Shawnee/Lenape) Prior to the invasion of this continent (“North America”) by representatives of the monarchs of Western Christendom, the original nations and peoples of the continent, such as the Apache, were living their own free and independent way of life. We can think back on the thousands of years during which no Christians prior to the invasion of this continent (“North America”) by representatives of the monarchs of Western Christendom, the original nations and peoples of the continent, such as the Apache, were living their own free and independent way of life.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "mascots",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Steven Newcomb (Shawnee/Lenape) Prior to the invasion of this continent (“North America”) by representatives of the monarchs of Western Christendom, the original nations and peoples of the continent, such as the Apache, were living their own free and independent way of life. We can think back on the thousands of years during which no Christians prior to the invasion of this continent (“North America”) by representatives of the monarchs of Western Christendom, the original nations and peoples of the continent, such as the Apache, were living their own free and independent way of life.",
    "externalUrl": "https://originalfreenations.com/oak-flat-and-pope-alexander-vis-papal-decree-of-domination-in-u-s-law/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/oak-flats/",
    "title": "Oak Flats and the Doctrine of Discovery unprecedented challenge and opportunity",
    "publishedAt": "2023-03-23T10:54:46Z",
    "description": "Abstract The case against Resolution Copper’s proposed mine in Oak Flat is an unprecedented opportunity for reckoning with the American ideal of religious freedom. This value was enshrined since its inception as one of the most basic tenets of human existence in American society. Freedom—religious freedom in particular—is perhaps the most important value that defines the United States. Yet this freedom was never meant for Indigenous nations, and in fact during the conquest of what has become the United States, Native peoples across the entire continent were systematically denied any right to or even ability to practice their spiritualities/belief systems. This is a reality which author Steve Talbot goes so far as to call spiritual genocide. This paper explores this ideal in the context of Resolution Copper’s mining project which threatens Oak Flat in Arizona. Oak Flat is sacred land for the Apache people, and the mine endangers not just the ecosystem, but the entire Apache nation. These pages trace the origins of the current reality in Oak Flat to the Christian Doctrine of Discovery. Oak Flat is an unprecedented court case that calls out the hypocrisy of the United States’ legal (and moral) foundations of universal religious freedom, which was never universal at all. Given this is such a central principle for US culture and identity, the implications and possible outcomes of Apache Stronghold v United States are of tremendous import—not just for the Apache nation, but for the entire United States.",
    "tags": [
      "law",
      "religion",
      "Christianity",
      "oak-flats",
      "SCOTUS",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Abstract The case against Resolution Copper's proposed mine in Oak Flat is an unprecedented opportunity for reckoning with the American ideal of religious freedom. This value was enshrined since its inception as one of the most basic tenets of human existence in American society. Freedom---religious freedom in particular---is perhaps the most important value that defines the United States. Yet this freedom was never meant for Indigenous nations, and in fact during the conquest of what has become the United States, Native peoples across the entire continent were systematically denied any right to or even ability to practice their spiritualities/belief systems. This is a reality which author Steve Talbot goes so far as to call spiritual genocide. This paper explores this ideal in the context of Resolution Copper's mining project which threatens Oak Flat in Arizona. Oak Flat is sacred land for the Apache people, and the mine endangers not just the ecosystem, but the entire Apache nation. These pages trace the origins of the current reality in Oak Flat to the Christian Doctrine of Discovery. Oak Flat is an unprecedented court case that calls out the hypocrisy of the United States' legal (and moral) foundations of universal religious freedom, which was never universal at all. Given this is such a central principle for US culture and identity, the implications and possible outcomes of Apache Stronghold v United States are of tremendous import---not just for the Apache nation, but for the entire United States. Introduction Oak Flat (Chi'chil Biłdagoteel), about 40 miles east of Phoenix, Arizona in the Tonto National Forest, is holy ground for the Apache people. It is a sacred site of communion for Apache tribes like the San Carlos and Chiricahua, whose ancestors are still very much alive, present, and communicative on this land. As Apache youth leader Naelyn Pike says, they \"died for us to be here...to have a future.\"[^1] But it is so much more than a mere site of cultural and religious significance for Indigenous. This land is the very source of the Apache's being as a nation and as a people. It is their place of becoming, of rooting, of belonging in the Spirit. It is here that \"God touched the earth.\"[^2] Oak Flat is not just special for the Apache. It is the Apache people. The land is currently under threat by the largest proposed copper mine project in North America. Chi'chil Biłdagoteel sits atop 40 billion pounds of copper, one of the largest untapped reserves on the planet. Resolution Copper---owned by two of the world's largest energy powerhouses, Rio Tinto and BHP, Broken Hill Proprietary Ltd---claim that accessing these reserves is critical to keeping up with the growing global demand for copper products. Mining Oak Flat, they say, would provide up to a quarter of the United States' demand through the next four decades[^3]. It would create over 3500 local jobs, bringing $61 billion dollars into the local Arizona economy over its 60-year operational lifespan[^4]. The remaining 75% of the extracted minerals would be exported to China and Taiwan. China, in fact---not the United States---is \"positioned to be the chief beneficiary of the copper and other materials removed from the [Oak Flat] mine.\"[^5] The mine would cause Oak Flat to collapse. The new technique used by Resolution Copper (an innovative but little-tested method called block cave or panel cave mining) would, once the copper reserves are depleted, leave nothing but a massive sinkhole in the land. With block cave mining, the minerals would be tunneled out of the area to a holding site nearby, where they would be crushed and then exported for processing. The mine tunnels, some over 7000 feet deep, would then cave in, and the sacred site of the Apache would become a massive depression in the desert over 1000 feet deep (slightly more than the Empire State Building is tall) and up to two miles wide. Oak Flat would become one of the largest open pits in the world.[^6] That is not the only danger by far. Toxic wastewater and contaminated mine waste would also leech into the surrounding waterways and aquifers. These waters are essential pathways of life for the Apache and for nearby Arizona communities like Globe, Miami, and Superior. The mine would not only sinkhole the entire sacred site of the Apache and surrounding Indigenous nations; it would make the entire area unsafe to visit.[^7] There is also the heightened concern that the contaminated water would reach Phoenix and Tucson, affecting millions in these larger urban areas. This pollution would have devastating consequences, with unknown long-term ecological and economic effects. These are well-known risks, despite Resolution Copper's own claims that block cave mining is much safer and less environmentally invasive---and despite their repeated claims that water quality and availability would not be significantly affected. Apache leader and founder of the Apache Stronghold, Wendsler Nosie Sr, likens the devastation to the destruction of Mt Sinai. It is Holy Ground, and its loss would mean much more than just catastrophic harm to the environment. Says Chairman Rambler: \"The real cost of this bill is...desecration and destruction of one of our most important sacred sites.\"[^8] This fight to save not just the land, but the spiritual and sacred connection to land---to who Apache people are---is at the core of the Stronghold's case. The case, now in front of the 9 th Circuit Supreme Court, is fundamentally a contestation of the hypocrisy of the American ideal of religious freedom and protections (which has historically not applied to Indigenous people). Apache Stronghold v. the United States is a matter of human spirituality and dignity on an unprecedented scale, with significance for us all. Religious Freedom for (not) all The right to free expression of Native beliefs is technically protected by federal acts of Congress, such as the 1978 American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA), and the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The AIRFA \"affirm[s] religious freedom for...Native nations\"[^9], and the RFRA reinforces this. United States law formally guarantees religious liberty for Native Americans. Treaties like the 1852 Santa Fe agreement with the Apache are further promises that the United States would protect their land in perpetuity, and \"secure the permanent prosperity and happiness\"[^10] of the Apache people. Freedom of religion and religious expression is likewise codified in American law, in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. This freedom is considered the premiere founding value of American democracy, both the starting point and the peak principle for a healthy, coherent society. Clearly articulated in the Constitution, it seems to exclude no one. \"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances (for the violation of such).\"[^11] The impartiality and universality of the First Amendment seems to be an established fact. Since the very beginning, these guarantees of freedom have been the absolute defining characteristic of America. Freedom is synonymous with being American and belonging to this country. As generations of young Americans were told in history lessons, freedom---and religious freedom in particular---is the principal reason this country was founded. As the common narrative goes, the first settlers were on a journey away from religious persecution and ultimate prohibition of their faiths by tyrants in Europe. From day one, the United States united around this fundamental right to express both personal and religious beliefs. This freedom was understood, and then written into United States law, as a matter of basic human dignity---so central to American society that it is hard to overstate the importance. It is not a stretch to say that without this essential liberty, the human cannot be fully human. In other words, there is no human being without this first, most basic of rights to express one's spiritual beliefs. The human person does not exist without access to or a way of expressing their spirituality. Yet for all its universality, this law has never applied to Native people. From before the time these words became law, Indigenous peoples have been excluded from this basic freedom. They have been stripped of this right and purposefully, systematically, even physically denied the right to practice their beliefs. This was done throughout early United States history through practices like boarding schools (meant to erase Native identity and culture); banning Native languages; banning Native religious practices, ceremonies and traditions; physical and psychological abuse; and the practices in Christian missions of forcing Natives to adopt their religions and assimilate into broader white society. This was all designed to \"eradicate all signs of Indianness,\"[^12] in the effort---as Commissioner of Indian Affairs wrote in 1882---to \"reclaim them from barbarism, idolatry, and \\[the\\] savage life.\"[^13] This eradication of Indigeneity began well before the Founding Fathers began writing the Constitution. It can be traced back to a series of papal bulls written by multiple Catholic popes in the 1400s, called the Christian Doctrine of Discovery. The Doctrine of Discovery justified, even mandated, both slavery and the conquest of the Americas in the name of God. These letters granted the Portuguese and Spanish kings at the time the right to \"invade, capture, vanquish, and subdue\" all \"barbarous nations\" that their explorers encountered on their kings' missions to expand throughout the world. The discovered lands, popes like Nicholas V reasoned in Dum Diversas, in 1452, were inhabited by pagans and infidels. These were \"savages,\" enemies of Christ who \"had no right to an original, free, and independent existence.\" The entirety of the Americas was thus deemed as terra nullius: null land (literally translated, land of the heathen or unbaptized person). It was a land of non-people. the territories of \"Saracens, pagans, and other enemies of Christ\" also included Africa. After invasion of these lands, Pope Nicholas V made it clear what to do: the \"claimed right of domination was to...reduce their persons to perpetual slavery and to take away all their possessions and their property.\" (Dum Diversas, 1452). This left little question about the intention and purpose of Christianity's expansion of the new continent. The pope's documents of heavenly ordained domination opened up the Americas to the taking by Christian settlers. As per the Doctrine of Discovery, God was on the Christian expansionists' side. As Pope Alexander VI wrote in one of these bulls, Inter Caetera, in 1493, it is He who entrusted the Europeans to go forth: \"for we trust in Him, from whom all empires and dominations and all good things proceed.\" This is the genesis of what become known in the United States as Manifest Destiny, and the interconnected belief in American exceptionalism. Conquer, capture, and ever onwards for more---it is God after all who tells us to do so. Of course, the Doctrine of Discovery didn't originate out of thin air---Pope Nicholas V, Alexander VI and others promulgated a divinely dictated dogma of non-civilized subhumanity, which justified conquest, conversion, control, and erasure---but their documents had centuries of germination. Their doctrines can be traced to the era of early Greek philosophy. Well-known theologian Luis Rivera[^14] connects the papal documents' language and worldview to that of Greco-Roman thinkers several millennia ago, such as Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates. These intellects revolutionized early Western thought by articulating a clear hierarchy of civility and world order. In their very structured worldview, humans existed on distinct levels of perfection, as on rungs of a ladder. Barbarians simply did not have the kind of cultural rationality of more civilized nations. They were lower on the ladder and participated to a much lesser degree in the perfection of God. These people were, the philosophers mused, simply not quite people. As the Christian world later developed, the dominant Western theology remained enormously influenced by these Aristotelian and Greco-Roman philosophers. In particular, the dichotomy of barbarianism versus civility entrenched itself as a well-established cultural worldview. It then became official doctrine with the papal teachings of divinely ordained domination. The perspective then spread around the globe as Christian missionaries and settlers did their worldwide work of invading, capturing, vanquishing and subduing. It became the de facto justification for conquering, marauding, and laying waste to entire populations of Native peoples. \"Savages\" simply belonged to a lesser order of being, and therefore did not count for anything. There was no wrong in this line of work. In fact, and at the heart of it all, as the popes made quite clear, those who did not subdue and conquer the enemies of Christ were the sinners (Dum Diversas). By the time the United States was being settled, this view of conquest of the savage subhuman Other was so deeply rooted that it entered unquestioned into the constitution of the young country. The landmark 1823 case Johnson v. M'Intosh established the legal foundations for US federal Indian law---and cemented the Doctrine of Discovery in the American legal system. Chief Justice John Marshall's ruling explicitly named the \"right of acquisition,\" or the law of nations. This was, he wrote, a principal established by the governing powers and \"agreed uponamong themselves\" (read, without any outside consultation). According to this pre-agreed contract without any outside consultation, Native Americans \"had the right to occupy by the land, but no [right to] full sovereignty.\"[^14] In other words, the powers at be created the game, and the rules, exactly as they wanted them---and were free to change them as they pleased. As per Johnson v. M'Intosh, the \"fierce savages\" may henceforth have protections and recognition, but no control; this meant land, but no real ownership. The land was taken; the conquered had lost. Antipathy towards Indigenous peoples had been in American consciousness long before Chief Justice John Marshall's decision. However, in the fevered decades of Manifest Destiny, numerous policies and decisions continued to invoke the Doctrine of Discovery as legitimation for the conquest of the West and the attempted extermination of the Natives. The examples are far too numerous---and their consequences too brutal---to detail here with sufficient consideration. However, the legal fever caught on so quickly that in 1835, just one decade after Johnson v M'Intosh, Judge John Catron was already declaring of the supremacy of the law of nations as a time-tested, universal truth. In State v Foreman (the Supreme Court of Tennessee), he upheld the governing powers' ultimate sovereignty and declared: the principle declared in 15 th century as the law of Christendom that discovery gave title to assert sovereignty over and to govern the unconverted has been recognized as part of the national law. The law of nations [has stood] for nearly four centuries and...is now recognized by every Christian power in its political and judicial department... Today: Making Connections In 1872, the federal government created the San Carlos Reservation as a \"'tract of country...withheld from sale and set apart' for the Apache.\"[^16] This included much of the present-day Tonto National Forest and Oak Flat. Scholars, the Apache Stronghold, and Stronghold lawyers and supporters are clear: the very definition of the reservation in the first place \"shows the Doctrine of Discovery at work.\"[^17] As d'Errico argues, the US invoked the law of nations by presuming to own the land and then making it available (or not) as the US government saw fit. The creation of Oak Flat and the original reservation itself clearly demonstrates the extent to which domination over Indigenous peoples was considered universal truth in American society. It was simply an unquestioned fact of existence for both lawmakers and most settler citizens. It was as foundational and elemental a truth as religious freedom. This domination was also what it meant to be American. Flashing forward 200 years since Johnson v. M'Intosh, and the cultural and legal legacy of domination is clearly reflected in the decisions made today around the proposed Resolution Copper mine and the future of Oak Flat. In 1955, the Eisenhower administration placed protections against the sale of public lands to private (corporate) interests. For decades, Oak Flats and the federally-overseen Tonto National Forest were safe from mining or other development. However, these protections disappeared literally overnight in 2014. Two Arizona senators added what is known as a midnight rider to the Defense Authorization Act of 2015, a \"must-pass\" bill being passed urgently through Congress at that time. The last-minute addendum, written in by senators John McCain and Jeff Flake, privatized Oak Flat and 2400 acres of the surrounding Tonto Forest, opening the land for sale and wiping out 60 years of safeguards against development. It essentially directed the government to allow for the immediate sale of Oak Flat. Resolution Copper had been openly \"coveting\" the land since 2005.[^18] Multiple administrations had upheld the protections and rejected calls for development of this sacred land, but these protections originally granted by the government were annihilated through privatization by the very same government. (Perhaps not surprisingly, the two senators involved in this midnight rider had vested interest in this land transfer. John McCain received campaign contributions from Rio Tinto, and Jeff Flake was a well-known former Rio Tinto lobbyist.) The authorization of this land transfer did require an environmental impact statement to be completed beforehand---but also included provisions \"stating that no matter what the EIS might report, the transfer of title will go through 60 days after completion of the...assessment.\"[^19] In other words, the land would be destined for development no matter what. According to Becket Law, advisors to the Apache Stronghold, the government's completely autonomous decision to privatize Oak Flat means the Indian sacred sites are left without protections, religious or otherwise. The Indian Religious Freedom Act simply would not apply to privately owned land. This unilateral decision is in a bad faith violation of the 1852 Treaty of Santa Fe that guarantees protection[^20] of the land designated for the Apache, in perpetuity. It is a violation of the freedom of expression for Native religions. This violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the First Amendment clause of religious expression is the basis for the 2022 Stronghold's lawsuit seeking an injunction to stop the land exchange[^21]. It is also likely a violation of the provisions of the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It is a violation of human rights in at least two ways, as per D'Errico. First is the Doctrine of Discovery's direct influence on the government's decisions. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples condemns the DOD and all \"doctrines, policies, and practices based on or advocating superiority of peoples or individuals on the basis of national origin or racial, religious, ethnic, or cultural differences.\" Second, as the Declaration makes clear, \"States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with...Indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands...territories or other resources...\" This clause of free, prior, and informed consent was directly ignored and violated by the midnight addendum to the Defense Authorization Act. The US government did not \"consult and cooperate in good faith\" with the Apache but rather catered to the lobbyists and representatives of Rio Tinto. Given the land's vital importance for the Apache as spiritual lifeblood,[^22] this can certainly be considered a spiritual resource, akin to a natural one as fundamental as water. Clearly, natural resources are not the only elements at stake. Fate of Chi'chil Bildagoteel, Fate of us all Today, a growing number of people are becoming aware of the myriad environmental injustices that Indigenous communities and other communities of color are forced to confront---and have been confronting for centuries, since the first years of Christian settler domination---because of the domination legacy. Thought the power of denial is still very strong in our broader, predominantly Christian culture, the long-standing, long-lasting, and ongoing injustices done directly at the hands of Christian leaders and faithful are becoming harder to ignore. The calls for truth-telling, transparency, and transformation are growing ever louder in many sectors of society. These are calls for reckoning with the injustices and hypocrisies at the heart of our democracy, which are coded into the founding documents and laws of this nation. These laws are based in a worldview which sees Indigenous people as non-people, as sub-humans, as not worthy of rights, protections, or the freedoms to express their fullest human selves. The laws, in essence, come from a worldview which disallows entire populations of people to be: to exist. It could not be clearer from the actions of the government: Despite being the sacred source of Apache people's identity---land as hallowed as a temple or a cathedral---Oak Flat is still regarded as terra nullus, good for nothing except exploitation, and it is the Doctrine of Discovery which allows for this to be okay. It is the culture of conquest which allows for Resolution Copper to successfully lobby and privatize hallowed ground for profit and exploitation. Oak Flat is thus a critical moment for much more than just the fate of the San Carlos Apache and Chi'chil Biłdagoteel. Christians are faced with a gigantic moral reckoning. The legal system is obviously implicated as well, as is the broader culture that upholds a value system wherein entire peoples are denied their basic right to exist. Even non-Christian or non-religious people have a stake in this case. Spiritual or not, no one is left unaffected. The First Amendment points to an intractable truth that is ultimately much bigger, broader, and deeper than anything that can be expressed in a law or through a human legal system. This is a truth which the Apache, and other Indigenous peoples, have known and have lived for time immemorial. Spiritual freedom and expression is more than a law to be affirmed by politicians or Founding Fathers. It is an existential reality, inseparable from and synonymous with being alive. Spiritual expression is a condition of life, and non-expression is death. The case of Apache Stronghold v. United States---by challenging the ways the First Amendment right has been denied to entire groups of people---represents more than just a broken and violated law. It gets at the fundaments of what it means to be human---because when that is taken away...what are we left with? We are all spiritual beings, part of a web of life that is much larger than we know. As such, we are all implicated by the court decisions coming out of the California 9 th Circuit Supreme Court. What happens to Oak Flat, happens to us all. Currently, the Stronghold case resides in the 9 th Circuit Court in California and is slated for an 11-judge panel to hear the appeal on March 20, 2023. Footnotes [^1]: Naelyn Pike, Youth Organizer, 2020. Written Testimony to the House Natural Resources Subcommittee for Indigenous Peoples of the United States Oversight Hearing on \"The Irreparable Environmental and Cultural Impacts of the Proposed Resolution Copper Mining Operation.\" [^2]: Poor People's Campaign. The Holy Places are Rumbling... [^3]: Resolution Copper, 2022. Oak Flat Myths and facts. [^4]: Resolution Copper [^5]: San Carlos Apache Tribe press release, 3 Dec 2012. Joint statement of the San Carlos Apache Tribe, Concerned Citizens and Retired Miners Coalition, and Arizona Mining Reform Coalition [^6]: American Indian Airwaves podcast, 2022. Protecting Chi'chil Bildagoteel: The Apache Stronghold Spiritual Convoy. [^7]: Indigenous Goddess Gang, 2018. Land, Water, Dignity: Protecting Chich'il Bildagoteel (Oak Flat). [^8]: San Carlos Apache Tribe Joint Press Release, 2012. [^9]: Talbot, Steve. \"Spiritual Genocide: The Denial of American Indian Religious Freedom, from Conquest to 1934.\" Wicazo Sa Review, vol. 21, no. 2, 2006, pp. 7--39. JSTOR, . Accessed 22 Feb. 2023. [^10]: Becket Law, 2021. Apache Stronghold v. United States case detail. [^11]: Constitution of the United States. Library of Congress. [^12]: Talbot, 2006, as quoted in the 1928 Meriam Report [^13]: Margaret Conell Szasz, 1981. \"Federal Boarding Schools and the Indian Child: 1920-1960,\" in The American Indian, Past and Present. New York: John Wiley and Sons. p 215-217. [^14]: Luis Rivera, 1992. A Violent Evangelism. Louisville: Westminster Press. [^15]: National Catholic Reporter, 2015. Disastrous Doctrine had Papal Roots. [^16]: Eyewitness History, 1999. Battle with the Apache, 1872. [^17]: D'Errico, Peter, 2016. Oak Flat Violates Apache Rights and Mining Best Practices. Indian Country Today Media Network [^18]: Morman, Todd Allin, 2016. Thesis Dissertation. Indian sovereignty and religious freedom: United States public land management and Indian sacred sites, 1978-2014; University of Missouri-Columbia; p 286. [^19]: Millet, \"Selling Off Apache Holy Land,\" as quoted in Joseph Huff-Hannon, 2015, Rolling Stone News. \"Meet the Apache Activists Opening for Niel Young,\" Rolling Stone, July 21, 2015. [^20]: Treaty with the Apache, 1 July 1852. Yale Law School Avalon Project. [^21]: Apache Stronghol v. United States of America, 2022. [^22]: Becket Law, 2021. Oak Flat: A holy land worth fighting for. YouTube video."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/onondaga-chronology-dispossession/",
    "title": "Focus on the Onondaga: A chronology of dispossession",
    "publishedAt": "2024-08-17T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Beginning in 2014, University Chancellor Kent Syverud initiated several measures honoring the Haudenosaunee. One of the measures is the University’s policy of opening public events acknowledging our connection to and respect for the Onondaga and the Haudenosaunee people. Relations between the Euro-Americans and the Six Nations have been fraught with war, broken treaties, racism, and a long history of land grabs that can be documented in maps and historical records. This chronology explores and illustrates the history of that relationship with maps that tell the story in a way difficult to imagine from published histories. It is a story about Onondaga land. In order to tell this story, I have drawn from scholarly books and articles, government documents and websites, news articles, conference proceedings, and the Onondaga Nation’s website. Visual sources and maps include the Library of Congress, the New York State Archives, and the Smithsonian Museum of the American Indian. However, it is also intended to be accessible to a non-academic audience, rather than a purely scholarly one.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "colonialism",
      "doctrine-of-discovery",
      "Onondaga",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Beginning in 2014, University Chancellor Kent Syverud initiated several measures honoring the Haudenosaunee. One of the measures is the University’s policy of opening public events acknowledging our connection to and respect for the Onondaga and the Haudenosaunee people. Relations between the Euro-Americans and the Six Nations have been fraught with war, broken treaties, racism, and a long history of land grabs that can be documented in maps and historical records. This chronology explores and illustrates the history of that relationship with maps that tell the story in a way difficult to imagine from published histories. It is a story about Onondaga land. In order to tell this story, I have drawn from scholarly books and articles, government documents and websites, news articles, conference proceedings, and the Onondaga Nation's website. Visual sources and maps include the Library of Congress, the New York State Archives, and the Smithsonian Museum of the American Indian. However, it is also intended to be accessible to a non-academic audience, rather than a purely scholarly one.",
    "externalUrl": "https://arcg.is/HTDry"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/order-economy-legality/",
    "title": "Order, Economy, and Legality: Johnson v. M’Intosh after Two Hundred Years",
    "publishedAt": "2023-03-11T11:54:46Z",
    "description": "Johnson’s Lessee v. M’Intosh  is an 1823 United States Supreme Court decision that serves as a hinge moment in the legal conquest of Native Americans. The case reified the colonial and early Republic view of Indigenous peoples and their lands, and the reification created a profound legacy for two centuries, manifesting itself in seemingly unlikely places up until the present day. Native Americans hold a certain set of rights in land,  Johnson  announced, but those rights are only partly cognizable in white settler contexts like courts or administrative proceedings. Backed by state power, these white contexts slowly work to diminish Indigenous culture and identity.  Johnson  is an important legal development in this overall process.  The cultural and economic background for  Johnson  provides helpful context. Order, economy, and legality stand together at the center of the Anglo-American conception of property. For the first 150 years of the English colonies’ existence in the North American continent, land purchases from Indigenous tribes occurred with frequency. This common practice of Indian land acquisition through ordinary purchase is at least one indicator that the prevailing view of land in that era was tribes held a marketable title that could be transferred to a purchaser for a price, similar to any other sale. Speculation, abuse, and fraud inevitably occurred, and by 1763 the English crown sought to end private purchases of Indian land and forbid western settlement through the  Royal Proclamation of 1763 . From that point on, only the crown could buy land from tribes. The Proclamation promised centralized order in land transactions, yet colonists ignored the 1763 edict to some degree. Frequent land speculation continued because fortunes could be made from such a vast commodity. Even George Washington engaged in illegal purchases of Indian land during this period,  recommending  the same types of black market real estate investments to others (p. 59).",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "Canopy",
      "Johnson",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Johnson's Lessee v. M'Intosh is an 1823 United States Supreme Court decision that serves as a hinge moment in the legal conquest of Native Americans. The case reified the colonial and early Republic view of Indigenous peoples and their lands, and the reification created a profound legacy for two centuries, manifesting itself in seemingly unlikely places up until the present day. Native Americans hold a certain set of rights in land, Johnson announced, but those rights are only partly cognizable in white settler contexts like courts or administrative proceedings. Backed by state power, these white contexts slowly work to diminish Indigenous culture and identity. Johnson is an important legal development in this overall process.  The cultural and economic background for Johnson provides helpful context. Order, economy, and legality stand together at the center of the Anglo-American conception of property. For the first 150 years of the English colonies' existence in the North American continent, land purchases from Indigenous tribes occurred with frequency. This common practice of Indian land acquisition through ordinary purchase is at least one indicator that the prevailing view of land in that era was tribes held a marketable title that could be transferred to a purchaser for a price, similar to any other sale. Speculation, abuse, and fraud inevitably occurred, and by 1763 the English crown sought to end private purchases of Indian land and forbid western settlement through the Royal Proclamation of 1763. From that point on, only the crown could buy land from tribes. The Proclamation promised centralized order in land transactions, yet colonists ignored the 1763 edict to some degree. Frequent land speculation continued because fortunes could be made from such a vast commodity. Even George Washington engaged in illegal purchases of Indian land during this period, recommending the same types of black market real estate investments to others (p. 59).",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/canopy/essay2/order-economy-legality/",
    "externalUrl": "https://canopyforum.org/2023/03/11/order-economy-and-legality-johnson-v-mintosh-after-two-hundred-years/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/original-cancel-culture/",
    "title": "The Original Cancel Culture",
    "publishedAt": "2021-01-05T14:54:46Z",
    "description": "The idea that Chief Wahoo is somehow honoring Indigenous peoples and his removal is cancel culture is not only absurd but is the reinforcement of the mindset derived from the Doctrine of Discovery…",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "mascots",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "The idea that Chief Wahoo is somehow honoring Indigenous peoples and his removal is cancel culture is not only absurd but is the reinforcement of the mindset derived from the Doctrine of Discovery...",
    "externalUrl": "https://aila.ngo/the-original-cancel-culture/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/papal-bulls/sublimis-deus-pastorale-officium-indecensvidetur/",
    "title": "Sublimis Deus, Pastorale Officium and Non Indecens Videtur -- A Historical Dive Into the Vatican's Failure to Rescind the Doctrine of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2022-10-24T07:54:46Z",
    "description": "In our journey of dismantling the Doctrine of Discovery and its horrible legacy, there is a recurring argument from the Catholic church and its supporters, that there is no need for the church to formally rescind, for it has already done so through the papal bull, Sublimis Deus.",
    "tags": [
      "Christian",
      "Papal-Bulls",
      "Indigenous",
      "featured",
      "blog",
      "papal-bulls"
    ],
    "textContent": "In our journey of dismantling the Doctrine of Discovery and its horrible legacy, there is a recurring argument from the Catholic church and its supporters, that there is no need for the church to formally rescind, for it has already done so through the papal bull Sublimis Deus. I have previously provided a brief overview as to why this argument does not hold true, and for those who wish to dive a little deeper into this history, now offer further discussion below. Before we do, however, it's best to tidy up a small, but important related matter: why Indigenous Peoples are calling for the Vatican to rescind the Doctrine, and the difference between \"rescind\" and \"repudiate\". We must address this because, in many of the arguments of the church, they conflate repudiation with rescindment as an evasive tactic, often citing the many times the church has repudiated the practice of slavery and Indigenous dispossession. Repudiation relates to the moral rejection and renunciation of a concept. Within the context of the Doctrine of Discovery, repudiation is most often what is called upon by modern colonial governments to do, where they have no explicit reference to the Doctrine of Discovery or the Papal Bulls within their constitution, but it is inferred within their assumption of domination. Rescindment refers to the revoking and repealing of a law or policy. Within the context of the Doctrine of Discovery, rescindment is most often what is called upon by the Vatican to do, as the papal bulls (laws) which form the basis of the Doctrine of Discovery, were issued by the Vatican. a Rescind the Doctrine of Discovery banner hanging before the Pope (image source) It's important for us to be clear about these two concepts, because so often those who argue against rescindment of the papal pulls cite the many instances where the Catholic church has repudiated the concepts of slavery and dispossession, including through the papal bull Sublimis Deus (as we saw recently when church defenders responded to First Nation protests calling for the Pope to rescind the Doctrine of Discovery, during his papal visit to Canada). As stated by leading Doctrine of Discovery scholar, Steven Newcomb it is important that the Pope formally and ceremonially revoke the entire body of papal bulls which constitute the Doctrine of Discovery, in order to systemically undercut the very basis of the arguments of domination which remain to be used against us to this day. Now, let us turn to the matter of Sublimis Deus, and its use as an argumentative tool against the duty of the Catholic church to formally rescind the Doctrine of Discovery. Understanding the intent and application of Sublimis Deus calls us to take a deep dive into the history of that period, to understand the characters, the text and intent of the documents, and the surrounding events. So let's set the scene: The Characters: The Documents: Sublimis Deus (1537) — Papal Bull, declaring that Indigenous Peoples should not be converted through dispossession or slavery Pastorale Officium (1537) — Papal bull attached to Sublimis Deus which outlined punishment of ex-communication Non-IndecensVidetur (1537) — The papal bull, issued one year later, which annulled Pastorale Officium, effectively nullifying Sublimis Deus. (If you do not have a translation widget on your browser I recommend DEEPL translator) The History: The year is 1537. By this time there had been numerous papal bulls, including Dum Diversas, Romanus Pontifex, Inter Caetera, Dudum Siquidem, and Eximiae Devotionis which codified racist systems of entitlement upon Indigenous territories and peoples. Various military expeditions and invasions of African Indigenous territories; and across the Atlantic to the Indies, Central and South America were empowered by those papal bulls. These invasions included the establishment of systems of violent extortion, extraction and forced labour/slavery where conquistadors declared themselves as land and slave owners, demanding regular tribute payments from local leaders, on punishment of mass torture, rape and massacre. This violent coercive system of labour and land tenure became known as the encomienda system, with the conquistador landowners known as encomenderos. As Spanish and Portuguese invaders, and the missionaries who accompanied them, established themselves a debate grew between the conquistadors, encomenderos, Dominican and Franciscan friars about exactly how the Natives should be treated, particularly where they resisted the invaders and refused to convert to Christianity. What is the Christian thing to do about those who resist the will of the Christian God? A number of the missionaries, including the Dominican monk who accompanied Columbus, Bartolome De Las Casas, petitioned Pope Paul III to protect the rights of the natives. In response, Pope Paul III issued Sublimis Deus (God is Sublime), which effectively decreed that natives still hold human and property rights even if they refuse to convert to Christianity. The bull was administered by a further bull Pastorale Officium which detailed the punishment for violating Sublimis Deus. The conquistadors, many of whom had established themselves as encomenderos, were naturally displeased at this turn of events. In most cases they ignored the most recent bull. Invasions under the likes of Pizarro, De Salazar, and Cortes continued unabated, and previous settlements continued with the encomienda system of forced labour and violent extortion. They did however, along with a number of Franciscan missionaries who opposed De Las Casas, write to Charles I, King of Spain and Holy Roman Emperor, and implored him to beseech the Pope on their behalf to rescind the bull. It was under these circumstances that, barely a year later in 1538, Paul III issued Non-IndecensVidetur, which annulled Pastorale Officium, effectively nullifying Sublimis Deus. So what is important to know about these documents? First, it's important to note that the enslavement and dispossession occurring to native peoples in the Americas at the time, was occurring as a direct result of the entitlements granted by the previous Papal Bulls. Sublimis Deus sought to dial that back. We can derive that from the text of Sublimis Deus, which draws from that of Dum Diversas and Romanus Pontifex: \"(we determine and declare) that the aforementioned Indians and all other peoples of which news will reach Christians in the future, even if they are out of faith in Christ, are not deprived of their freedom and of dominion of their things. Of such freedoms and dominion, they can use and possess and enjoy, freely and lawfully, and must not be reduced to servitude. And if the opposite happens, both invalid and null\". It is also important to understand what Sublimis Deus did, what it did not do, and what it never even intended to do. While Sublimis Deus very specifically forbade the enslavement and dispossession of Native peoples, it only did this within the context of acceptable means of converting them to Christianity. Sublimis Deus did not forbid harm upon Native peoples in general, did not forbid waging war against them, did not forbid colonial imperial expansion, and did not forbid attempted religious conversion — its direct intention was to declare that they should not be dispossessed or enslaved as a means of conversion. De Las Casas had by this point enjoyed a long relationship with King Charles I, and while the friar had recommended to the King an end to the encomienda system and enslavement of natives in the Americas, he also suggested that the loss of native slave labour could be compensated for by importing slaves from Africa, and still supported the mass settlement of Spaniards on Indigenous lands. This is a very clear illustration of the point often made by Doctrine of Discovery scholars: that the Doctrine of Christian Discovery has always been, at its heart, an economic project — for even when Sublimis Deus forbade enslavement and dispossession as a form of conversion, it still supported slave economies, the mass theft of Indigenous lands and establishment of European colonies on those lands, regardless of Indigenous consent. In other words, the economic imperative of establishing colonies took priority over the means of religious conversion. When Indigenous communities opposed that activity, the brutal acts of war and dispossession were carried out anyway, justified not by resistance to conversion, but in retaliation for opposing their papally-endorsed entitlement to invade and establish themselves on Indigenous lands. The priority of Indigenous conversion to Christianity within Sublimis Deus can be seen in its text: \"Therefore we, who although undeserved, exercise the place of Our Lord on earth, seek with every effort also the sheep of his flock entrusted to us that are outside his fold, to bring them back to the same fold\". \"And the aforementioned Indians and other peoples must be invited to faith in Christ by preaching the word of God and the example of a good life.\" This is important to note because the removal of the sacred from Indigenous Peoples has played a central role in legitimising Europeans' assumed supremacy over them, and subsequently in the building of systems of oppression based upon that assumed supremacy. This is further underscored in the papal brief which administered and gave effect to Sublimis Deus — Pastorale Officium. \"We therefore pay attention that the Indians themselves, even if they are outside the womb of the Church, are not deprived or are not about to be deprived of their freedom or dominion over their things, since they are men and therefore capable of faith and of salvation, are not cast down by servitude, but are invited to life by preaching and example and the like.\" In spite of the fact that Sublimis Deus had numerous loopholes for conquistadors and encomenderos to still carry out violence, slavery, and dispossession — the encomenderos and conquistadors were nevertheless aggrieved at the suggestion that they should in any way be expected to dial back their behaviour, even for the express purposes of religious conversion. The idea that Indigenous Peoples are human, and should enjoy human rights, was still broadly disputed (and in fact this was the very basis of the Valladolid debates in 1550), and so the assumptions upon which Sublimis Deus was based created a dangerous premise upon which further discussion could be built, discussion that could economically undermine their colonial entitlements. The encomenderos and conquistadors petitioned Charles I, as King of Spain and also Holy Roman Emperor, to implore for the rescindment of the bull, and this was effectively done nearly a year after its announcement, through the papal bull Non IndecensVidetur (Let it not be seen as indecent). Let's take a moment to reflect on the journey thus far: Papal bulls had been issued for decades allowing the entitlement of Europe to dispossess and enslave Indigenous Peoples. Missionaries petitioned for this to be forbidden as a means of conversion, resulting in the issuing of Sublimis Deus and Pastorale Officium. Opposition to Sublimis Deus arose from those involved in the invasion of the Americas and a year later, Pastorale Officium was annulled by Non IndecensVidetur, effectively nullifying Sublimis Deus. How thorough was Non IndecensVidetur in its annulment? The text is clear: \"we expressly want for the present (letter), and whatever in it contained, with apostolic authority for the present letter we quash, invalidate and annul\" As mentioned, the argument most often put forth by the Vatican and some within the Catholic church to rescind the papal bulls which constitute the Doctrine of Discovery, is that the Vatican has already rescinded the bulls through Sublimis Deus. In every instance, that argument fails to take into consideration that the bull did not oppose the colonial project, which would only ever lead to the denial of basic human rights of Indigenous Peoples to live undisturbed in our own territories. All Sublimis Deus was ever intended to do was outline the acceptable means of converting Natives to Christianity — and even that much was rescinded barely a year later, removing all systemic force Sublimis Deus could have had. That Sublimis Deus held no systemic force, even within the church, is evidenced most clearly by three facts: 1. The debate of Valladolid, held just over a decade later, ordered by King Charles I of Spain, was based upon the very argument of whether Indigenous Peoples were human or not, with De Las Casas defending the human rights of Indigenous Peoples as rational beings, and his opponent Juan de Sepulveda holding the position that Indigenous Peoples are savages, incapable of self-rule. Neither side was deemed by the jury to have won that debate. 2. The authoritative compendium on all papal bulls and Catholic morality, the Enchiridion (aka Denzinger) struck Sublimis Deus from its records. 3. Spain, Portugal, and other European nations, and the colonial governments that they founded continued well past that day (and indeed up to contemporary times) to dispossess, enslave, dominate and oppress Indigenous Peoples on their own lands, based upon the entitlements accorded through the papal bulls. There is a final argument which bears considering here — it is a very simple, arguably common-sense argument, yet also one that has yet to be answered by both the Vatican and member-states. There have been multiple Indigenous delegations to the Vatican, calling upon the Pope to rescind the Doctrine of Discovery and each time they have been refused. There have been multiple calls upon governments to similarly repudiate the Doctrine of Discovery. In 2012, the United Nations Permanent Forum for Indigenous Issues called upon all member states to formally repudiate the Doctrine of Discovery. Ten years later, not one member state has reported back on that recommendation, and in fact numerous member states including Canada, United States, Australia and New Zealand governments have invested in formal ceremonies which celebrated the application of the Doctrine of Discovery. If, as they argue, the papal bulls no longer hold relevance in contemporary policy, legislature or jurisprudence, and are indeed, as the Holy See contested at the United Nations, a \"historic remnant with no juridical or spiritual value\" then what is the problem in rescinding them? If there is no systemic force to the Doctrine of Discovery, then why do contemporary colonial governments refuse to formally repudiate them? One would assume this would be an easy win for them to present themselves as supporters of Indigenous rights, and Indigenous Peoples have repeated stated that this matters a great deal to us. It is a very basic question that colonial states and the Vatican must sit with — if it matters nought, then why does revoking it continue to stoke contemporary colonial anxiety? In consideration of this history, there can be no doubt as to the fact that Sublimis Deus does not equate to the rescinding of the Doctrine of Discovery, that the duty still rests with the Vatican to formally, and ceremonially rescind the entire body of papal bulls that are collectively known as the Doctrine of Discovery, and that member state governments must still formally repudiate and renounce the Doctrine of Discovery as racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable and socially unjust."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/papal-documents/dominance/ships/vatican-city/francis/pope/responses/joint-statement-responses/confliciting-perspectives-san-fran-peaks/",
    "title": "Conflicting Perspectives Regarding the Holy Mountain Called 'San Francisco Peaks,' and Other Sacred and Significant Places of Original Nations and Traditional Healers",
    "publishedAt": "2023-08-11T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Steven Newcomb (Shawnee/Lenape) Our original nation ancestors understood mountains and other geographical areas as living beings imbued with spiritual energy. Our spiritual people knew and still know how to spiritually attune and align themselves with that energy in a ceremonial manner, by means of our languages and ceremonial ways. This has always been the central purpose of our Spiritual Way of Life. Contents Prefatory Note: The Free Existence of Original Nations On Redundancy and the Domination Translator Some Clarification on Terminology The Biblical Framework and Context of Federal Anti-Indian Law The Intention to Establish Domination Where It Did Not Already Exist Mental Competition between the Traditional Ceremonial People of Original Nations and U.S. Government Officials who Use the United States’ Claim of a Right of Domination The Benefit of Traditional Ceremonies Identifying the Linguistic Patterns of Domination Traditional Native People Henry Wheaton’s Elements of International Law and the Doctrine of Infidel Nonexistence B. A. Hinsdale Proof of the Christian (Biblical) Basis for ‘the Right’ to Sail to and Identify Non-Christian Lands More From Wheaton’s Elements of International Law It’s Time to Identify the U.S. Government’s Claim of a Right of Domination The Biblical Connection American Indian Religious Freedom Legal Cases and the U.S. Claim of Property Over the Traditional Lands of Our Original Nations The U.S. Government’s Reasoning Process Regarding Our Sacred and Ceremonial Places That Was Then, and Its Still Operational Now McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020) A View-from-the-Ship Parsing of Johnson v. McIntosh The Accompanying Principle: An Indian Title of Occupancy The Supreme Court’s Use of the Doctrine of Christian Domination in Lyng Justice Brennan’s Dissenting Opinion in Lyng v. Northwest Cemetery Protective Association The U.S. Government’s Free Exercise of Domination on the Basis of the Bible Why Religious Freedom Arguments Are Not Designed to Defeat The U.S. Government’s Claim Of A Right of Domination Against Original Nations and Peoples A Three-Pronged Counter Argument to the U.S. Claim of a Right of Domination Against Our Original Nations and Peoples Conclusion Notes ↑ Prefatory Note: The Free Existence of Original Nations Mentally picture the free and independent existence of all the Original Nations and Peoples on this continent, extending back to the beginning of time through their oral histories and oral traditions, before the Christian Europeans had invasively arrived. Throughout that timespan, our ancestors lived free from the words and mental world of Western Europe. Our ancestors lived entirely free from the clever Euro-American metaphors, ideas, and arguments now used on a daily basis by the United States government against our nations and peoples. Our original nation ancestors understood mountains and other geographical areas as living beings imbued with spiritual energy. Our spiritual people knew and still know how to spiritually attune and align themselves with that energy in a ceremonial manner, by means of our languages and ceremonial ways. This has always been the central purpose of our Spiritual Way of Life. Our traditional healers and medicine people knew and still know why it is necessary to conduct ceremonies, especially in Sacred and Significant Places of concentrated spiritual energy. Even today our traditional spiritual people continue to carry on their ways, to fulfill the sacred responsibilities that our peoples have to care for our rightful place on Mother Earth. However, invading and colonizing peoples from Western Europe eventually arrived to this continent more than five centuries ago. They showed no respect for the Life-Ways and free existence of the original nations and peoples because they had carried with them across the ocean, a mental world of domination. Based on the Bible, the invading nations of Christendom mentally claimed that their “God” had “given” them the lands where our Ancestors were living, 1 and where our spiritual people carry out their authority and sacred responsibilities. The invading peoples assumed that their “God” had given them the right to use their ideas and arguments as a means of depriving our nations and peoples of our original free existence. They assumed that their “God” had chosen them as a people with whom “He” would make a divine “covenant” or treaty. 2 And on that basis they further assumed their “God” had “given them” the right to name and claim as their own, 3 the lands and Sacred Places with which our original nations and peoples already had and still have a well-established spiritual relationship that has lasted millennia, to use Western time-frame language. The difference between our original-free-existence perspective, and the claim-of-a-right-of-domination perspective of the dominating society, invariably produces conflict. That difference gives rise to competition between those who carry these two distinctive perspectives over questions of power and decision-making. Given the existence of these two opposing perspectives, both of which are competing to make final decisions regarding the use of a particular geographical area, the question becomes: which perspective will end up in the final decision-making position? Now apply this question to a dispute between the United States government and traditional ceremonial Native people regarding a Sacred and Significant Place of original nations — so-called San Francisco Peaks , a place for which our original nations have our own name in our own respective languages. ↑ On Redundancy and the Domination Translator A cardinal rule of writing is don’t repeat yourself. Clearly state what you have to say and move on. Once you’ve stated something, there’s no need to say it again. This essay intentionally violates this rule. To write about a system of domination it becomes necessary to use the word domination in what appears to be an obsessively repetitious manner. Additionally, we use what we call “The Domination Translator.” It’s a simple technique: place the word domination inside brackets after a synonym for domination. An example is: “property [domination].” ↑ Some Clarification on Terminology This essay is being written for the orientation of an English-speaking audience that lives in the mental world and thus the reality system of the dominating society of the United States. For this reason, we need to make some preliminary comments concerning the terminology used herein. In the U.S. Supreme Court ruling Johnson v. McIntosh of 1823, 4 Chief Justice Marshall (1755-1835) says of the “Indians” : “[T]heir rights to complete sovereignty , as independent nations, were necessarily diminished … by the original fundamental principle that discovery gave title to those who made it [the discovery].” 5 (emphasis added) This reasoning implies that the invading Christian Europeans are the ones who are “original” and “fundamental” to this continent. To correct this wrongful impression, we refer to the nations and peoples of this continent and this hemisphere as “original” nations and peoples, meaning the ones already living here on this continent before the invasion by Christendom. The terms “Christian” and “Christian European” and “Christendom” are used in this essay because they match the historical record of Vatican papal documents, royal charters of Great Britain (England), and the 1823 U.S. Supreme Court ruling Johnson v. McIntosh . Those documents illustrate the claim, made in the name of Christianity, of a right of domination over non-Christian peoples and their lands, a claim which is now a feature of the body of anti-Indian ideas and arguments now called “federal Indian law.” 6 Most scholars of the subject do not write about the anti-Indian ideas of federal Indian law as a system of “domination.” They also tend to change the word “Christian,” which appears in the earliest documents, to the word “European” which is not found in those documents. In our view, this change in particular prevents an accurate understanding of the historical record. Take, for example, a rather common way of explaining the “doctrine of discovery” : The doctrine of discovery came into existence with the rapid expansion of European empires in the fifteenth century. Its basic tenet “that the European nation which first ‘discovered’ and settled lands previously unknown to Europeans thereby gained the exclusive right to acquire those lands from their occupants became part of the early body of international law dealing with aboriginal peoples.” 7 [emphasis added] This is a secular non-religious explanation of what the ancient documents reveal to be a biblically premised and theological (religious) basis for the Claim of a Right of Christian Domination. Key terminology found in the documents of that period reveal why the terms “European” and “non-European” are not accurate. They do not appear in those documents. Pope Alexander VI, for example, issued several papal documents to the monarchs of Spain shortly after Columbus’s first voyage to the Bahamas and never uses the terms Europe and Europeans. The first papal bull in the series is dated May 3, 1493 . 8 The pope’s scribes used the phrases “Christian lords” (“ dominorum Christianorum ” ), “Christian king or prince” (“ Christiano principi ” ), and “Christian people” or “Christendom” (“ populi Christiani ” ). Not surprisingly, popes of the Catholic Church distinguished between the Christian world and peoples that Christians called “heathen,” “pagan,” “infidel,” “savage,” and “barbarous.” Three hundred and thirty-three years later, in 1823, the members of the United States Supreme Court, such as John Marshall and Joseph Story (1779-1845), looked back to those ancient documents of Christendom when deciding how to write a landmark decision in the case Johnson & Graham’s Lessee v. McIntosh . It appears that most people of our current generation have failed to realize that Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the Johnson ruling, on behalf of a unanimous Court, by following Christendom’s ancient tradition of distinguishing between Christians and non-Christians. This is demonstrated by Marshall’s repeated use of the phrase “ Christian people ,” which he distinguished from “ natives, who were heathens ” . And it is demonstrated by Marshall’s documentation of the Christian claim of a right of domination over non-Christians, which is now a permanent feature of U.S. federal Indian law, otherwise known as federal anti-Indian law . ↑ The Biblical Framework and Context of Federal Anti-Indian Law Marshall included the phrase “Christian people” in the Johnson ruling in specific imitation of that phrase being expressed in a number of royal charters of England, such as the John Cabot Charter of 1496 , which King Henry VII issued in imitation of the Alexandrian papal bulls of 1493. The Oxford English Dictionary explains that “heathen” is a word “of Christian origin ,” 9 which means “heathen” is a linguistic carrier of the context of the Bible, the source of Christianity. It is a part that stands for the whole. This leads to an important insight about the linguistic and intellectual tradition of the United States with regard to the Sacred and Significant Places of original nations and peoples, including San Francisco Peaks. The Christian (biblical) context of the body of ideas and arguments called “federal Indian law” begins with a distinction between what the Supreme Court called the “ultimate dominion” (a right of domination) of “Christian people” and the mere “occupancy” of “heathens,” with no presumed property right of domination. Because “heathen” is a word of Christian origin , and because the Johnson v. McIntosh ruling is still an active Supreme Court precedent, this means that the United States government is still using this distinction between Christian domination and “heathen occupancy” as the basis of its decision-making regarding the Sacred and Significant Places of our original nations and peoples. In other words, whether they know it or not, U.S. government officials are using a conceptual framework that is premised on language from the Bible. Whenever we see a Sacred and Significant Place being referred to as “federal property,” contrasted with an “aboriginal interest” of “occupancy,” which has been declared as “not a property right,” the distinction between Christian domination and non-Christians occupancy is actively being used. U.S. government officials apply to the Sacred and Significant places of original nations, this categorical difference between a right of domination (“property” ) for Christian people,” along with their descendants and successors, and a non-domination right of “occupancy” for non-Christian original nations. As we shall demonstrate below, the U.S. claim of a right of domination is the biblical and historical context for American Indian religious freedom cases having to do with the Sacred and Significant Places of the original nations and peoples of this continent. Religious Freedom arguments made on behalf of Native spiritual practitioners have proven ineffective as a means of stopping the desecration and destruction of their Sacred Places. The reason should be clear: “Free Exercise of Religion” arguments are not able to effectively counter the presumption that the U.S. government has the sole and exclusive right of domination over places that are being deemed “federal property.” As a result of our investigation of ancient documents from Western Christendom and the overall historical record, we know that the invading colonizers sailed their ships to this continent with a specific intention . It was their intention to identify the geographical location of lands which until then had remained unknown to the Christian world. The word “discovery” is a shorthand way of referring to this new form of geographical knowledge. ↑ The Intention to Establish Domination Where It Did Not Already Exist It was Christendom’s intention to identify non-Christian lands across the ocean so that a right of Christian domination (“ dominio ” and “ dominium ” ) could be claimed in relation to those newly located lands, and in relation to the original nations and peoples living there. A key example is wording found in the Prerogatives that the monarchs of Spain issued to Columbus: Columbus (Cristobal Colón, “Christ-bearing Colonizer” ) was authorized to “discover and conquer” and “discover and subdue” whatever lands he was able to locate across the ocean that had not been previously identified and dominated. The words “conquer” and “subdue” are two synonyms for domination. Centuries later, as a result of its international treaties with different countries from Europe—such as, for example, England, France, and Spain—the U.S. government became the political successor to the Christian world’s claim of a right of domination that had been initially made by those monarchies of the Christian European world. By means of the Johnson v. McIntosh ruling, the United States have consistently claimed and continue to claim a right of Christian domination over the lands and territories of our original nations, including over our Sacred and Significant Places, such as “San Francisco Peaks,” on the basis of a biblical distinction between “Christian people” and “heathens.” ↑ Mental Competition between the Traditional Ceremonial People of Original Nations and U.S. Government Officials who Use the United States’ Claim of a Right of Domination Let us return now to the context for this discussion. Our Native ancestors stood on the belief of the Sacredness of All Life. Our ancestors had no knowledge of the language spoken by the invading colonizers, and, conversely, the invading colonizers had no knowledge and no idea of our worldview that all Creation is Sacred. It was not possible for them to comprehend what the foreigners were saying. Nor did our ancestors have the ability to read the documents of the foreigners, such as Vatican papal decrees or royal charters. Even the everyday European person back in those days probably had no ability to get their hands on such documents, let alone accurately read and interpret their text. Those documents were highly specialized and handled at the very highest level of the Church and the State. They were drafted by an extremely small number of Christian European men, or scribes, who had been taught the unique set of skills needed for writing such documents, which were modeled after documents of the Roman Empire. 10 Remarkably, we as the Native people of this generation now have the ability to read and learn what those ancient documents are able to teach us about persistent and chronic patterns of domination in today’s world. Now, centuries after the invading colonizers first arrived here to this continent, there are those of us as Native people who have learned how to read a number of ancient documents that were created by Christian Europeans to the East across the Atlantic Ocean. We have learned to interpret those documents and other specialized writings that are part of the organic law tradition of the United States, with its linguistic and behavioral tradition of domination, an organic law tradition that is woven into the writings of U.S. Supreme Court rulings. Some of us have dedicated decades to acquiring the necessary skills to do such interpretive work. 11 And this work has involved a certain amount of risk. For there was always the possibility that this intellectual activity would result in our minds becoming so absorbed, so to speak, into the dominating society’s consciousness that we would be left with only the ability to accept rather than reject the Christian European claim of a right of domination over our nations and peoples, and over our Sacred and Significant Places. Fortunately, this has not happened. ↑ The Benefit of Traditional Ceremonies Some of us who have been fortunate enough to participate in the liberating experience of ceremonial life, especially in our Sacred and Significant Places, have thereby gained a heightened appreciation of the original and spiritually grounded free existence of our nations and peoples. We have how now learned to think, speak, and write with a view-from-the-shore perspective, envisioning the invading ships sailing toward our ancestors on shore. That view-from-the-shore perspective enables us to unequivocally oppose the claim of a right of domination over our nations and peoples, over our women and children, over our traditional territories, including our Sacred Places, and over Life itself. By contrast, U.S. government officials operate on the basis of a well-accepted but unstated assumption that the U.S. federal government has the right, consistent with the ancient language patterns and mentality of Christendom, to claim, on behalf of the United States, a right of domination over our original nations and peoples. ↑ Identifying the Linguistic Patterns of Domination A view-from-the-ship-of-state perspective results in the use of euphemistic vocabulary that draws attention away from the system of domination. We as Native people need to learn to identify the linguistic carriers of the domination system. An excellent example of that system is the Tennessee Supreme Court ruling State v. Foreman . 12 In his ruling, Judge John Catron provides an excellent example of the kind of language that has been used by the United States officials in relation to our original nations and peoples and our Sacred and Significant Places: We maintain, that the principle declared in the fifteenth century as the law of Christendom, that discovery gave title to assume sovereignty over and to govern the unconverted natives of Africa, Asia and North and South America, has been recognized as a part of the national law [the law of nations], for nearly four centuries, and that it is now so recognized by every Christian power, in its political department and its judicial . . . That, from Cape Horn to Hudson Bay, it [this principle] is acted upon as the only known rule of sovereign power, by which the native Indian is coerced [dominated]. . . Our claim [to a right of domination] is based on the right to coerce obedience. The claim may be denounced by the moralist. We answer, it is the law of the land. Without its assertion and vigorous execution, this continent never could have been inhabited by our ancestors. To abandon the principle now, is to assert that they were unjust usurpers; and that we, succeeding to their usurped authority and void claims to possess and govern the country, should in honesty abandon it, return to Europe, and let the subdued [dominated] parts again become a wilderness and hunting ground. 13 It is notable that Judge Catron was eventually appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Andrew Jackson. In other words, he reached the highest strata of the legal profession in the United States. In the above quote, he claims that “discovery” (new geographical knowledge) “gave” the discoverers a “title” to assume sovereignty [i.e., a “right of domination” ] over and to govern [dominate] the non-Christian [“unconverted” ] natives of Africa, Asia and North and South America” by coercing them into obedience to a system of domination. This tells us that when the representatives of a Christian monarch reached a region where non-Christians were already living, and where Christian domination had never been previously established, the monarchs of Christendom had already agreed amongst themselves that the “discovering” monarch would have the right to claim a right of Christian domination (“title” and “sovereignty” ) over any area that had been identified for the very first time by a monarch of Christendom. In keeping with the previously mentioned papal and royal documents, “discovery” meant sailing by ship across the ocean with the intention of identifying any geographical location where non-Christians were living, and to create a Christian system of domination where such a system had never been previously established. And this intention was fulfilled by coercing the original nations into obedience to the reign of the dominators. This reveals the linguistic and behavioral basis for the claim of a right of domination that the U.S. government is now claiming in relation to San Francisco Peaks and other Sacred and Significant Places of Original Nations, such as Oak Flat and the Black Hills, as well as over our sacred holdings such as Eagle Feathers. ↑ Traditional Native People Traditional Native people, especially Elders who are fluent in their own non-English language, despite the effort to kill our languages, have tended to avoid the specialized knowledge of the dominating society. They have focused instead on learning from their Elders the highly specialized knowledge, sacred language, and ceremonial ways, which the U.S. government has worked so diligently to destroy. There is a need for a collaboration between those traditional Native people who still wholeheartedly maintain and uphold the ceremonial practices of their people, and those Native scholars who have studied the documents, ideas, and arguments of the dominating society. Strengthened by the knowledge we have accumulated, we as scholars need to advocate on behalf of our traditional ceremonial people, and on behalf of our fundamental birthright to live free from and to reject the claim of a right of domination from any source whatsoever, in honor of our original pre-invasion existence. Let us now examine more specifically some of the ideas and arguments that have been used against our original nations and peoples with regard to our traditional territories and our Sacred and Significant places. In the next section we discuss the writings of Henry Wheaton (1785-1848) and Burke Aaron Hinsdale (1837-1900) . Wheaton was a reporter for the U.S. Supreme Court, and Hinsdale was an eminent nineteenth century educator author who studied what he called “The Right of Discovery” that has been applied by the U.S. government to our Sacred and Significant places, such as the San Francisco Peaks. ↑ Henry Wheaton’s Elements of International Law and the Doctrine of Infidel Nonexistence Henry Wheaton was a U.S. lawyer, jurist, and diplomat. He was the third reporter of decisions issued by the U.S. Supreme Court. He held that position when the Court issued the 1823 Johnson v. McIntosh ruling. In 1836, thirteen years after the Johnson decision, Wheaton published his Elements of International Law 14 in which he explained that, “The law of nations, or international law, as understood among civilized, Christian nations, may be defined as consisting of those rules of conduct which reason deduces, as consonant to justice, from the nature of the society existing among independent nations; with such definitions and modifications as may be established by general consent [of the civilized, Christian nations].” 15 Given the importance of Wheaton’s Elements , and his explanation of what we call the right of Christian discovery and domination pursuant to the “law of nations,” we are including below several lengthy quotes from Chapter IV of Elements , titled “Rights of Property,” 16 while reminding the reader here in passing that “property” has been defined as, a right of “physical domination over some part of the natural world,” such as San Francisco Peaks: The title [of domination] of almost all nations of Europe to the territory now possessed by them in that quarter of the world [the Western Hemisphere] was originally derived from conquest [domination] which has been subsequently confirmed by international compacts to which all the European states have successively become parties. Their claim to the possessions held by them in the New World discovered by Columbus and other adventurers, and to the territories which they have acquired on the continents of Africa and Asia, was originally derived from discovery [new knowledge] or conquest and colonization [domination], and has since been confirmed in the same manner by positive compact. Independent of these sources of title, the general consent of mankind has established the principle that long uninterrupted possession [of territory] by one nation excludes the claim of every other. 17 If the Christian nations of Europe had been required to apply to our nations this principle of long “uninterrupted possession of territory,” specifically, that our nations’ long uninterrupted possession of our territories excludes the claim of every invading nation, then our nations would have been able to invoke that principle to exclude the invasive claims made by the monarchs of Christendom to this continent. The Christian monarchs, however, had agreed among themselves that only Christian nations could invoke the principle of long uninterrupted possession of territory by colonizing powers.  The Christian world refused to apply that principle to peoples they deemed to be “barbarous” “heathens,” and “infidels.” ↑ B. A. Hinsdale Burke Aaron Hinsdale, in his 1888 essay “ Right of Discovery ,” 18 writes,” “To the mind of Christian Europe in the fifteenth century the distinction between Christian and Infidel was ineffaceable [irremovable].” In other words, within the mental world of Christendom, the hatred Christians had toward non-Christians was considered permanent. Hinsdale continues: “Mr. Wheaton states the case thus: ‘According to the European ideas of that age, the heathen nations of the other quarters of the globe were the lawful spoil and prey of their civilized conquerors.’” 19 This language exemplifies the claim of a right of domination. Hinsdale puts an even finer point on the matter with a quote from H. H. Bancroft, to the effect that, what “seems never to have been questioned” during that era, “by either discoverer, adventurer, or ruler,” was the assumption that the Native peoples were “fit subjects for coercion, treachery, robbery, enslavement, and slaughter.” 20 Bancroft continues as follows: “However invalid might have been the argument of a housebreaker, that in the room he entered he discovered a purse of gold, and took it, Spaniards never thought of applying such logic to themselves in regard to the possessions of the natives in the new lands the Genoese [Columbus] had found.” 21 Hinsdale explains the trick of the mind that European scholars performed during the so-called Age of Discovery. The seafaring powers of Christian Europe, says Hinsdale, “had not seized the possessions of their enemies by force, but had occupied what belonged to nobody .” 22 (emphasis added) “Nobody” is a category that serves to negate the original peoples by deeming (judging) them as not existing . It relegates non-Christians to a dimension, so to speak, of non-existence. Peoples deemed (judged) to not exist conceptually (even though they existed physically) could not compete with or block the Christian Europeans. This suggests that the intellectuals of Western Europe created the pretension that our Native ancestors were nonexistent and thus not to be included in the allocation of rights of domination (“property” ), meaning “a right of domination rightfully obtained over some object,” such as the lands of the continent. Hinsdale notes that “the Roman law furnished a full legal justification for the appropriation of the New World by the Christian nations.” [^23] “They had but to hold the savages their enemies and to treat them accordingly…. They chose another path,” a path that was “more in accordance with the theological temper of the times.” [^24] ↑ Proof of the Christian (Biblical) Basis for ‘the Right’ to Sail to and Identify Non-Christian Lands “Perhaps the strongest proof of the correctness of the view advanced,” said Hindsdale, “is furnished by the commissions, charters, and patents granted to explorers by the Kings of England.” 23 He continues: Henry VII, in 1496, commissioned John Cabot and his sons “to seek out and discover all Islands, regions, and provinces whatsoever that may belong to heathens and infidels” and “to subdue [dominate], occupy, and possess these territories as his vassals and lieutenants.” The charter granted to Sir Walter Raleigh by Queen Elizabeth , in 1584, gave him full liberty and license “to discover, search, find out, and view such remote heathen and barbarous lands, countries, and territories not actually possessed of any Christian prince, nor inhabited by Christian people, as to him shall seem good,” etc. Afterwards the words “heathen” and “barbarian” were omitted from this class of documents, but the phrase “not possessed of any Christian prince, nor inhabited by any Christian people” is found in charters of the next century, as in those of Virginia, 1606, and New England, 1620. The disappearance of the heathen qualification from the English charters after 1620 was due in part to the fact that the boundaries of claims had become more definite, but also in part because of the growing secularization of politics. Such was the origin of the Right of Discovery, the criterion to which the nations that had divided the New World appealed in territorial controversies, and the ultimate ground of title [a right of domination] throughout the United States. 24 Here, Hinsdale has identified the view that as soon as a Christian power had identified a non-Christian area, over which no Christian monarch had previously claimed a right of domination, as if by magic, the Christian monarch was considered to have come into possession, so to speak, of a right of domination over that non-Christian area. Hinsdale also reveals another key point: As the generations pass, negative Christian religious terminology (e.g., “heathen,” “pagan” and “infidel” ) began to fall out of favor and the word “Christian” often ended up being replaced with the word “European.” When this happens, the specifically Christian, and, thus, biblical basis for the U.S. government’s claim of a right of domination in relation to San Francisco Peaks and other Sacred and Significant Places becomes veiled and thus more difficult to identify. Consistent with what we may aptly term The Doctrine of Infidel Nonexistence, some Christian European intellectuals decided that they would pretend that non-Christian peoples did not even exist when it came to “property” and “property rights.” This explains the basis upon which the U.S. government defines the terms “Indian title” and “aboriginal title” with regard to our Sacred and Significant Places, as “mere occupancy,” and “not a property right.” 25 The original nations upon whom the categories “heathens,” “pagans,” and “infidels” were mentally imposed , have been excluded from Christendom’s allocation and distribution of rights of domination (“property” rights) in newly identified non-Christian geographical areas. This explanation sheds light on what Wheaton said about the relationship between the idea of “discovery” and the creation of “rights of property.” Hinsdale goes on to explain: Practically, discovery, when consummated [by possession], was conquest, but theoretically, it was something very different. An enemy overcome in battle was nullus according to the Roman law, but another definition, and one more consonant with the temper of the times, was now adopted. This definition was supplied by the Roman [Catholic] Church. The new definition of nullus was, a heathen, pagan, infidel, or unbaptized person. “Paganism, which meant being unbaptized,” says Dr. [Francis] Lieber , “ deprived the individual of those rights which a true jural morality considers inherent in each human being.” The same writer [Lieber] also states that the Right of Discovery is founded “on the principle that what belongs to no one may be appropriated by the finder,” but this principle become effectual only when supplemented by the Church definition of nullus . That definition supplied the lacking premise in the demonstration. Grant that res nullius is the property of the finder; that an infidel is nullus [nonexistent]; that the American savage is an infidel [a nonexistent nobody], and the argument is complete. That the Church, one of whose great duties is to protect the weak and helpless, should have supplied one-half the logic that justified the spoliation and enslavement of the heathen, is one of the anomalies of history. 26 This points out a specific pattern of reasoning applied to the Sacred and Significant Places of our original nations such as San Francisco Peaks, a pattern which is premised upon a Doctrine of Infidel Negation with regard to Christian claimed rights of domination over the lands of “heathen” and “Infidel” nations and peoples. ↑ More From Wheaton’s Elements of International Law Wheaton says the following with regard to Christendom’s agreed upon principle, mentioned above, that long uninterrupted possession of territory by one invading (“civilized invaders” ) Christian European nation excludes the claim of every other: Whether this general consent be considered as an implied contract or as positive law, all nations [of Christian Europe] are equally bound by it, since all are parties to it; since none can safely disregard it without impugning its own title to its possessions; and since it is founded upon mutual utility, and tends to promote the general welfare of mankind. 27 Clearly, Wheaton’s category “mankind” did not include the “heathen” and “infidel” nations of the globe. He makes this point even more clear as he continues with his explanation of Christian Rights of Property [Domination]: The Spaniards and Portuguese took the lead among the nations of Europe in the splendid maritime discoveries in the East and the West, during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. According to the European ideas of that age, the heathen nations of the other quarters of the globe were the lawful spoil and prey of their civilized conquerors [dominators], and as between the christian powers themselves, the Sovereign Pontiff was the supreme arbiter of conflicting claims. Hence the famous bull issued by Pope Alexander VI. [sic] in 1493, by which he granted to the crown of Castille and Arragon all lands discovered, and to be discovered, beyond a line drawn from pole to pole, one hundred leagues west from the Azores, or Western Islands, under which Spain has since claimed to exclude all other European nations from the possession and use, not only of the lands, but of the seas, in the New World west of that line. Independent of this papal grant, the right of prior discovery was the foundation upon which the different European nations, by whom conquests [dominations] and settlements were successively made on the American continent, rested their respective claims to appropriate [dominate] its territory to the exclusive use of each nation. Even Spain did not found her pretensions solely on the papal grant. Portugal asserted a title derived from discovery and conquest [domination] to a portion of South America, taking care to keep to the eastward of the line traced by the Pope by which the globe seemed to be divided between these two great monarchies. On the other hand, Great Britain, France, and Holland, disregarded the pretended authority of the papal see, and pushed their discoveries, conquests, and settlements, both in the East and the West Indies, until conflicting with the paramount claims of Spain and Portugal, they produced bloody and destructive wars between the different maritime powers of Europe. But there was one thing in which they all agreed, that of almost entirely disregarding the right of the native inhabitants of these regions. Thus the bull of Pope Alexander VI. [sic] reserved from the grant to Spain, all lands which had been previously occupied by any other christian nation [Wheaton’s emphasis]: and the patent granted by Henry VII. [sic] of England to John Cabot and his sons authorized them “to seek out and discover all islands, regions, and provinces whatsoever that may belong to heathens and infidels,” and “to subdue, occupy, and possess these territories, as his [the king’s] vassals and lieutenants.” In the same manner the grant from Queen Elizabeth to Sir Humphrey Gilbert empowers him to “discover such remote heathen and barbarous lands, countries, and territories, not actually possessed by any Christian prince or people, and to hold, occupy, and enjoy the same with all their commodities, jurisdictions, and royalties.” 28 And how did Wheaton sum up this lengthy explanation of the theoretical framework that the nations of Christendom applied to the lands and lives of our original nations? In keeping with B. A. Hinsdale’s explanation of infidel non-existence (“nullus” ), with regard to the claim of a right of domination, or sub-level existence for non-Christian nations and peoples in comparison with Christian European powers, Wheaton further states: It thus became a maxim of policy and of law that the right of the native Indian was subordinate to that [right of domination] of the first christian discoverer, whose paramount claim [of a right of domination] excluded that of every other civilized nation, and gradually extinguished that of the natives. In the various wars, treaties, and negotiations, to which the conflicting pretensions of the different states of Christendom to territory on the American continent have given rise, the primitive title of the Indian [to maintain a free and independent existence] has been entirely overlooked, or left to be disposed of by the states within whose limits they happened to fall by stipulations of the treaties between the different European powers. Their [the Indians’] title has thus been entirely extinguished by force of arms, or by voluntary compact, as the progress of cultivation [i.e., colonization] gradually compelled the savage tenet of the forest to yield to the superior [dominating] power and skill of his civilized invader. 29 Wheaton was playing a trick of the mind when he said the “Indians” “happened to fall” within “the limits” of “the states,” as a result of agreements (“stipulations” ) “between the different European powers.” After all, the original nations were living on the land long before the Christian nations of Europe ever arrived, and long before any lines of demarcation were mentally created by the colonizers. How then could the original nations be said to “fall” “within” boundaries imaginatively created by the colonizing powers? One possible answer is that Wheaton used the word “fall” as a metaphorical device to make it seem as if Christian European boundaries were created before the Native peoples were ever existing on the land. By means of this imaginative technique, it was possible to leave the false impression that the original peoples arrived on the land after those imaginary Christian European boundaries were made and “fell” inside those boundaries. However, there is another possible interpretation. A “fall” indicates a “descent” from a high level to a lower level, or “to fall in battle,” which usually indicates a soldier who has died. Once Christian European “boundaries” had been created on maps, the result was to depict vast areas of Native lands as being “under or subject to the domination of” the colonizing invaders. The corollary of this is, of course, a depiction of the Native peoples as being subject to the invaders. This explains how the Native peoples ended up being depicted as existing “within” those mentally created Christian European boundaries. This is the result of highly skilled and inventive metaphorical framing. ↑ It’s Time to Identify the U.S. Government’s Claim of a Right of Domination The fact that the U.S. federal government has been claiming a right of domination over the lands of original nations has been seldom spoken of or written about. The people who work on behalf of the United States have had no reason to identify such a claim because to do so would reflect negatively on the United States. Federal government officials use synonyms for domination such as “federal property.” For their part, Native ceremonial people have not tended to focus on the U.S. government’s claim of a right of domination over their Sacred and Ceremonial places. This is most likely because the attorneys and other advocates whom they have worked with have not explained why that specific wording is a powerful means of challenging the United States’ desecration of those places. People who have never been taught a particular wording, such as “the U.S. claim of a right of domination,” will not be able to use that style of wording because they have no knowledge of that. In any case, given the information provided in this essay, it is now possible to identify the claim of a right of domination that the U.S. government continues to use against our original nations. Regarding the Sacred and Significant Places of our original nations, and the argument that Native peoples have the right to engage in a Free Exercise of Religion, it makes a great deal of sense to say the U.S. government has been claiming that it is entitled to a Free Exercise of Domination over any and all areas that have been designated as “federal property.” Based on what Story, Wheaton, and Hinsdale documented during the nineteenth century, the papal bulls of the fifteenth Century are the basis upon which the U.S. government currently claims a right of domination over San Francisco Peaks and other Sacred and Significant Places of Native nations. Everyone educated in the United States has been taught to believe there is a separation between church and state in American society. It is surprising to discover that it is on the basis of the Bible, and the related concept of “property” [domination], that the U.S. government claims a Free Exercise of Domination over our original nations, and over our lands, including our Sacred and Significant Places. ↑ The Biblical Connection Are we able to identify a biblical connection to the claim that our traditional lands are “federal property?” William Blackstone, the eminent British jurist and commentator on English Common Law, explained that the “right of property,” in general, is defined as “that sole despotic dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in total exclusion of the right of any other individual in the universe.” 30 As we shall explain below, Blackstone pointed to Genesis 1:28 as the basis for that definition. Once the federal government of the United States was able to use a biblical reasoning process to claim a right of domination over an area which is traditional to a particular original nation or people, the implication is that the United States government is the entity that has the “sole despotic dominion” (“property” ) over that entire area, “in total exclusion any Native nation or people, or traditional healers.” And this claim is being made by the United States despite the fact that an original nation or people has had an ongoing cultural and spiritual relationship with that area extending back to the beginning of time. Next we need to point out Blackstone’s explanation of the basis of “property,” which he said is the Book of Genesis : “In the beginning of the world,” he says, “we are informed by Holy Writ [of the Bible], the All-bountiful Creator gave to man ‘dominion over all the earth, and over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” 31 “This,” says Blackstone, “is the only true and solid foundation of man’s dominion over external things.” 32 Judge Blackstone’s explanation of the relationship between the idea of “property” in English common law and the Old Testament of the Bible, means that whenever and wherever the U.S. government has unilaterally claimed that the Sacred and Significant Places of Native peoples is “federal property” [domination] belonging to the United States, it has been using Genesis 1:28 against Native nations. For the federal government to claim a right of “ultimate dominion” [domination] and “property” [domination] over the traditional lands of a Native nation, including a Sacred and Significant Place such as San Francisco Peaks, is to use what Blackstone termed “the only true and solid foundation of man’s dominion [domination] over external things,” i.e., Genesis 1:28 in the Bible. What this means is that the U.S. government has been tacitly using the Old Testament of the Bible to claim it has a right of domination (“property” ) over the Sacred and Significant Places of Native nations and peoples. The federal government has been using a Christian claim against those peoples it has labeled “heathens” and “infidels” as a basis for claiming an ultimate right of decision-making in relation to those Sacred Places. By that means, the traditional and ceremonial people of Native nations have thereby been excluded from their rightful position as the final decision-makers with regard to places such as San Francisco Peaks and the Black Hills of the Oceti Sakowin . In order for U.S. government officials to escape the implications of this framework of analysis, they must explain on what non-biblical and constitutional basis they, on behalf of their government, are claiming a right of “property” and domination over Native nations and peoples. Or, alternatively, those officials would need to demonstrate that the U.S. government has not previously claimed, and is not now claiming, a right of domination over Native nations, over their traditional lands, and over their Sacred and Significant Places, such as San Francisco Peaks. ↑ American Indian Religious Freedom Legal Cases and the U.S. Claim of Property Over the Traditional Lands of Our Original Nations Political activism in Indian Country in the late 1960s and early 1970s resulted in the U.S. Congress passing the 1978 American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA), as a joint resolution of Congress. 33 To grasp the historical and mental context for Congress’s passage of the AIRFA legislation, which the Supreme Court stated in Lyng “has no teeth,” 34 we need to trace Christendom’s Christian-heathen distinction forward to nineteenth century U.S. Indian policy. In 1883, during his annual report to Congress, Secretary of Interior Henry M. Teller explained why he believed a Code and Court of “Indian Offenses” was needed. Pay attention to his denigrating and demeaning language in the statement below about the traditional ceremonial practices of Native peoples: If it is the purpose of the Government [Domination System] to civilize [dominate] the Indians, they must be compelled to desist from the [free and independent] savage and barbarous practices that are calculated to continue them in [a free way of life] savagery, no matter what exterior influences are brought to bear on them. Very many of the progressive [dominated] Indians have become fully alive to the pernicious influences of these [free] heathenish practices indulged in by their people, and have sought to abolish them; in such efforts they have been aided by their missionaries, teachers, and agents, but this has been found impossible even with the aid thus given. The Government [Domination System] furnishes the teachers, and the charitable people, contribute to the support of the missionaries, and much time, labor, and money is yearly expended for their elevation [reduction], and yet a few [free and independent minded] non-progressive, degraded Indians are allowed to exhibit before the young and susceptible children all the debauchery, diabolism, and savagery of the worst state of the Indian race. Every man familiar with Indian life will bear witness to the pernicious influence of these savage [ceremonial] rites and heathenish [non-Christian] customs. 35 The Code and Court of Indian Offenses resulted in Native ceremonial leaders and traditional healers being jailed for performing ceremonies and for engaging in traditional spiritual practices. Non-Christian Native spirituality had to go “underground” to be performed in secret, hidden from Bureau of Indian Affairs officials. This is a clear example of the animosity and hatred that Christian European society expressed toward traditional ways, deeming them “heathen,” “pagan,” “infidel,” and “savage.” Christian preachers and missionaries helped to define the “Indian Offenses,” by targeting ceremonies and ceremonial items. Traditional items were burned or otherwise destroyed. The people were prevented from interacting freely with their ceremonially ways in their Sacred and Significant Places. This was all a direct consequence of the Christian European tradition of claiming a right of domination against Native peoples and enforcing that claim by destroying teachings, languages, and lines of communication that held the free existence of our nations and peoples together. Despite this clear record of Christian bigotry toward original nation spirituality, to my knowledge legal briefs involving what are called American Indian Religious Freedom cases have never quoted Secretary Teller’s language or cited the American society’s record of hatred for, and destructive behavior toward, non-Christian Native ceremonial ways. Nor have attorneys for Native people in religious freedom cases focused on the U.S. government’s claim of a right of domination against our original nations and peoples. ↑ The U.S. Government’s Reasoning Process Regarding Our Sacred and Ceremonial Places Let us now combine the above pieces of information and see what sort of holistic picture is revealed with regard to our Sacred and Significant places. The claim by “Christian people” that they have an exclusive right of domination (otherwise known as “property” ), based on Genesis 1:28 in the Bible, as acknowledged by William Blackstone, has resulted in a specific form of argumentation used by the United States government against our original nations and peoples, and against our Sacred and significant places. On that biblical basis, Christian European intellectuals regarded our non-Christian Native ancestors as “nullus” (non-existent) with regard to allocation of rights of property, as explained by Wheaton, Hinsdale, Lieber, and Story. In the 1823 Johnson v. McIntosh ruling, for example, Chief Justice John Marshall acknowledged what is aptly called the Doctrine of Infidel Non-Existence when he said the following, “So far as respected the authority of the [British] crown, no distinction was taken between vacant lands and lands occupied by the Indians .” 36 Here, Marshall for the U.S. Supreme Court has pinpointed a powerful piece of the puzzle: The intellectuals of Christendom were able to mentally conceive of lands where our Native peoples were living as vacant lands by mentally negating our ancestors who were living there. In his book The International Law of John Marshall , Benjamin Munn Ziegler says, “the term ‘vacant lands’ refers of course to lands in America which when discovered were occupied by Indians but unoccupied by Christians .” 37 (emphasis added) The most immediate conclusion for us to reach is that Christendom considered the lands they had newly identified as being “vacant” because no Christians were living there. But specific language from the Vatican papal bulls provides us with an additional insight: those lands were considered vacant because no right of Christian domination had ever been asserted there. This insight follows from language found in the papal bull Dudum siquidem , issued by Pope Alexander VI on September 26, 1493. 38 The opening of the English translation read s: A short while ago of our own free will, out of our own certain knowledge, and the fullness of our apostolic power, we gave, transferred, and assigned forever to you and your heirs and successors, the kings of Castile and Leon, all islands and lands, discovered and to be discovered, toward the west and south, that were not under the temporal rule of any Christian powers. 39 In keeping with the Latin wording of Dudum siquidem , however, there is a less pleasant way of translating “not under the temporal rule of any Christian powers,” which in the original Latin refers to “insulas” (islands) and “terra firmas” (firm lands) “ que sub actuali dominio temporali aliqurorum dominorum Christianorum constitute non essen t,” or, in English: islands and firm lands “that are not under the actual temporal domination (“dominio” ) of any Christian dominators” (“dominorum Christianorum” ). 40 No right of Christian domination (“property” ) had ever been claimed over and in relation to that non-Christian place where “barbarous” peoples were living. This is the reasoning process that the United States government is now applying to San Francisco Peaks, and other Sacred and Significant Places. ↑ That Was Then, and Its Still Operational Now There are those who might respond “Well, that was then this is now,” as if to say that the claim of a right of domination is no longer being used by the United States against our original nations. In addition to the fact that the claim of domination in the Johnson v. McIntosh ruling is still regarded as “good law” by the United States, we are also able to point to decisions such as City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation 41 from 2005. In that decision, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg 42 placed “the doctrine of discovery” in the first footnote of her ruling against the Oneida Nation. 43 In that footnote, Ginsberg quotes from Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. v. County of Oneida 414: U.S. 661, 667 (1974): “It very early became accepted doctrine in this Court that, although fee title to the lands occupied by Indians when the colonists arrived became vested in the sovereign — first the discovering European nation and later the original States and the United States — a right of occupancy in the Indian tribes was nevertheless recognized. That right, sometimes called Indian title and good against all but the sovereign, could be terminated only by sovereign act.” 44 Later in that 1974 ruling, Justice White for a unanimous Court cited to United States As Guardian of the Hualpai Indians of Arizona v. Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Co. (1941), 45 which acknowledges Johnson v. McIntosh as the starting point of the framework of an “Indian right of occupancy” : “‘Unquestionably it has been the policy of the Federal Government from the beginning to respect the Indian right of occupancy, which could only be interfered with or determined by the United States.’   Cramer v. United States, 261 U. S. 219 ,   261 U. S. 227 . This policy was first recognized in Johnson v. M’Intosh , 8 Wheat. 543, and has been repeatedly reaffirmed.   Worcester v. Georgia , 6 Pet. 515; Mitchel v. United States , 9 Pet. 711; Chouteau v. Molony , 16 How. 203; Holden v. Joy , 17 Wall. 211; Buttz v. Northern Pacific Railroad[ , 119 U. S. 55 ]; United States v. Shoshone Tribe, 304 U. S. 111 . As stated in Mitchel v. United States, supra, p.   34 U. S. 746 , Indian ‘right of occupancy is considered as sacred as the fee simple of the whites.’” 46 Use of the word “whites” is a reference to individuals termed “white,” which means that the so-called right of occupancy is deemed by the Court to be “as sacred as” but not the same as the fee simple property right of individual “white people.” ↑ McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020) Additionally, in McGirt v. Oklahoma , Justice Neil Gorsuch references a property law treatise from the 1860’s in the decision he wrote just three years ago. In the 5-4 decision, Justice Gorsuch states: “The federal government issued its own land patents to many [non-Native] homesteaders throughout the West. These [federal] patents transferred legal title and are the basis for much of the private land ownership in a number of States today. But no one thinks any of this diminished the Unites States’s claim to sovereignty over any land. To accomplish that would require an act of cession, the transfer of a sovereign claim from one nation to another.” Here he references “E. Washburn, American Law of Real Property 521- 524.” Legal scholar Peter d’Errico found the Washburn treatise cited by Gorsuch, and the cited wording reads as follows : Nor has any title, beyond the right of occupation, been recognized in the native tribes by any of the European governments or their successors, the Colonies, the States, or the United States. The law in this respect seems to have been uniform with all the Christian nations that planted colonies here. They recognized no seisen [property ownership] of lands on the part of the Indian dwellers upon it…The sovereignty [domination] and general property [domination] of the soil . . . were claimed . . . by right of discovery. 47 [emphasis added] And d’Errico observes: “Washburn footnoted this sentence with a citation of Johnson v. McIntosh .” 48 What is the significance of the most pro-Indigenous Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court harkening back to the “right of discovery” and to the patterns of domination expressed in the Johnson ruling? Rather than being up front and candid about the claim of a right of domination by the Christian nations of Europe, Gorsuch used a footnote to hide the fact that he was reaffirming the claim of a right of Christian domination which is at the root of the anti-Indian ideas and arguments called “federal Indian law.” ↑ A View-from-the-Ship Parsing of Johnson v. McIntosh Let’s now take a closer look at what Justice Gorsuch, on behalf of a majority of the Court, reaffirmed just three years ago by citing a passage from a mid-nineteenth century property law treatise which cites to the Johnson ruling. Because the view-from-the-ship-perspective treated the “Indians” as null and void (“nullus” ) with regard to “property” (the claim of a right of domination), the Christian Europeans would not allow the Native peoples to be, as Justice Joseph Story put it, deemed (judged) as possessing “the prerogatives belonging to absolute, sovereign, and independent nations.” This wording was an effort on his part to explain away the original free existence of our nations and peoples. In the Johnson ruling, Marshall explained how the Supreme Court had reached its decision. He said the U.S. government, including the Court, acknowledged that what he termed “civilized nations” possessed “perfect independence.” 49 He said that acknowledgment was based on “principles of abstract justice,” principles which “are admitted to regulate in a great degree the rights of civilized nations.” 50 However, when it came to thinking about what he later termed “natives,” who were defined as “heathens” 51 (non-Christians) Marshall cryptically said the Supreme Court had quite consciously not relied upon principles of “abstract justice,” but “principles” other than those of “justice,” “which our own government has adopted in” this “particular case and given us [the Court] as the rule for our decision.” 52 This was Marshall’s acknowledgment that the Court and the rest of the government was quite conscious of the fact that the Johnson case was not being decided on the basis of principles of justice. Although people tend to be quick to claim that “conquest” is the basis of the Johnson ruling, Chief Justice Marshall later said that the “law which regulates and ought to regulate in general the relations between the conqueror and the conquered was incapable of application to” Native nations and peoples. 53 In other words, the Court did not apply the standard rules of conquest to the Indians. This is why Marshall went on to say that “®he resort to some new and different rule better adapted to the actual state of things was unavoidable…” 54 [emphasis added] The phrase “resort to” means “to do something you do not want to do but you do it anyway because you cannot find any other means of achieving an objective.” Marshall is saying that the United States had come up with a “new and different rule” that the Supreme Court was expressing in the Johnson ruling. He went on to say, “Every rule which can be suggested [by this Court] will be found to be attended with great difficulty” 55 because any such rule was, by the Court’s admission, being based on principles of injustice directed at “heathen” nations and peoples. Marshall expressed as follows the new rule of the United States: “ However extravagant the pretension of converting the discovery of an inhabited country into conquest may appear; if the principle has been asserted in the first instance, and afterwards sustained; if a country has been acquired and held under it [the asserted principle]; if the property [domination] of the great mass of the community originates in it, it [the principle] becomes the law of the land and cannot be questioned.” 56 In other words, the United States government would pretend to “convert” the Christian “discovery” of the geographical location of a country already inhabited by non-Christians, into a position of domination (“conquest” ) toward that country, and toward the non-Christian nations and peoples living there. On the basis of the Supreme Court’s “new and different” rule of “ pretended conquest ,” a rule arrived at by applying to the case principles other than “abstract justice,” the “Indians” would be regarded by the U.S. government as subject to U.S. domination (“ultimate dominion” ). Once this way of thinking was fully adopted by the United States government, it was treated as “the law of the land,” and as a U.S. domination/Native subordination reasoning process, fully accepted by the US government which Marshall claimed “cannot be questioned.” That reasoning process is still being deployed today by the U.S. government against the Native nations. ↑ The Accompanying Principle: An Indian Title of Occupancy Marshall went on to say in the Johnson ruling, “So, too, with respect to the concomitant principle that the Indian inhabitants are to be considered [thought of] merely as occupants , to be protected, indeed, while in peace, in the possession of their lands, but to be deemed [judged] incapable of transferring the absolute title to others.” 57 (emphasis added) That which is concomitant is something that “naturally accompanies or follows something else.” Defining the Indians as being mere “occupants” of the land naturally followed from the Supreme Court’s “extravagant pretension,” or pretense, of mentally treating the idea of “discovery” as if it were literally the same as a physical “conquest.” The word “pretense” is derived from the Latin verb praetendere , and the past participle praetensus, both meaning, “to assume” without a supportive basis, “a claim made or implied,” especially “one not supported by fact.” A “pretension,” the word Marshall used in the Johnson ruling, means, “an allegation of doubtful value: [a] PRETEXT.” Marshall’s use of “pretension” amounts to him “pretending something is true even though it isn’t.” This matches precisely the idea of a “model or metaphor,” the use of which “involves the pretense that something is the case when it is not.” With regard to metaphor, Colin Turbayne states in The Myth of Metaphor : “Just as often, however, the pretense has been dropped, either by the pretenders or by their followers.” 58 “There is a difference between using a metaphor and taking it literally, between using a model and mistaking it for the thing modeled. The one is to make believe that something is the case; the other is to believe that it is [the case].” 59 (emphasis added) What began as an extravagant pretense on the part of the Supreme Court eventually began to be treated or regarded as if it was a physical conquest of “the Indians.” What U.S. government officials have habitually called “conquest,” and “the Indian title of occupancy,” are two ideas that are the product or result of a body of metaphorical pretensions that those same government officials have mastered. They are words and ideas that are mentally and verbally projected onto our original nations and peoples, and which then end up being treated as if they are a fixed human reality. This principle is cited in Felix Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law “ Conquest renders the tribe subject to the legislative authority of the United States.” 60 This, however, is not referring to an actual physical “conquest.” It is a figurative, poetic, and imaginative expression. It is a doubtful allegation made by the United States. It is a pretext that U.S. government officials have been using against our Native nations and peoples for two centuries by means of the Johnson ruling, and that U.S. officials continue to use to this day in relation to our Sacred and Significant Places, such as San Francisco Peaks and the Black Hills of the Oceti Sakowin . That is the fictional premise that U.S. officials, such as Justice Gorsuch and the rest of the U.S. Supreme Court use as the starting point for an extended argument about “the concomitant principle” Marshall mentioned, meaning, the mentally fabricated idea of an “Indian title of occupancy,” contrasted with the U.S. government’s presumed right of Christian domination (“property” ). This framing has been accepted as an unquestionable given by practitioners of federal anti-Indian law. And this unquestioned acceptance has prevented these mental fabrications from being fundamentally challenged by pointing out the fact that they are merely mental and metaphorical constructions created by intellectuals in the employ of the political experiment called the United States of America. ↑ The Supreme Court’s Use of the Doctrine of Christian Domination in Lyng In Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association 61 for example, we may assume that the attorneys for the Native plaintiffs never mentioned the U.S. government’s claim of a right of domination over the Sacred and Significant Area of the Native peoples. But a close reading of Justice Sandra Day O’Conner’s 1988 decision in Lyng shows how the Supreme Court relied on the U.S. government’s claim of a right of domination (termed “property” ) over the traditional territory of the Native people, a location called the Chimney Rock area of a place now designated the Six Rivers National Forest, adjacent to the Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation. In her majority ruling in Lyng , Justice O’Conner also quotes Sherbert v. Verner : “For the Free Exercise Clause is written in terms of what the government cannot do to the individual, not in terms of what the individual can exact from the government.” 62 O’Conner further states: “Even if we assume that we should accept the Ninth Circuit’s prediction, according to which the G-O road will ‘virtually destroy the . . . Indians’ ability to practice their religion,’ 795 F.2d at 693 (opinion below), the Constitution simply does not provide a principle that could justify upholding respondents’ legal claims. However much we might wish that it were otherwise, [the] government [the domination] simply could not operate if it were required to satisfy every citizen’s religious needs and desires.” 63 Justice O’Conner could have finished that last sentence with: “such as the Native peoples’ need and their desire for the government to not engage in activities that will virtually destroy their religion.” Toward the end of her decision, O’Conner said, “Whatever rights the Indians may have to the use of the area, however, they and their rights do not divest the Government of its right to use what is, after all, its land ” 64 (emphasis added).  Here O’Conner is asserting a U.S. right of domination over the area in question. The word “its” is a possessive pronoun and is defined as “of or belonging to it,” whatever “it” might be. The word “belong” in this context means “to be the possession or rightful property of,” and, as we have repeatedly stated in this essay, “property” is a right of domination. In other words, the United States has created an ongoing conceptual system of domination which accords to the Native peoples merely the “use” of the lands within their traditional homeland over which the U.S. government now claims a right of domination. But within that U.S. conceptual system, the first “Christian people” to have arrived at a non-Christian geographical location are portrayed within the U.S. system of ideas as being in “possession” of the land, and thus “vested” with the “property” right of domination. The idea-system of the United States does not acknowledge the original Native peoples as being vested with the right of domination because, within the U.S. conceptual system, that status is reserved for the first Christian monarch to have identified that particular location of non-Christian lands, and it is accorded to the political successors of that first Christian monarch, such as the individual “States” and the United States. Given that orientation, Justice O’Conner was stating that “the [U.S.] Government can do what it wants with its property ,” i.e., it’s right of domination, over that entire area in Northern California, including over an area where the original nations have never ceded or relinquished their lands by treaty. In other words, by means of the majority decision in Lyng , the Supreme Court asserted a right of domination over the Chimney Rock area, regardless of how many thousands of years the Native peoples had been living in cultural and spiritual relationship with that place. This matches the situation at San Francisco Peaks for the traditional spiritual people of various original nations. From the viewpoint of those employed as intellectuals by the United States government, such as members of the U.S. Supreme Court, every American Indian Religious Freedom case is dealt with by the U.S. government as a property law case , in which the U.S. claim of a right of domination (“property” ) is deemed to be potentially threatened by the spiritual priorities of the Native peoples in relation to the land. In Lyng , Justice O’Conner acknowledged for the majority what it saw as a specific threat to the United States: the Native peoples might place lands deemed by the federal government to be “federal lands” in a form of “religious servitude” and “de facto beneficial ownership of . . . public property [domination].” 65 “Respondents attempt to stress the limits of the religious servitude that they are now seeking to impose on the Chimney Rock area of the Six Rivers National Forest” . 66   As O’Conner states: No disrespect for these practices [of the Native peoples] is implied when one notes that such beliefs could easily require de facto beneficial ownership of some rather spacious tracts of public property. Even without anticipating future cases, the diminution of the Government’s property rights, and the concomitant subsidy of the Indian religion, would in this case be far from trivial: the District Court’s order permanently forbade commercial timber harvesting, or the construction of a two-lane road, anywhere within an area covering a full 27 sections ( i.e. more than 17,000 acres) of public land. 67 A view-from-the-shore assessment of the above language reveals that the majority would not decide in favor of the original nations of that Northern California region because a win for the original peoples might effectively challenge the federal government’s presumed right of domination over the traditional lands of the nations and peoples of that part of the continent. Behind these concerns was the covert and ancient assumption, examined above, that the U.S. government has a right of domination over the lands of Native nations on the basis of Christendom’s ancient distinction between Christians and non-Christian “heathens,” “pagans,” and “infidels,” which, by means of the Johnson precedent, the Supreme Court relies upon as a basis for U.S. property law. ↑ Justice Brennan’s Dissenting Opinion in Lyng v. Northwest Cemetery Protective Association In his dissent in Lyng , Justice Brennan (joined by Marshall and Blackmun), says that the Court majority “embraces the Government’s contention that its prerogative as landowner should always take precedence over a claim that a particular use of federal property infringes religious practices.” 68 (emphasis added) Brennan further notes that, “as the lower courts found, the proposed logging and construction activities” would “virtually destroy respondents’ religion, and will therefore necessarily force them into abandoning those practices altogether.” 69 When written with a view-from-the-shore perspective, that sentence is accurately restated as follows: “The U.S. government’s claim of a right of domination [“property” ], will therefore necessarily force them [the Native peoples] into abandoning those practices altogether.” Justice Brennan continues: Here the threat posed by the desecration of sacred lands that are indisputably essential to respondents’ religious practices is both more direct and more substantial than that raised by a compulsory school law that simply exposed Amish children to an alien value system. And of course respondents here do not even have the option, however unattractive it might be, of migrating to more hospitable locales; the site-specific nature of their belief system renders it nontransportable. . . . 70 In the final analysis, the Court’s refusal to recognize the constitutional dimension of respondents’ injuries stems from its concern that acceptance of respondents’ claim could potentially strip the Government of its ability to manage and use vast tracts of federal property [domination]. [citation deleted] In addition, the nature of respondents’ site-specific religious practices raises the specter of future suits in which Native Americans seek to exclude all human activity from such areas.   Ibid. These concededly legitimate concerns lie at the very heart of this case, which represents yet another stress point in the longstanding conflict between two disparate cultures — the dominant Western culture, which views land in terms of ownership and use, and that of Native Americans, in which concepts of private property are not only alien, but contrary to a belief system that holds land sacred. 71 [emphasis added] When we reword the above sentence with a view-from-the-shore perspective, we see an acknowledgment of “. . .the longstanding conflict between two disparate cultures—the dominating Western culture, which views land in terms of domination [“property” ] and use, and that of Native Americans, in which concepts of the domination of the land is not only alien, but contrary to a belief system that holds land sacred.” The Brennan dissent continues: Rather than address this conflict in any meaningful fashion, however, the Court disclaims all responsibility for balancing these competing and potentially irreconcilable interests, choosing instead to turn this difficult task over to the Federal Legislature. Such an abdication is more than merely indefensible as an institutional matter: by defining respondents’ injury as “nonconstitutional,” the Court has effectively bestowed on one party to this conflict the unilateral authority to resolve all future disputes in its favor, subject only to the Court’s toothless exhortation to be “sensitive” to affected religions. In my view, however, Native Americans deserve—and the Constitution demands—more than this…. Today, the Court holds that a federal land use decision that promises to destroy an entire religion does not burden the practice of that faith in a manner recognized by the Free Exercise Clause. . . I find it difficult, however, to imagine conduct more insensitive to religious needs than the Government’s determination to build a marginally useful road in the face of uncontradicted evidence that the road will render the practice of respondents’ religion impossible. Nor do I believe that respondents will derive any solace from the knowledge that, although the practice of their religion will become “more difficult” as a result of the Government’s actions, they remain free to maintain their religious beliefs . Given today’s ruling, that freedom amounts to nothing more than the right to believe that their religion will be destroyed . The safeguarding of such a hollow freedom not only makes a mockery of the “policy of the United States to protect and preserve for American Indians their inherent right of freedom to believe, express, and exercise the[ir] traditional religions,” ante at   485 U. S. 454 (quoting AIRFA), it fails utterly to accord with the dictates of the First Amendment. I dissent. 72 [emphasis added] ↑ The U.S. Government’s Free Exercise of Domination on the Basis of the Bible An 1830 U.S. congressional report explains that “Christian and civilized nations” had laid the “foundations of the States which constitute this confederacy.” 73 The report said that the nations from Western Europe “were instructed or misled as to the nature of their duties by the precepts and examples contained in the volume [the Bible] which they acknowledged as the basis of their religious rites and creeds.” 74 Specifically, to “go forth, to subdue and replenish the earth, were received as divine commands or relied on as plausible pretexts to cover mercenary enterprises by the Governments which gave the authority and the adventurers who first discovered and took possession of the New World.” 75 The U.S. congressional report was referring of course to the “subdue and dominate” language from Genesis 1:28 in the Bible. The report was saying that the biblical language to “go forth” to other parts of the planet and “subdue” (dominate) the earth was either interpreted as a command from “God,” or else biblical language was treated by “Governments” and “adventurers” as a basis for identifying geographical places that had been previously unknown to them, which they claimed to take possession of. This explains the basis upon which so-called Christian and civilized nations claimed a right of domination over (the right to subdue) whatever non-Christian lands they were able to identify. The report continues: Whether they were right or wrong in their construction [interpretation] of the sacred text [of the Bible], or whether their conduct can in every respect be reconciled with their professed objects or not, it is certain that possession, actual or constructive, of the entire habitable portion of this continent was taken by the nations of Europe, divided out, and held originally by the right of discovery as between themselves and by rights of discovery and conquest [domination] as against the aboriginal inhabitants.” 76 On the basis of the Christian Bible, specifically the passage Genesis 1:28, the U.S. federal government claims what William Blackstone called “the sole despotic dominion” (a property right of domination) over the Sacred and Significant Places of Native Nations and Peoples, including San Francisco Peaks. The Ninth Circuit Court of Apeals applied this way of thinking in Navajo Nation v. USFS , when the Court said: “And Congress specifically noted that Roy and Lyng would apply in cases such as this one: ‘[P]re-Smith case law makes it clear that strict scrutiny does not apply to government actions involving only management of internal Government affairs or the use of the Government’s own property or resources.” Applying an apostrophe ‘s’ to the word “Government,” and the phrase “own property,” are two means by which the Court maintains the framework of domination. The complete phrase “ the Government’s own property ” (emphasis added), demonstrates the U.S. Government’s claim of a right of domination over the Sacred and Significant Places of Original Nations, such as San Francisco Peaks. Those were the places with which the Original Nations and Peoples of the continent continue to have a cultural and spiritual relationship. And that relationship extends back thousands of years prior to when the political system called the United States came into existence. The claim of “property” that the United States government is presently asserting is traced back to Christendom’s claim of a right of domination against all non-Christians. This explains why some framework such as the American Indian Religious Freedom Act was needed in the first place, to address the fact that a Christian/non-Christian bigotry had been applied to our original nations and peoples for generations. It is this Christian religious framework of domination that is still being used by the United States government at San Francisco Peaks against non-Christian spiritual and ceremonial practitioners in the name of the “property” (domination) rights of the United States. ↑ Why Religious Freedom Arguments Are Not Designed to Defeat The U.S. Government’s Claim Of A Right of Domination Against Original Nations and Peoples We need to make clear and unambiguous our steadfast opposition to the U.S. government’s claim of a right of domination over our lives as Native peoples. Our original free existence is and always will be the default position for our nations and peoples. We have the fundamental right to live free from domination. And, we now have the ability to clearly identify the system of domination being used against us. The argument presented here is quite different than insisting that the human rights of dominated (“Indigenous” ) nations and peoples must be upheld. There is no international human rights framework that accords people the right to live free from the domination of “the State,” which is considered a given, and not open to challenge. When we do not openly name and oppose the domination system of the United States, it’s as if we as Native people are accepting (which we are not) the idea that we, by our very nature, subject to a dominating political power. Because the United States was founded on the basis of a system of domination, it stands to reason that it’s the very nature of the United States to dominate our nations and peoples. We are able to identify and oppose the system of domination by using the specific words “the claim of a right of domination.” The argument that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution accords traditional healers and spiritual leaders the right to pray and to conduct ceremonies is not an effective means of opposing the U.S. government’s claim of a right of domination (“property” ). Imagine a scenario in which federal government officials have stated to traditional spiritual people: “The federal government of the United States has the right to use its system of domination (“property” ) against you.” Meekly responding “Well, we have the right to pray and conduct our ceremonies” based on the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not in any way challenge the U.S. government’s claimed right of domination over our lands and our lives as original nations. ↑ A Three-Pronged Counter Argument to the U.S. Claim of a Right of Domination Against Our Original Nations and Peoples There is, however, a way of responding that has yet to be advanced: 1) Our original nations are first in time, and therefore first in right.  This is a response to the “first invaders in time, first invaders in right” argument; 2) Void when initiated, you cannot grant what you don’t possess. This means the Vatican papal bulls and royal charters of England were null and void from the moment they were issued. Why? For the simple reason that the Roman Catholic popes and the kings of England had no rightful jurisdiction beyond the immediate boundaries of their home country. This is illustrated by King Henry VII Instruction to the Cabots to “geting unto us” the “jurisdiction” (“ jurisdictionem ” in Latin) and “domination title” (“ titulum dominium ” in Latin), wording which contains the king’s admission that he had neither of those two things at the time he issued his commission to John Cabot and his sons. 77 Christian popes and other monarchs certainly had no rightful jurisdiction thousands of nautical miles across the Atlantic Ocean. They could not rightfully send their own home-jurisdiction by proxy across an entire ocean, and rightfully claim a right of domination over the lands of the free and independent nations living in distant places. And, lastly, 3) “Anything wrong from the beginning can never be made right, because it was wrong, and thus invalid, from its inception,” as expressed by Western Shoshone Elder Glenn Wasson. Their claim of a right of domination will never become valid, because their claim was invalid from the outset. Threat, duress, and coercion do not give rise to or create any valid authority over those who have been wrongfully subjected to the claim of a right of domination. ↑ Conclusion These days, it is typical to hear the United States of America being portrayed as a “democracy” even though they (the “States” ) have operated for more than two centuries as a federal system of domination in relation to the original nations and peoples of this continent. This is especially true when it comes to our Sacred and Significant Places. Federal employees of the U.S. government, and even tribal government officials, are not likely to have known before now the information about domination found in this essay. No one, however, who ends up reading this essay, will be able to feign ignorance about the U.S. claim of a right of domination. As a model of a way forward for Traditional Healers and Ceremonial Leaders, a powerful challenge to the United States was presented by the Yakama Nation in the amicus legal brief that the nation submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court in the Cougar Den case in 2018. The Yakama Nation, guided by the leadership of Chairman JoDe Goudy, and influenced by the framework of domination found in this essay, decided upon that course of action. It marks the first time that an Original Nation of the continent has directly challenged the U.S. government’s claim of a right of discovery and domination. Anyone who might wish to make a counterargument to oppose what we have presented here, is going to have a difficult time crafting a meaningful and effective response to rebut the information we have provided. After all, it would be senseless for anyone to claim that the language of domination found in the Vatican papal bulls , or in the Johnson v. McIntosh ruling, and elsewhere does not actually exist. It does exist. Authoritative sources spanning centuries contain this information, even those documents which illustrate the organic laws of the United States. Our responsibility is to have dialogue with U.S. government officials, including, when possible, members of the U.S. Supreme Court, 78 and hold them accountable to end their nefarious claim of a right of Christian domination over our spiritual people, over our Sacred and Significant Places, and over our Original Nations and Peoples and our Homelands. We need to transition to decision-making based on the Natural Laws of Creation that sustain all Life, which are the basis for our ceremonies. Those Laws of Creation guided our Ancestors and Spiritual Ways of Life before and after the invasive arrival of the ships of Christendom. ↑ Notes Steven T. Newcomb, Pagans in the Promised Land , Chapter 4, “Colonizing the Promised Land,” pp. 37-50. For example, Genesis 17:2-8 : The “God” of the Bible said: “ And I will give unto thee , and to thy seed [sperm] after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession.”  ↩ And the “Lord” said: “ And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan [by analogy, all the lands of “North America,” including the so-called “San Francisco Peaks” ] for an everlasting possession.”  ↩ For example, Psalms 2:8 “Ask of me and I shall give to thee the heathen for thine inheritance , and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.” This conceives of the original nations and peoples, and their lands, as being the inherited property of the “chosen people” as per “God’s” will. This expresses the claim of a divine right of domination pursuant “God’s mandate” and thus “His will.”  ↩ 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823) .  ↩ Ibid .  ↩ See generally Peter d’Erricio , Federal Anti-Indian Law , Praeger, 2022 .  ↩ Robert T. Coulter and Steven M. Tullberg, Indian Land Rights , in The Aggressions of Civilization , pp. 185, 190 (Sandra L. Cadwalder & Vine Deloria, Jr., eds., 1984).  ↩ European Treaties Bearing on the History of the United States , ed., Francis Gardner Davenport, Carnegie Institution, 1917, pp. 56-63 .  ↩ See Steven Newcomb, “ The Evidence of Christian Nationalism in Federal Indian Law ,” N.Y.U. Review of Law & Social Change, Vol. 20, No. 2, 1993, p. 304 .  ↩ Christopher Columbus Book of Privileges: 1502 The claiming of a New World , Library of Congress, eds., John W. Hessler, Daniel De Simone, and Chet Van Duzer, Delray Beach, Florida: Levenger Press, pp. 30-31.  ↩ For example, my friend Peter d’Errico ( professor emeritus at the University of Massachusetts ) and I, have been studying this field of knowledge for some fifty years. We have been engaged in conversation and collaboration together for more than thirty years.  ↩ State v. Foreman, 16 Tenn. (8 Yer.) 256 , 277 ( 1835 ).  ↩ Ibid .  ↩ Henry Wheaton, Elements of International Law: with a Sketch of the History of the Science , Vol. I , London: B. Fellowes, Ludgate Street, 1836.  ↩ Elements , Vol. 1, Chapter 1, § 11 “Definition of international law,” p. 54 .  ↩ Ibid ., p. 205 .  ↩ Elements , Vol. 1, Chapter IV, § 5 “Conquest and discovery,” pp. 206 – 207 .  ↩ “ The Right of Discovery ,” Ohio Archaeological and Historical Quarterly, Vol. II, Dec. 1988, No 3.  ↩ Ibid ., p. 4 .  ↩ Ibid ., p. 4.  ↩ Ibid .  ↩ Ibid ., p. 16 .  ↩ Ibid .  ↩ Ibid ., pp. 17 – 18 .  ↩ White v. University of California, No. 12-17489 , August 27, 2014. At footnote 2 , we find: Aboriginal interest in land generally is described as a tribe’s right to occupy the land. It is not a property right, but “amounts to a right of occupancy which the sovereign grants and protects against intrusion by third parties.” Tee–Hit–Ton Indians v. United States, 348 U.S. 272 , 279 (1955). The right, which is residual in nature, comes from the legal theory that discovery and conquest gave conquerors the right to own the land but did not disturb the tribe’s right to occupy it. See Johnson v. M’Intosh , 21 U.S. 8 Wheat 543, 588 – 91 (1823).  ↩ Hinsdale, “ Right of Discovery ,” pp. 16 – 17 .  ↩ Wheaton, Elements , Vol. 1, Chapter IV, “Property,” § 5, p. 207 .  ↩ Ibid ., pp. 207 – 210 .  ↩ Ibid ., p. 210 .  ↩ Marshall D. Ewell, A Review of Blackstone’s Commentaries with Explanatory Notes for the Use of Students at Law , Second Edition, Albany, New York: Matthew Bender & Company, 1915. “Book the Second,” “Of the Rights of Things,” Chapter I, “Of Property in General,” p. 137 .  ↩ Ibid .  ↩ Ibid .  ↩ Public Law No. 95-341, 92 Stat. 469 (August 11, 1978).  ↩ Lyng, Secretary of Agriculture, v Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association. 485 US 439 (1988), at 444 .  ↩ U.S. Documents of United States Indian Policy , ed., Francis Paul Prucha, 1990, p. 160 .  ↩ 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) (1823) at 596 .  ↩ Benjamin Munn Ziegler, The International Law of John Marshall , p. 45-46 (1939).  ↩ European Treaties Bearing on the History of the United States and Its Dependencies to 1648, Vol. I, ed., Francis Gardner Davenport, pp. 79-83.  ↩ Ibid., p. 82.  ↩ Ibid.  ↩ City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y . 544 U.S. 197 (2005).  ↩ Many people find it surprising that the person who was regarded as one of the most “liberal” justices on the Supreme Court would use the “doctrine of discovery” against the Oneida Nation.  ↩ Footnote 1 in City of Sherrill begins: “Under the ‘doctrine of discovery,’ County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of N. Y., 470 U. S. 226 , 234 (1985) (Oneida II) ‘fee title to the lands occupied by Indians when the colonists arrived became vested in the sovereign—first the discovering European nation and later the original States and the United States, . . .’”  ↩ Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. v. Country of Oneida 414 U.S. 661, 667 (1974) at 667 .  ↩ United States As Guardian of the Hualpai Indians of Arizona v. Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Co. 314 U.S. 339 (1941)   ↩ Ibid ., at 348 .  ↩ Emory Washburn, American Law of Real Property (Boston: Little, Brown, 1864), Book III, Ch. III, Title by Grant, § 1 Public Grant.  ↩ Personal Correspondence, RedThought.org Presentation on McGirt v. Oklahoma , with Jode Goudy (Yakama Nation), Steven Newcomb (Shawnee/Lenape), and Peter d’Errico, professor emeritus at UMass Amherst.  ↩ Johnson v. McIntosh , at 572 .  ↩ Ibid .  ↩ Ibid ., at 577 .  ↩ Ibid ., at 572 .  ↩ Ibid ., at 591 .  ↩ Ibid .  ↩ Ibid .  ↩ Ibid .  ↩ Ibid ., 591 .  ↩ Colin Turbayne, The Myth of Metaphor (Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press), 1971, p. 3 .  ↩ Ibid .  ↩ United States of America v. Consolidated Wounded Knee Cases , 389 F. Supp. 235 (D. Neb 1975) January 17 1975, at 237 . Quoted from Cohen’s Handbook by Judge Warren Urbom: “The whole course of judicial decision on the nature of Indian tribal powers is marked by adherence to three fundamental principles: (1) An Indian tribe possesses, in the first instance, all the powers of any sovereign state. (2) Conquest renders the tribe subject to the legislative power of the United States . . . “  ↩ Lyng, Secretary of Agriculture, v Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association . 485 US 439 (1988)  ↩ Ibid ., at 451 .  ↩ Ibid ., at 451- 452 .  ↩ Ibid ., at 453 .  ↩ Ibid ., at 453 .  ↩ Ibid ., at 452 .  ↩ Ibid ., at 453 .  ↩ Ibid ., at 465 .  ↩ Ibid ., at 467 .  ↩ Ibid ., at 467 – 468 .  ↩ Ibid ., at 473 .  ↩ Ibid ., at 473 and at 476 – 477 .  ↩ 21St Cong., 1st sess., H.R. Rep. No. 227, Feb. 24, 1830.  ↩ Ibid.  ↩ Ibid.  ↩ Ibid.  ↩ Francis Newton Thorpe, The Federal and State Constitutions Colonial Charters, and Other Organic Laws of the States, Territories, and Colonies New or Heretofore Forming the United States of America , Compiled and Edited under the Act of Congress of June 30, 1906, Vol. I, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1909, pp. 45 – 46 .  ↩ What Justice Scalia Said He Didn’t Know About U.S. Indian Law , Steven Newcomb, ICT News , 26 Feb 2016  ↩",
    "tags": [
      "blog",
      "papal-documents",
      "dominance",
      "ships",
      "vatican-city",
      "francis",
      "pope",
      "responses",
      "joint-statement-responses"
    ],
    "textContent": "Steven Newcomb (Shawnee/Lenape) Our original nation ancestors understood mountains and other geographical areas as living beings imbued with spiritual energy. Our spiritual people knew and still know how to spiritually attune and align themselves with that energy in a ceremonial manner, by means of our languages and ceremonial ways. This has always been the central purpose of our Spiritual Way of Life. Contents Prefatory Note: The Free Existence of Original Nations On Redundancy and the Domination Translator Some Clarification on Terminology The Biblical Framework and Context of Federal Anti-Indian Law The Intention to Establish Domination Where It Did Not Already Exist Mental Competition between the Traditional Ceremonial People of Original Nations and U.S. Government Officials who Use the United States' Claim of a Right of Domination The Benefit of Traditional Ceremonies Identifying the Linguistic Patterns of Domination Traditional Native People Henry Wheaton's Elements of International Law and the Doctrine of Infidel Nonexistence B. A. Hinsdale Proof of the Christian (Biblical) Basis for 'the Right' to Sail to and Identify Non-Christian Lands More From Wheaton's Elements of International Law It's Time to Identify the U.S. Government's Claim of a Right of Domination The Biblical Connection American Indian Religious Freedom Legal Cases and the U.S. Claim of Property Over the Traditional Lands of Our Original Nations The U.S. Government's Reasoning Process Regarding Our Sacred and Ceremonial Places That Was Then, and Its Still Operational Now McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020) A View-from-the-Ship Parsing of Johnson v. McIntosh The Accompanying Principle: An Indian Title of Occupancy The Supreme Court's Use of the Doctrine of Christian Domination in Lyng Justice Brennan's Dissenting Opinion in Lyng v. Northwest Cemetery Protective Association The U.S. Government's Free Exercise of Domination on the Basis of the Bible Why Religious Freedom Arguments Are Not Designed to Defeat The U.S. Government's Claim Of A Right of Domination Against Original Nations and Peoples A Three-Pronged Counter Argument to the U.S. Claim of a Right of Domination Against Our Original Nations and Peoples Conclusion Notes ↑ Prefatory Note: The Free Existence of Original Nations Mentally picture the free and independent existence of all the Original Nations and Peoples on this continent, extending back to the beginning of time through their oral histories and oral traditions, before the Christian Europeans had invasively arrived. Throughout that timespan, our ancestors lived free from the words and mental world of Western Europe. Our ancestors lived entirely free from the clever Euro-American metaphors, ideas, and arguments now used on a daily basis by the United States government against our nations and peoples. Our original nation ancestors understood mountains and other geographical areas as living beings imbued with spiritual energy. Our spiritual people knew and still know how to spiritually attune and align themselves with that energy in a ceremonial manner, by means of our languages and ceremonial ways. This has always been the central purpose of our Spiritual Way of Life. Our traditional healers and medicine people knew and still know why it is necessary to conduct ceremonies, especially in Sacred and Significant Places of concentrated spiritual energy. Even today our traditional spiritual people continue to carry on their ways, to fulfill the sacred responsibilities that our peoples have to care for our rightful place on Mother Earth. However, invading and colonizing peoples from Western Europe eventually arrived to this continent more than five centuries ago. They showed no respect for the Life-Ways and free existence of the original nations and peoples because they had carried with them across the ocean, a mental world of domination. Based on the Bible, the invading nations of Christendom mentally claimed that their \"God\" had \"given\" them the lands where our Ancestors were living,[^1] and where our spiritual people carry out their authority and sacred responsibilities. The invading peoples assumed that their \"God\" had given them the right to use their ideas and arguments as a means of depriving our nations and peoples of our original free existence. They assumed that their \"God\" had chosen them as a people with whom \"He\" would make a divine \"covenant\" or treaty.[^2] And on that basis they further assumed their \"God\" had \"given them\" the right to name and claim as their own,[^3] the lands and Sacred Places with which our original nations and peoples already had and still have a well-established spiritual relationship that has lasted millennia, to use Western time-frame language. The difference between our original-free-existence perspective, and the claim-of-a-right-of-domination perspective of the dominating society, invariably produces conflict. That difference gives rise to competition between those who carry these two distinctive perspectives over questions of power and decision-making. Given the existence of these two opposing perspectives, both of which are competing to make final decisions regarding the use of a particular geographical area, the question becomes: which perspective will end up in the final decision-making position? Now apply this question to a dispute between the United States government and traditional ceremonial Native people regarding a Sacred and Significant Place of original nations --- so-called San Francisco Peaks, a place for which our original nations have our own name in our own respective languages. ↑ On Redundancy and the Domination Translator A cardinal rule of writing is don't repeat yourself. Clearly state what you have to say and move on. Once you've stated something, there's no need to say it again. This essay intentionally violates this rule. To write about a system of domination it becomes necessary to use the word domination in what appears to be an obsessively repetitious manner. Additionally, we use what we call \"The Domination Translator.\" It's a simple technique: place the word domination inside brackets after a synonym for domination. An example is: \"property [domination].\" ↑ Some Clarification on Terminology This essay is being written for the orientation of an English-speaking audience that lives in the mental world and thus the reality system of the dominating society of the United States. For this reason, we need to make some preliminary comments concerning the terminology used herein. In the U.S. Supreme Court ruling Johnson v. McIntosh of 1823,[^4] Chief Justice Marshall (1755-1835) says of the \"Indians\" : \"[T]heir rights to complete sovereignty, as independent nations, were necessarily diminished ... by the original fundamental principle that discovery gave title to those who made it [the discovery].\" [^5] (emphasis added) This reasoning implies that the invading Christian Europeans are the ones who are \"original\" and \"fundamental\" to this continent. To correct this wrongful impression, we refer to the nations and peoples of this continent and this hemisphere as \"original\" nations and peoples, meaning the ones already living here on this continent before the invasion by Christendom. The terms \"Christian\" and \"Christian European\" and \"Christendom\" are used in this essay because they match the historical record of Vatican papal documents, royal charters of Great Britain (England), and the 1823 U.S. Supreme Court ruling Johnson v. McIntosh. Those documents illustrate the claim, made in the name of Christianity, of a right of domination over non-Christian peoples and their lands, a claim which is now a feature of the body of anti-Indian ideas and arguments now called \"federal Indian law.\" [^6] Most scholars of the subject do not write about the anti-Indian ideas of federal Indian law as a system of \"domination.\" They also tend to change the word \"Christian,\" which appears in the earliest documents, to the word \"European\" which is not found in those documents. In our view, this change in particular prevents an accurate understanding of the historical record. Take, for example, a rather common way of explaining the \"doctrine of discovery\" : The doctrine of discovery came into existence with the rapid expansion of European empires in the fifteenth century. Its basic tenet \"that the European nation which first 'discovered' and settled lands previously unknown to Europeans thereby gained the exclusive right to acquire those lands from their occupants became part of the early body of international law dealing with aboriginal peoples.\" [^7] [emphasis added] This is a secular non-religious explanation of what the ancient documents reveal to be a biblically premised and theological (religious) basis for the Claim of a Right of Christian Domination. Key terminology found in the documents of that period reveal why the terms \"European\" and \"non-European\" are not accurate. They do not appear in those documents. Pope Alexander VI, for example, issued several papal documents to the monarchs of Spain shortly after Columbus's first voyage to the Bahamas and never uses the terms Europe and Europeans. The first papal bull in the series is dated May 3, 1493.[^8] The pope's scribes used the phrases \"Christian lords\" (\"dominorum Christianorum\" ), \"Christian king or prince\" (\"Christiano principi\" ), and \"Christian people\" or \"Christendom\" (\"populi Christiani\" ). Not surprisingly, popes of the Catholic Church distinguished between the Christian world and peoples that Christians called \"heathen,\" \"pagan,\" \"infidel,\" \"savage,\" and \"barbarous.\" Three hundred and thirty-three years later, in 1823, the members of the United States Supreme Court, such as John Marshall and Joseph Story (1779-1845), looked back to those ancient documents of Christendom when deciding how to write a landmark decision in the case Johnson & Graham's Lessee v. McIntosh. It appears that most people of our current generation have failed to realize that Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the Johnson ruling, on behalf of a unanimous Court, by following Christendom's ancient tradition of distinguishing between Christians and non-Christians. This is demonstrated by Marshall's repeated use of the phrase \"Christian people,\" which he distinguished from \"natives, who were heathens\" . And it is demonstrated by Marshall's documentation of the Christian claim of a right of domination over non-Christians, which is now a permanent feature of U.S. federal Indian law, otherwise known as federal anti-Indian law. ↑ The Biblical Framework and Context of Federal Anti-Indian Law Marshall included the phrase \"Christian people\" in the Johnson ruling in specific imitation of that phrase being expressed in a number of royal charters of England, such as the John Cabot Charter of 1496, which King Henry VII issued in imitation of the Alexandrian papal bulls of 1493. The Oxford English Dictionary explains that \"heathen\" is a word \"of Christian origin,\" [^9] which means \"heathen\" is a linguistic carrier of the context of the Bible, the source of Christianity. It is a part that stands for the whole. This leads to an important insight about the linguistic and intellectual tradition of the United States with regard to the Sacred and Significant Places of original nations and peoples, including San Francisco Peaks. The Christian (biblical) context of the body of ideas and arguments called \"federal Indian law\" begins with a distinction between what the Supreme Court called the \"ultimate dominion\" (a right of domination) of \"Christian people\" and the mere \"occupancy\" of \"heathens,\" with no presumed property right of domination. Because \"heathen\" is a word of Christian origin, and because the Johnson v. McIntosh ruling is still an active Supreme Court precedent, this means that the United States government is still using this distinction between Christian domination and \"heathen occupancy\" as the basis of its decision-making regarding the Sacred and Significant Places of our original nations and peoples. In other words, whether they know it or not, U.S. government officials are using a conceptual framework that is premised on language from the Bible. Whenever we see a Sacred and Significant Place being referred to as \"federal property,\" contrasted with an \"aboriginal interest\" of \"occupancy,\" which has been declared as \"not a property right,\" the distinction between Christian domination and non-Christians occupancy is actively being used. U.S. government officials apply to the Sacred and Significant places of original nations, this categorical difference between a right of domination (\"property\" ) for Christian people,\" along with their descendants and successors, and a non-domination right of \"occupancy\" for non-Christian original nations. As we shall demonstrate below, the U.S. claim of a right of domination is the biblical and historical context for American Indian religious freedom cases having to do with the Sacred and Significant Places of the original nations and peoples of this continent. Religious Freedom arguments made on behalf of Native spiritual practitioners have proven ineffective as a means of stopping the desecration and destruction of their Sacred Places. The reason should be clear: \"Free Exercise of Religion\" arguments are not able to effectively counter the presumption that the U.S. government has the sole and exclusive right of domination over places that are being deemed \"federal property.\" As a result of our investigation of ancient documents from Western Christendom and the overall historical record, we know that the invading colonizers sailed their ships to this continent with a specific intention. It was their intention to identify the geographical location of lands which until then had remained unknown to the Christian world. The word \"discovery\" is a shorthand way of referring to this new form of geographical knowledge. ↑ The Intention to Establish Domination Where It Did Not Already Exist It was Christendom's intention to identify non-Christian lands across the ocean so that a right of Christian domination (\"dominio\" and \"dominium\" ) could be claimed in relation to those newly located lands, and in relation to the original nations and peoples living there. A key example is wording found in the Prerogatives that the monarchs of Spain issued to Columbus: Columbus (Cristobal Colón, \"Christ-bearing Colonizer\" ) was authorized to \"discover and conquer\" and \"discover and subdue\" whatever lands he was able to locate across the ocean that had not been previously identified and dominated. The words \"conquer\" and \"subdue\" are two synonyms for domination. Centuries later, as a result of its international treaties with different countries from Europe---such as, for example, England, France, and Spain---the U.S. government became the political successor to the Christian world's claim of a right of domination that had been initially made by those monarchies of the Christian European world. By means of the Johnson v. McIntosh ruling, the United States have consistently claimed and continue to claim a right of Christian domination over the lands and territories of our original nations, including over our Sacred and Significant Places, such as \"San Francisco Peaks,\" on the basis of a biblical distinction between \"Christian people\" and \"heathens.\" ↑ Mental Competition between the Traditional Ceremonial People of Original Nations and U.S. Government Officials who Use the United States' Claim of a Right of Domination Let us return now to the context for this discussion. Our Native ancestors stood on the belief of the Sacredness of All Life. Our ancestors had no knowledge of the language spoken by the invading colonizers, and, conversely, the invading colonizers had no knowledge and no idea of our worldview that all Creation is Sacred. It was not possible for them to comprehend what the foreigners were saying. Nor did our ancestors have the ability to read the documents of the foreigners, such as Vatican papal decrees or royal charters. Even the everyday European person back in those days probably had no ability to get their hands on such documents, let alone accurately read and interpret their text. Those documents were highly specialized and handled at the very highest level of the Church and the State. They were drafted by an extremely small number of Christian European men, or scribes, who had been taught the unique set of skills needed for writing such documents, which were modeled after documents of the Roman Empire.[^10] Remarkably, we as the Native people of this generation now have the ability to read and learn what those ancient documents are able to teach us about persistent and chronic patterns of domination in today's world. Now, centuries after the invading colonizers first arrived here to this continent, there are those of us as Native people who have learned how to read a number of ancient documents that were created by Christian Europeans to the East across the Atlantic Ocean. We have learned to interpret those documents and other specialized writings that are part of the organic law tradition of the United States, with its linguistic and behavioral tradition of domination, an organic law tradition that is woven into the writings of U.S. Supreme Court rulings. Some of us have dedicated decades to acquiring the necessary skills to do such interpretive work.[^11] And this work has involved a certain amount of risk. For there was always the possibility that this intellectual activity would result in our minds becoming so absorbed, so to speak, into the dominating society's consciousness that we would be left with only the ability to accept rather than reject the Christian European claim of a right of domination over our nations and peoples, and over our Sacred and Significant Places. Fortunately, this has not happened. ↑ The Benefit of Traditional Ceremonies Some of us who have been fortunate enough to participate in the liberating experience of ceremonial life, especially in our Sacred and Significant Places, have thereby gained a heightened appreciation of the original and spiritually grounded free existence of our nations and peoples. We have how now learned to think, speak, and write with a view-from-the-shore perspective, envisioning the invading ships sailing toward our ancestors on shore. That view-from-the-shore perspective enables us to unequivocally oppose the claim of a right of domination over our nations and peoples, over our women and children, over our traditional territories, including our Sacred Places, and over Life itself. By contrast, U.S. government officials operate on the basis of a well-accepted but unstated assumption that the U.S. federal government has the right, consistent with the ancient language patterns and mentality of Christendom, to claim, on behalf of the United States, a right of domination over our original nations and peoples. ↑ Identifying the Linguistic Patterns of Domination A view-from-the-ship-of-state perspective results in the use of euphemistic vocabulary that draws attention away from the system of domination. We as Native people need to learn to identify the linguistic carriers of the domination system. An excellent example of that system is the Tennessee Supreme Court ruling State v. Foreman.[^12] In his ruling, Judge John Catron provides an excellent example of the kind of language that has been used by the United States officials in relation to our original nations and peoples and our Sacred and Significant Places: We maintain, that the principle declared in the fifteenth century as the law of Christendom, that discovery gave title to assume sovereignty over and to govern the unconverted natives of Africa, Asia and North and South America, has been recognized as a part of the national law [the law of nations], for nearly four centuries, and that it is now so recognized by every Christian power, in its political department and its judicial . . . That, from Cape Horn to Hudson Bay, it [this principle] is acted upon as the only known rule of sovereign power, by which the native Indian is coerced [dominated]. . . Our claim [to a right of domination] is based on the right to coerce obedience. The claim may be denounced by the moralist. We answer, it is the law of the land. Without its assertion and vigorous execution, this continent never could have been inhabited by our ancestors. To abandon the principle now, is to assert that they were unjust usurpers; and that we, succeeding to their usurped authority and void claims to possess and govern the country, should in honesty abandon it, return to Europe, and let the subdued [dominated] parts again become a wilderness and hunting ground.[^13] It is notable that Judge Catron was eventually appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Andrew Jackson. In other words, he reached the highest strata of the legal profession in the United States. In the above quote, he claims that \"discovery\" (new geographical knowledge) \"gave\" the discoverers a \"title\" to assume sovereignty [i.e., a \"right of domination\" ] over and to govern [dominate] the non-Christian [\"unconverted\" ] natives of Africa, Asia and North and South America\" by coercing them into obedience to a system of domination. This tells us that when the representatives of a Christian monarch reached a region where non-Christians were already living, and where Christian domination had never been previously established, the monarchs of Christendom had already agreed amongst themselves that the \"discovering\" monarch would have the right to claim a right of Christian domination (\"title\" and \"sovereignty\" ) over any area that had been identified for the very first time by a monarch of Christendom. In keeping with the previously mentioned papal and royal documents, \"discovery\" meant sailing by ship across the ocean with the intention of identifying any geographical location where non-Christians were living, and to create a Christian system of domination where such a system had never been previously established. And this intention was fulfilled by coercing the original nations into obedience to the reign of the dominators. This reveals the linguistic and behavioral basis for the claim of a right of domination that the U.S. government is now claiming in relation to San Francisco Peaks and other Sacred and Significant Places of Original Nations, such as Oak Flat and the Black Hills, as well as over our sacred holdings such as Eagle Feathers. ↑ Traditional Native People Traditional Native people, especially Elders who are fluent in their own non-English language, despite the effort to kill our languages, have tended to avoid the specialized knowledge of the dominating society. They have focused instead on learning from their Elders the highly specialized knowledge, sacred language, and ceremonial ways, which the U.S. government has worked so diligently to destroy. There is a need for a collaboration between those traditional Native people who still wholeheartedly maintain and uphold the ceremonial practices of their people, and those Native scholars who have studied the documents, ideas, and arguments of the dominating society. Strengthened by the knowledge we have accumulated, we as scholars need to advocate on behalf of our traditional ceremonial people, and on behalf of our fundamental birthright to live free from and to reject the claim of a right of domination from any source whatsoever, in honor of our original pre-invasion existence. Let us now examine more specifically some of the ideas and arguments that have been used against our original nations and peoples with regard to our traditional territories and our Sacred and Significant places. In the next section we discuss the writings of Henry Wheaton (1785-1848) and Burke Aaron Hinsdale (1837-1900),+1837-1900). Wheaton was a reporter for the U.S. Supreme Court, and Hinsdale was an eminent nineteenth century educator author who studied what he called \"The Right of Discovery\" that has been applied by the U.S. government to our Sacred and Significant places, such as the San Francisco Peaks. ↑ Henry Wheaton's Elements of International Law and the Doctrine of Infidel Nonexistence Henry Wheaton was a U.S. lawyer, jurist, and diplomat. He was the third reporter of decisions issued by the U.S. Supreme Court. He held that position when the Court issued the 1823 Johnson v. McIntosh ruling. In 1836, thirteen years after the Johnson decision, Wheaton published his Elements of International Law[^14] in which he explained that, \"The law of nations, or international law, as understood among civilized, Christian nations, may be defined as consisting of those rules of conduct which reason deduces, as consonant to justice, from the nature of the society existing among independent nations; with such definitions and modifications as may be established by general consent [of the civilized, Christian nations].\" [^15] Given the importance of Wheaton's Elements, and his explanation of what we call the right of Christian discovery and domination pursuant to the \"law of nations,\" we are including below several lengthy quotes from Chapter IV of Elements, titled \"Rights of Property,\" [^16] while reminding the reader here in passing that \"property\" has been defined as, a right of \"physical domination over some part of the natural world,\" such as San Francisco Peaks: The title [of domination] of almost all nations of Europe to the territory now possessed by them in that quarter of the world [the Western Hemisphere] was originally derived from conquest [domination] which has been subsequently confirmed by international compacts to which all the European states have successively become parties. Their claim to the possessions held by them in the New World discovered by Columbus and other adventurers, and to the territories which they have acquired on the continents of Africa and Asia, was originally derived from discovery [new knowledge] or conquest and colonization [domination], and has since been confirmed in the same manner by positive compact. Independent of these sources of title, the general consent of mankind has established the principle that long uninterrupted possession [of territory] by one nation excludes the claim of every other.[^17] If the Christian nations of Europe had been required to apply to our nations this principle of long \"uninterrupted possession of territory,\" specifically, that our nations' long uninterrupted possession of our territories excludes the claim of every invading nation, then our nations would have been able to invoke that principle to exclude the invasive claims made by the monarchs of Christendom to this continent. The Christian monarchs, however, had agreed among themselves that only Christian nations could invoke the principle of long uninterrupted possession of territory by colonizing powers.  The Christian world refused to apply that principle to peoples they deemed to be \"barbarous\" \"heathens,\" and \"infidels.\" ↑ B. A. Hinsdale Burke Aaron Hinsdale, in his 1888 essay \"Right of Discovery,\" [^18] writes,\" \"To the mind of Christian Europe in the fifteenth century the distinction between Christian and Infidel was ineffaceable [irremovable].\" In other words, within the mental world of Christendom, the hatred Christians had toward non-Christians was considered permanent. Hinsdale continues: \"Mr. Wheaton states the case thus: 'According to the European ideas of that age, the heathen nations of the other quarters of the globe were the lawful spoil and prey of their civilized conquerors.'\" [^19] This language exemplifies the claim of a right of domination. Hinsdale puts an even finer point on the matter with a quote from H. H. Bancroft, to the effect that, what \"seems never to have been questioned\" during that era, \"by either discoverer, adventurer, or ruler,\" was the assumption that the Native peoples were \"fit subjects for coercion, treachery, robbery, enslavement, and slaughter.\" [^20] Bancroft continues as follows: \"However invalid might have been the argument of a housebreaker, that in the room he entered he discovered a purse of gold, and took it, Spaniards never thought of applying such logic to themselves in regard to the possessions of the natives in the new lands the Genoese [Columbus] had found.\" [^21] Hinsdale explains the trick of the mind that European scholars performed during the so-called Age of Discovery. The seafaring powers of Christian Europe, says Hinsdale, \"had not seized the possessions of their enemies by force, but had occupied what belonged to nobody.\" [^22] (emphasis added) \"Nobody\" is a category that serves to negate the original peoples by deeming (judging) them as not existing. It relegates non-Christians to a dimension, so to speak, of non-existence. Peoples deemed (judged) to not exist conceptually (even though they existed physically) could not compete with or block the Christian Europeans. This suggests that the intellectuals of Western Europe created the pretension that our Native ancestors were nonexistent and thus not to be included in the allocation of rights of domination (\"property\" ), meaning \"a right of domination rightfully obtained over some object,\" such as the lands of the continent. Hinsdale notes that \"the Roman law furnished a full legal justification for the appropriation of the New World by the Christian nations.\" [^23] \"They had but to hold the savages their enemies and to treat them accordingly.... They chose another path,\" a path that was \"more in accordance with the theological temper of the times.\" [^24] ↑ Proof of the Christian (Biblical) Basis for 'the Right' to Sail to and Identify Non-Christian Lands \"Perhaps the strongest proof of the correctness of the view advanced,\" said Hindsdale, \"is furnished by the commissions, charters, and patents granted to explorers by the Kings of England.\" [^25] He continues: Henry VII, in 1496, commissioned John Cabot and his sons \"to seek out and discover all Islands, regions, and provinces whatsoever that may belong to heathens and infidels\" and \"to subdue [dominate], occupy, and possess these territories as his vassals and lieutenants.\" The charter granted to Sir Walter Raleigh by Queen Elizabeth, in 1584, gave him full liberty and license \"to discover, search, find out, and view such remote heathen and barbarous lands, countries, and territories not actually possessed of any Christian prince, nor inhabited by Christian people, as to him shall seem good,\" etc. Afterwards the words \"heathen\" and \"barbarian\" were omitted from this class of documents, but the phrase \"not possessed of any Christian prince, nor inhabited by any Christian people\" is found in charters of the next century, as in those of Virginia, 1606, and New England, 1620. The disappearance of the heathen qualification from the English charters after 1620 was due in part to the fact that the boundaries of claims had become more definite, but also in part because of the growing secularization of politics. Such was the origin of the Right of Discovery, the criterion to which the nations that had divided the New World appealed in territorial controversies, and the ultimate ground of title [a right of domination] throughout the United States.[^26] Here, Hinsdale has identified the view that as soon as a Christian power had identified a non-Christian area, over which no Christian monarch had previously claimed a right of domination, as if by magic, the Christian monarch was considered to have come into possession, so to speak, of a right of domination over that non-Christian area. Hinsdale also reveals another key point: As the generations pass, negative Christian religious terminology (e.g., \"heathen,\" \"pagan\" and \"infidel\" ) began to fall out of favor and the word \"Christian\" often ended up being replaced with the word \"European.\" When this happens, the specifically Christian, and, thus, biblical basis for the U.S. government's claim of a right of domination in relation to San Francisco Peaks and other Sacred and Significant Places becomes veiled and thus more difficult to identify. Consistent with what we may aptly term The Doctrine of Infidel Nonexistence, some Christian European intellectuals decided that they would pretend that non-Christian peoples did not even exist when it came to \"property\" and \"property rights.\" This explains the basis upon which the U.S. government defines the terms \"Indian title\" and \"aboriginal title\" with regard to our Sacred and Significant Places, as \"mere occupancy,\" and \"not a property right.\" [^27] The original nations upon whom the categories \"heathens,\" \"pagans,\" and \"infidels\" were mentally imposed, have been excluded from Christendom's allocation and distribution of rights of domination (\"property\" rights) in newly identified non-Christian geographical areas. This explanation sheds light on what Wheaton said about the relationship between the idea of \"discovery\" and the creation of \"rights of property.\" Hinsdale goes on to explain: Practically, discovery, when consummated [by possession], was conquest, but theoretically, it was something very different. An enemy overcome in battle was nullus according to the Roman law, but another definition, and one more consonant with the temper of the times, was now adopted. This definition was supplied by the Roman [Catholic] Church. The new definition of nullus was, a heathen, pagan, infidel, or unbaptized person. \"Paganism, which meant being unbaptized,\" says [Dr. [Francis] Lieber](https://archive.org/details/miscellaneouswri02lieb/page/n9/mode/2up), \"deprived the individual of those rights which a true jural morality considers inherent in each human being.\" The same writer [Lieber] also states that the Right of Discovery is founded \"on the principle that what belongs to no one may be appropriated by the finder,\" but this principle become effectual only when supplemented by the Church definition of nullus. That definition supplied the lacking premise in the demonstration. Grant that res nullius is the property of the finder; that an infidel is nullus [nonexistent]; that the American savage is an infidel [a nonexistent nobody], and the argument is complete. That the Church, one of whose great duties is to protect the weak and helpless, should have supplied one-half the logic that justified the spoliation and enslavement of the heathen, is one of the anomalies of history.[^28] This points out a specific pattern of reasoning applied to the Sacred and Significant Places of our original nations such as San Francisco Peaks, a pattern which is premised upon a Doctrine of Infidel Negation with regard to Christian claimed rights of domination over the lands of \"heathen\" and \"Infidel\" nations and peoples. ↑ More From Wheaton's Elements of International Law Wheaton says the following with regard to Christendom's agreed upon principle, mentioned above, that long uninterrupted possession of territory by one invading (\"civilized invaders\" ) Christian European nation excludes the claim of every other: Whether this general consent be considered as an implied contract or as positive law, all nations [of Christian Europe] are equally bound by it, since all are parties to it; since none can safely disregard it without impugning its own title to its possessions; and since it is founded upon mutual utility, and tends to promote the general welfare of mankind.[^29] Clearly, Wheaton's category \"mankind\" did not include the \"heathen\" and \"infidel\" nations of the globe. He makes this point even more clear as he continues with his explanation of Christian Rights of Property [Domination]: The Spaniards and Portuguese took the lead among the nations of Europe in the splendid maritime discoveries in the East and the West, during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. According to the European ideas of that age, the heathen nations of the other quarters of the globe were the lawful spoil and prey of their civilized conquerors [dominators], and as between the christian powers themselves, the Sovereign Pontiff was the supreme arbiter of conflicting claims. Hence the famous bull issued by Pope Alexander VI. [sic] in 1493, by which he granted to the crown of Castille and Arragon all lands discovered, and to be discovered, beyond a line drawn from pole to pole, one hundred leagues west from the Azores, or Western Islands, under which Spain has since claimed to exclude all other European nations from the possession and use, not only of the lands, but of the seas, in the New World west of that line. Independent of this papal grant, the right of prior discovery was the foundation upon which the different European nations, by whom conquests [dominations] and settlements were successively made on the American continent, rested their respective claims to appropriate [dominate] its territory to the exclusive use of each nation. Even Spain did not found her pretensions solely on the papal grant. Portugal asserted a title derived from discovery and conquest [domination] to a portion of South America, taking care to keep to the eastward of the line traced by the Pope by which the globe seemed to be divided between these two great monarchies. On the other hand, Great Britain, France, and Holland, disregarded the pretended authority of the papal see, and pushed their discoveries, conquests, and settlements, both in the East and the West Indies, until conflicting with the paramount claims of Spain and Portugal, they produced bloody and destructive wars between the different maritime powers of Europe. But there was one thing in which they all agreed, that of almost entirely disregarding the right of the native inhabitants of these regions. Thus the bull of Pope Alexander VI. [sic] reserved from the grant to Spain, all lands which had been previously occupied by any other christian nation [Wheaton's emphasis]: and the patent granted by [Henry VII. [sic] of England to John Cabot and his sons](https://doctrineofdiscovery.org/patent-cabot-henry-vii/) authorized them \"to seek out and discover all islands, regions, and provinces whatsoever that may belong to heathens and infidels,\" and \"to subdue, occupy, and possess these territories, as his [the king's] vassals and lieutenants.\" In the same manner the grant from Queen Elizabeth to Sir Humphrey Gilbert empowers him to \"discover such remote heathen and barbarous lands, countries, and territories, not actually possessed by any Christian prince or people, and to hold, occupy, and enjoy the same with all their commodities, jurisdictions, and royalties.\" [^30] And how did Wheaton sum up this lengthy explanation of the theoretical framework that the nations of Christendom applied to the lands and lives of our original nations? In keeping with B. A. Hinsdale's explanation of infidel non-existence (\"nullus\" ), with regard to the claim of a right of domination, or sub-level existence for non-Christian nations and peoples in comparison with Christian European powers, Wheaton further states: It thus became a maxim of policy and of law that the right of the native Indian was subordinate to that [right of domination] of the first christian discoverer, whose paramount claim [of a right of domination] excluded that of every other civilized nation, and gradually extinguished that of the natives. In the various wars, treaties, and negotiations, to which the conflicting pretensions of the different states of Christendom to territory on the American continent have given rise, the primitive title of the Indian [to maintain a free and independent existence] has been entirely overlooked, or left to be disposed of by the states within whose limits they happened to fall by stipulations of the treaties between the different European powers. Their [the Indians'] title has thus been entirely extinguished by force of arms, or by voluntary compact, as the progress of cultivation [i.e., colonization] gradually compelled the savage tenet of the forest to yield to the superior [dominating] power and skill of his civilized invader.[^31] Wheaton was playing a trick of the mind when he said the \"Indians\" \"happened to fall\" within \"the limits\" of \"the states,\" as a result of agreements (\"stipulations\" ) \"between the different European powers.\" After all, the original nations were living on the land long before the Christian nations of Europe ever arrived, and long before any lines of demarcation were mentally created by the colonizers. How then could the original nations be said to \"fall\" \"within\" boundaries imaginatively created by the colonizing powers? One possible answer is that Wheaton used the word \"fall\" as a metaphorical device to make it seem as if Christian European boundaries were created before the Native peoples were ever existing on the land. By means of this imaginative technique, it was possible to leave the false impression that the original peoples arrived on the land after those imaginary Christian European boundaries were made and \"fell\" inside those boundaries. However, there is another possible interpretation. A \"fall\" indicates a \"descent\" from a high level to a lower level, or \"to fall in battle,\" which usually indicates a soldier who has died. Once Christian European \"boundaries\" had been created on maps, the result was to depict vast areas of Native lands as being \"under or subject to the domination of\" the colonizing invaders. The corollary of this is, of course, a depiction of the Native peoples as being subject to the invaders. This explains how the Native peoples ended up being depicted as existing \"within\" those mentally created Christian European boundaries. This is the result of highly skilled and inventive metaphorical framing. ↑ It's Time to Identify the U.S. Government's Claim of a Right of Domination The fact that the U.S. federal government has been claiming a right of domination over the lands of original nations has been seldom spoken of or written about. The people who work on behalf of the United States have had no reason to identify such a claim because to do so would reflect negatively on the United States. Federal government officials use synonyms for domination such as \"federal property.\" For their part, Native ceremonial people have not tended to focus on the U.S. government's claim of a right of domination over their Sacred and Ceremonial places. This is most likely because the attorneys and other advocates whom they have worked with have not explained why that specific wording is a powerful means of challenging the United States' desecration of those places. People who have never been taught a particular wording, such as \"the U.S. claim of a right of domination,\" will not be able to use that style of wording because they have no knowledge of that. In any case, given the information provided in this essay, it is now possible to identify the claim of a right of domination that the U.S. government continues to use against our original nations. Regarding the Sacred and Significant Places of our original nations, and the argument that Native peoples have the right to engage in a Free Exercise of Religion, it makes a great deal of sense to say the U.S. government has been claiming that it is entitled to a Free Exercise of Domination over any and all areas that have been designated as \"federal property.\" Based on what Story, Wheaton, and Hinsdale documented during the nineteenth century, the papal bulls of the fifteenth Century are the basis upon which the U.S. government currently claims a right of domination over San Francisco Peaks and other Sacred and Significant Places of Native nations. Everyone educated in the United States has been taught to believe there is a separation between church and state in American society. It is surprising to discover that it is on the basis of the Bible, and the related concept of \"property\" [domination], that the U.S. government claims a Free Exercise of Domination over our original nations, and over our lands, including our Sacred and Significant Places. ↑ The Biblical Connection Are we able to identify a biblical connection to the claim that our traditional lands are \"federal property?\" William Blackstone, the eminent British jurist and commentator on English Common Law, explained that the \"right of property,\" in general, is defined as \"that sole despotic dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in total exclusion of the right of any other individual in the universe.\" [^32] As we shall explain below, Blackstone pointed to Genesis 1:28 as the basis for that definition. Once the federal government of the United States was able to use a biblical reasoning process to claim a right of domination over an area which is traditional to a particular original nation or people, the implication is that the United States government is the entity that has the \"sole despotic dominion\" (\"property\" ) over that entire area, \"in total exclusion any Native nation or people, or traditional healers.\" And this claim is being made by the United States despite the fact that an original nation or people has had an ongoing cultural and spiritual relationship with that area extending back to the beginning of time. Next we need to point out Blackstone's explanation of the basis of \"property,\" which he said is the Book of Genesis: \"In the beginning of the world,\" he says, \"we are informed by Holy Writ [of the Bible], the All-bountiful Creator gave to man 'dominion over all the earth, and over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.\" [^33] \"This,\" says Blackstone, \"is the only true and solid foundation of man's dominion over external things.\" [^34] Judge Blackstone's explanation of the relationship between the idea of \"property\" in English common law and the Old Testament of the Bible, means that whenever and wherever the U.S. government has unilaterally claimed that the Sacred and Significant Places of Native peoples is \"federal property\" [domination] belonging to the United States, it has been using Genesis 1:28 against Native nations. For the federal government to claim a right of \"ultimate dominion\" [domination] and \"property\" [domination] over the traditional lands of a Native nation, including a Sacred and Significant Place such as San Francisco Peaks, is to use what Blackstone termed \"the only true and solid foundation of man's dominion [domination] over external things,\" i.e., Genesis 1:28 in the Bible. What this means is that the U.S. government has been tacitly using the Old Testament of the Bible to claim it has a right of domination (\"property\" ) over the Sacred and Significant Places of Native nations and peoples. The federal government has been using a Christian claim against those peoples it has labeled \"heathens\" and \"infidels\" as a basis for claiming an ultimate right of decision-making in relation to those Sacred Places. By that means, the traditional and ceremonial people of Native nations have thereby been excluded from their rightful position as the final decision-makers with regard to places such as San Francisco Peaks and the Black Hills of the Oceti Sakowin. In order for U.S. government officials to escape the implications of this framework of analysis, they must explain on what non-biblical and constitutional basis they, on behalf of their government, are claiming a right of \"property\" and domination over Native nations and peoples. Or, alternatively, those officials would need to demonstrate that the U.S. government has not previously claimed, and is not now claiming, a right of domination over Native nations, over their traditional lands, and over their Sacred and Significant Places, such as San Francisco Peaks. ↑ American Indian Religious Freedom Legal Cases and the U.S. Claim of Property Over the Traditional Lands of Our Original Nations Political activism in Indian Country in the late 1960s and early 1970s resulted in the U.S. Congress passing the 1978 American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA), as a joint resolution of Congress.[^35] To grasp the historical and mental context for Congress's passage of the AIRFA legislation, which the Supreme Court stated in Lyng \"has no teeth,\" [^36] we need to trace Christendom's Christian-heathen distinction forward to nineteenth century U.S. Indian policy. In 1883, during his annual report to Congress, Secretary of Interior Henry M. Teller explained why he believed a Code and Court of \"Indian Offenses\" was needed. Pay attention to his denigrating and demeaning language in the statement below about the traditional ceremonial practices of Native peoples: If it is the purpose of the [Government [Domination System]](https://ratical.org/manyworlds/StevenNewcomb/PagansInThePromisedLand-040512.html#dominationes) to civilize [dominate] the Indians, they must be compelled to desist from the [free and independent] savage and barbarous practices that are calculated to continue them in [a free way of life] savagery, no matter what exterior influences are brought to bear on them. Very many of the progressive [dominated] Indians have become fully alive to the pernicious influences of these [free] heathenish practices indulged in by their people, and have sought to abolish them; in such efforts they have been aided by their missionaries, teachers, and agents, but this has been found impossible even with the aid thus given. The Government [Domination System] furnishes the teachers, and the charitable people, contribute to the support of the missionaries, and much time, labor, and money is yearly expended for their elevation [reduction], and yet a few [free and independent minded] non-progressive, degraded Indians are allowed to exhibit before the young and susceptible children all the debauchery, diabolism, and savagery of the worst state of the Indian race. Every man familiar with Indian life will bear witness to the pernicious influence of these savage [ceremonial] rites and heathenish [non-Christian] customs.[^37] The Code and Court of Indian Offenses resulted in Native ceremonial leaders and traditional healers being jailed for performing ceremonies and for engaging in traditional spiritual practices. Non-Christian Native spirituality had to go \"underground\" to be performed in secret, hidden from Bureau of Indian Affairs officials. This is a clear example of the animosity and hatred that Christian European society expressed toward traditional ways, deeming them \"heathen,\" \"pagan,\" \"infidel,\" and \"savage.\" Christian preachers and missionaries helped to define the \"Indian Offenses,\" by targeting ceremonies and ceremonial items. Traditional items were burned or otherwise destroyed. The people were prevented from interacting freely with their ceremonially ways in their Sacred and Significant Places. This was all a direct consequence of the Christian European tradition of claiming a right of domination against Native peoples and enforcing that claim by destroying teachings, languages, and lines of communication that held the free existence of our nations and peoples together. Despite this clear record of Christian bigotry toward original nation spirituality, to my knowledge legal briefs involving what are called American Indian Religious Freedom cases have never quoted Secretary Teller's language or cited the American society's record of hatred for, and destructive behavior toward, non-Christian Native ceremonial ways. Nor have attorneys for Native people in religious freedom cases focused on the U.S. government's claim of a right of domination against our original nations and peoples. ↑ The U.S. Government's Reasoning Process Regarding Our Sacred and Ceremonial Places Let us now combine the above pieces of information and see what sort of holistic picture is revealed with regard to our Sacred and Significant places. The claim by \"Christian people\" that they have an exclusive right of domination (otherwise known as \"property\" ), based on Genesis 1:28 in the Bible, as acknowledged by William Blackstone, has resulted in a specific form of argumentation used by the United States government against our original nations and peoples, and against our Sacred and significant places. On that biblical basis, Christian European intellectuals regarded our non-Christian Native ancestors as \"nullus\" (non-existent) with regard to allocation of rights of property, as explained by Wheaton, Hinsdale, Lieber, and Story. In the 1823 Johnson v. McIntosh ruling, for example, Chief Justice John Marshall acknowledged what is aptly called the Doctrine of Infidel Non-Existence when he said the following, \"So far as respected the authority of the [British] crown, no distinction was taken between vacant lands and lands occupied by the Indians.\" [^38] Here, Marshall for the U.S. Supreme Court has pinpointed a powerful piece of the puzzle: The intellectuals of Christendom were able to mentally conceive of lands where our Native peoples were living as vacant lands by mentally negating our ancestors who were living there. In his book The International Law of John Marshall, Benjamin Munn Ziegler says, \"the term 'vacant lands' refers of course to lands in America which when discovered were occupied by Indians but unoccupied by Christians.\" [^39] (emphasis added) The most immediate conclusion for us to reach is that Christendom considered the lands they had newly identified as being \"vacant\" because no Christians were living there. But specific language from the Vatican papal bulls provides us with an additional insight: those lands were considered vacant because no right of Christian domination had ever been asserted there. This insight follows from language found in the papal bull Dudum siquidem, issued by Pope Alexander VI on September 26, 1493.[^40] The opening of the English translation reads: A short while ago of our own free will, out of our own certain knowledge, and the fullness of our apostolic power, we gave, transferred, and assigned forever to you and your heirs and successors, the kings of Castile and Leon, all islands and lands, discovered and to be discovered, toward the west and south, that were not under the temporal rule of any Christian powers.[^41] In keeping with the Latin wording of Dudum siquidem, however, there is a less pleasant way of translating \"not under the temporal rule of any Christian powers,\" which in the original Latin refers to \"insulas\" (islands) and \"terra firmas\" (firm lands) \"que sub actuali dominio temporali aliqurorum dominorum Christianorum constitute non essent,\" or, in English: islands and firm lands \"that are not under the actual temporal domination (\"dominio\" ) of any Christian dominators\" (\"dominorum Christianorum\" ).[^42] No right of Christian domination (\"property\" ) had ever been claimed over and in relation to that non-Christian place where \"barbarous\" peoples were living. This is the reasoning process that the United States government is now applying to San Francisco Peaks, and other Sacred and Significant Places. ↑ That Was Then, and Its Still Operational Now There are those who might respond \"Well, that was then this is now,\" as if to say that the claim of a right of domination is no longer being used by the United States against our original nations. In addition to the fact that the claim of domination in the Johnson v. McIntosh ruling is still regarded as \"good law\" by the United States, we are also able to point to decisions such as City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation[^43] from 2005. In that decision, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg[^44] placed \"the doctrine of discovery\" in the first footnote of her ruling against the Oneida Nation.[^45] In that footnote, Ginsberg quotes from Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. v. County of Oneida 414: U.S. 661, 667 (1974): \"It very early became accepted doctrine in this Court that, although fee title to the lands occupied by Indians when the colonists arrived became vested in the sovereign --- first the discovering European nation and later the original States and the United States --- a right of occupancy in the Indian tribes was nevertheless recognized. That right, sometimes called Indian title and good against all but the sovereign, could be terminated only by sovereign act.\" [^46] Later in that 1974 ruling, Justice White for a unanimous Court cited to United States As Guardian of the Hualpai Indians of Arizona v. Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Co. (1941),[^47] which acknowledges Johnson v. McIntosh as the starting point of the framework of an \"Indian right of occupancy\" : \"'Unquestionably it has been the policy of the Federal Government from the beginning to respect the Indian right of occupancy, which could only be interfered with or determined by the United States.'  Cramer v. United States, 261 U. S. 219,  261 U. S. 227. This policy was first recognized in Johnson v. M'Intosh, 8 Wheat. 543, and has been repeatedly reaffirmed.  Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515; Mitchel v. United States, 9 Pet. 711; Chouteau v. Molony, 16 How. 203; Holden v. Joy, 17 Wall. 211; Buttz v. Northern Pacific Railroad\\[, 119 U. S. 55]; United States v. Shoshone Tribe, 304 U. S. 111. As stated in Mitchel v. United States, supra, p.  34 U. S. 746, Indian 'right of occupancy is considered as sacred as the fee simple of the whites.'\"[^48] Use of the word \"whites\" is a reference to individuals termed \"white,\" which means that the so-called right of occupancy is deemed by the Court to be \"as sacred as\" but not the same as the fee simple property right of individual \"white people.\" ↑ McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020) Additionally, in McGirt v. Oklahoma, Justice Neil Gorsuch references a property law treatise from the 1860's in the decision he wrote just three years ago. In the 5-4 decision, Justice Gorsuch states: \"The federal government issued its own land patents to many [non-Native] homesteaders throughout the West. These [federal] patents transferred legal title and are the basis for much of the private land ownership in a number of States today. But no one thinks any of this diminished the Unites States's claim to sovereignty over any land. To accomplish that would require an act of cession, the transfer of a sovereign claim from one nation to another.\" Here he references \"E. Washburn, American Law of Real Property 521-524.\" Legal scholar Peter d'Errico found the Washburn treatise cited by Gorsuch, and the cited wording reads as follows: Nor has any title, beyond the right of occupation, been recognized in the native tribes by any of the European governments or their successors, the Colonies, the States, or the United States. The law in this respect seems to have been uniform with all the Christian nations that planted colonies here. They recognized no seisen [property ownership] of lands on the part of the Indian dwellers upon it...The sovereignty [domination] and general property [domination] of the soil . . . were claimed . . . by right of discovery.[^49] [emphasis added] And d'Errico observes: \"Washburn footnoted this sentence with a citation of Johnson v. McIntosh.\" [^50] What is the significance of the most pro-Indigenous Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court harkening back to the \"right of discovery\" and to the patterns of domination expressed in the Johnson ruling? Rather than being up front and candid about the claim of a right of domination by the Christian nations of Europe, Gorsuch used a footnote to hide the fact that he was reaffirming the claim of a right of Christian domination which is at the root of the anti-Indian ideas and arguments called \"federal Indian law.\" ↑ A View-from-the-Ship Parsing of Johnson v. McIntosh Let's now take a closer look at what Justice Gorsuch, on behalf of a majority of the Court, reaffirmed just three years ago by citing a passage from a mid-nineteenth century property law treatise which cites to the Johnson ruling. Because the view-from-the-ship-perspective treated the \"Indians\" as null and void (\"nullus\" ) with regard to \"property\" (the claim of a right of domination), the Christian Europeans would not allow the Native peoples to be, as Justice Joseph Story put it, deemed (judged) as possessing \"the prerogatives belonging to absolute, sovereign, and independent nations.\" This wording was an effort on his part to explain away the original free existence of our nations and peoples. In the Johnson ruling, Marshall explained how the Supreme Court had reached its decision. He said the U.S. government, including the Court, acknowledged that what he termed \"civilized nations\" possessed \"perfect independence.\" [^51] He said that acknowledgment was based on \"principles of abstract justice,\" principles which \"are admitted to regulate in a great degree the rights of civilized nations.\" [^52] However, when it came to thinking about what he later termed \"natives,\" who were defined as \"heathens\" [^53] (non-Christians) Marshall cryptically said the Supreme Court had quite consciously not relied upon principles of \"abstract justice,\" but \"principles\" other than those of \"justice,\" \"which our own government has adopted in\" this \"particular case and given us [the Court] as the rule for our decision.\" [^54] This was Marshall's acknowledgment that the Court and the rest of the government was quite conscious of the fact that the Johnson case was not being decided on the basis of principles of justice. Although people tend to be quick to claim that \"conquest\" is the basis of the Johnson ruling, Chief Justice Marshall later said that the \"law which regulates and ought to regulate in general the relations between the conqueror and the conquered was incapable of application to\" Native nations and peoples.[^55] In other words, the Court did not apply the standard rules of conquest to the Indians. This is why Marshall went on to say that \"®he resort to some new and different rule better adapted to the actual state of things was unavoidable...\" [^56] [emphasis added] The phrase \"resort to\" means \"to do something you do not want to do but you do it anyway because you cannot find any other means of achieving an objective.\" Marshall is saying that the United States had come up with a \"new and different rule\" that the Supreme Court was expressing in the Johnson ruling. He went on to say, \"Every rule which can be suggested [by this Court] will be found to be attended with great difficulty\" [^57] because any such rule was, by the Court's admission, being based on principles of injustice directed at \"heathen\" nations and peoples. Marshall expressed as follows the new rule of the United States: \"However extravagant the pretension of converting the discovery of an inhabited country into conquest may appear; if the principle has been asserted in the first instance, and afterwards sustained; if a country has been acquired and held under it [the asserted principle]; if the property [domination] of the great mass of the community originates in it, it [the principle] becomes the law of the land and cannot be questioned.\" [^58] In other words, the United States government would pretend to \"convert\" the Christian \"discovery\" of the geographical location of a country already inhabited by non-Christians, into a position of domination (\"conquest\" ) toward that country, and toward the non-Christian nations and peoples living there. On the basis of the Supreme Court's \"new and different\" rule of \"pretended conquest,\" a rule arrived at by applying to the case principles other than \"abstract justice,\" the \"Indians\" would be regarded by the U.S. government as subject to U.S. domination (\"ultimate dominion\" ). Once this way of thinking was fully adopted by the United States government, it was treated as \"the law of the land,\" and as a U.S. domination/Native subordination reasoning process, fully accepted by the US government which Marshall claimed \"cannot be questioned.\" That reasoning process is still being deployed today by the U.S. government against the Native nations. ↑ The Accompanying Principle: An Indian Title of Occupancy Marshall went on to say in the Johnson ruling, \"So, too, with respect to the concomitant principle that the Indian inhabitants are to be considered [thought of] merely as occupants, to be protected, indeed, while in peace, in the possession of their lands, but to be deemed [judged] incapable of transferring the absolute title to others.\" [^59] (emphasis added) That which is concomitant is something that \"naturally accompanies or follows something else.\" Defining the Indians as being mere \"occupants\" of the land naturally followed from the Supreme Court's \"extravagant pretension,\" or pretense, of mentally treating the idea of \"discovery\" as if it were literally the same as a physical \"conquest.\" The word \"pretense\" is derived from the Latin verb praetendere, and the past participle praetensus, both meaning, \"to assume\" without a supportive basis, \"a claim made or implied,\" especially \"one not supported by fact.\" A \"pretension,\" the word Marshall used in the Johnson ruling, means, \"an allegation of doubtful value: [a] PRETEXT.\" Marshall's use of \"pretension\" amounts to him \"pretending something is true even though it isn't.\" This matches precisely the idea of a \"model or metaphor,\" the use of which \"involves the pretense that something is the case when it is not.\" With regard to metaphor, Colin Turbayne states in The Myth of Metaphor: \"Just as often, however, the pretense has been dropped, either by the pretenders or by their followers.\" [^60] \"There is a difference between using a metaphor and taking it literally, between using a model and mistaking it for the thing modeled. The one is to make believe that something is the case; the other is to believe that it is [the case].\" [^61] (emphasis added) What began as an extravagant pretense on the part of the Supreme Court eventually began to be treated or regarded as if it was a physical conquest of \"the Indians.\" What U.S. government officials have habitually called \"conquest,\" and \"the Indian title of occupancy,\" are two ideas that are the product or result of a body of metaphorical pretensions that those same government officials have mastered. They are words and ideas that are mentally and verbally projected onto our original nations and peoples, and which then end up being treated as if they are a fixed human reality. This principle is cited in Felix Cohen's Handbook of Federal Indian Law \"Conquest renders the tribe subject to the legislative authority of the United States.\" [^62] This, however, is not referring to an actual physical \"conquest.\" It is a figurative, poetic, and imaginative expression. It is a doubtful allegation made by the United States. It is a pretext that U.S. government officials have been using against our Native nations and peoples for two centuries by means of the Johnson ruling, and that U.S. officials continue to use to this day in relation to our Sacred and Significant Places, such as San Francisco Peaks and the Black Hills of the Oceti Sakowin. That is the fictional premise that U.S. officials, such as Justice Gorsuch and the rest of the U.S. Supreme Court use as the starting point for an extended argument about \"the concomitant principle\" Marshall mentioned, meaning, the mentally fabricated idea of an \"Indian title of occupancy,\" contrasted with the U.S. government's presumed right of Christian domination (\"property\" ). This framing has been accepted as an unquestionable given by practitioners of federal anti-Indian law. And this unquestioned acceptance has prevented these mental fabrications from being fundamentally challenged by pointing out the fact that they are merely mental and metaphorical constructions created by intellectuals in the employ of the political experiment called the United States of America. ↑ The Supreme Court's Use of the Doctrine of Christian Domination in Lyng In Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association[^63] for example, we may assume that the attorneys for the Native plaintiffs never mentioned the U.S. government's claim of a right of domination over the Sacred and Significant Area of the Native peoples. But a close reading of Justice Sandra Day O'Conner's 1988 decision in Lyng shows how the Supreme Court relied on the U.S. government's claim of a right of domination (termed \"property\" ) over the traditional territory of the Native people, a location called the Chimney Rock area of a place now designated the Six Rivers National Forest, adjacent to the Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation. In her majority ruling in Lyng, Justice O'Conner also quotes Sherbert v. Verner: \"For the Free Exercise Clause is written in terms of what the government cannot do to the individual, not in terms of what the individual can exact from the government.\" [^64] O'Conner further states: \"Even if we assume that we should accept the Ninth Circuit's prediction, according to which the G-O road will 'virtually destroy the . . . Indians' ability to practice their religion,' 795 F.2d at 693 (opinion below), the Constitution simply does not provide a principle that could justify upholding respondents' legal claims. However much we might wish that it were otherwise, [the] government [the domination] simply could not operate if it were required to satisfy every citizen's religious needs and desires.\" [^65] Justice O'Conner could have finished that last sentence with: \"such as the Native peoples' need and their desire for the government to not engage in activities that will virtually destroy their religion.\" Toward the end of her decision, O'Conner said, \"Whatever rights the Indians may have to the use of the area, however, they and their rights do not divest the Government of its right to use what is, after all, its land\" [^66] (emphasis added).  Here O'Conner is asserting a U.S. right of domination over the area in question. The word \"its\" is a possessive pronoun and is defined as \"of or belonging to it,\" whatever \"it\" might be. The word \"belong\" in this context means \"to be the possession or rightful property of,\" and, as we have repeatedly stated in this essay, \"property\" is a right of domination. In other words, the United States has created an ongoing conceptual system of domination which accords to the Native peoples merely the \"use\" of the lands within their traditional homeland over which the U.S. government now claims a right of domination. But within that U.S. conceptual system, the first \"Christian people\" to have arrived at a non-Christian geographical location are portrayed within the U.S. system of ideas as being in \"possession\" of the land, and thus \"vested\" with the \"property\" right of domination. The idea-system of the United States does not acknowledge the original Native peoples as being vested with the right of domination because, within the U.S. conceptual system, that status is reserved for the first Christian monarch to have identified that particular location of non-Christian lands, and it is accorded to the political successors of that first Christian monarch, such as the individual \"States\" and the United States. Given that orientation, Justice O'Conner was stating that \"the [U.S.] Government can do what it wants with its property,\" i.e., it's right of domination, over that entire area in Northern California, including over an area where the original nations have never ceded or relinquished their lands by treaty. In other words, by means of the majority decision in Lyng, the Supreme Court asserted a right of domination over the Chimney Rock area, regardless of how many thousands of years the Native peoples had been living in cultural and spiritual relationship with that place. This matches the situation at San Francisco Peaks for the traditional spiritual people of various original nations. From the viewpoint of those employed as intellectuals by the United States government, such as members of the U.S. Supreme Court, every American Indian Religious Freedom case is dealt with by the U.S. government as a property law case, in which the U.S. claim of a right of domination (\"property\" ) is deemed to be potentially threatened by the spiritual priorities of the Native peoples in relation to the land. In Lyng, Justice O'Conner acknowledged for the majority what it saw as a specific threat to the United States: the Native peoples might place lands deemed by the federal government to be \"federal lands\" in a form of \"religious servitude\" and \"de facto beneficial ownership of . . . public property [domination].\" [^67] \"Respondents attempt to stress the limits of the religious servitude that they are now seeking to impose on the Chimney Rock area of the Six Rivers National Forest\" .[^68]  As O'Conner states: No disrespect for these practices [of the Native peoples] is implied when one notes that such beliefs could easily require de facto beneficial ownership of some rather spacious tracts of public property. Even without anticipating future cases, the diminution of the Government's property rights, and the concomitant subsidy of the Indian religion, would in this case be far from trivial: the District Court's order permanently forbade commercial timber harvesting, or the construction of a two-lane road, anywhere within an area covering a full 27 sections (i.e. more than 17,000 acres) of public land.[^69] A view-from-the-shore assessment of the above language reveals that the majority would not decide in favor of the original nations of that Northern California region because a win for the original peoples might effectively challenge the federal government's presumed right of domination over the traditional lands of the nations and peoples of that part of the continent. Behind these concerns was the covert and ancient assumption, examined above, that the U.S. government has a right of domination over the lands of Native nations on the basis of Christendom's ancient distinction between Christians and non-Christian \"heathens,\" \"pagans,\" and \"infidels,\" which, by means of the Johnson precedent, the Supreme Court relies upon as a basis for U.S. property law. ↑ Justice Brennan's Dissenting Opinion in Lyng v. Northwest Cemetery Protective Association In his dissent in Lyng, Justice Brennan (joined by Marshall and Blackmun), says that the Court majority \"embraces the Government's contention that its prerogative as landowner should always take precedence over a claim that a particular use of federal property infringes religious practices.\" [^70] (emphasis added) Brennan further notes that, \"as the lower courts found, the proposed logging and construction activities\" would \"virtually destroy respondents' religion, and will therefore necessarily force them into abandoning those practices altogether.\" [^71] When written with a view-from-the-shore perspective, that sentence is accurately restated as follows: \"The U.S. government's claim of a right of domination [\"property\" ], will therefore necessarily force them [the Native peoples] into abandoning those practices altogether.\" Justice Brennan continues: Here the threat posed by the desecration of sacred lands that are indisputably essential to respondents' religious practices is both more direct and more substantial than that raised by a compulsory school law that simply exposed Amish children to an alien value system. And of course respondents here do not even have the option, however unattractive it might be, of migrating to more hospitable locales; the site-specific nature of their belief system renders it nontransportable. . . .[^72] In the final analysis, the Court's refusal to recognize the constitutional dimension of respondents' injuries stems from its concern that acceptance of respondents' claim could potentially strip the Government of its ability to manage and use vast tracts of federal property [domination]. [citation deleted] In addition, the nature of respondents' site-specific religious practices raises the specter of future suits in which Native Americans seek to exclude all human activity from such areas.  Ibid. These concededly legitimate concerns lie at the very heart of this case, which represents yet another stress point in the longstanding conflict between two disparate cultures --- the dominant Western culture, which views land in terms of ownership and use, and that of Native Americans, in which concepts of private property are not only alien, but contrary to a belief system that holds land sacred.[^73] [emphasis added] When we reword the above sentence with a view-from-the-shore perspective, we see an acknowledgment of \". . .the longstanding conflict between two disparate cultures---the dominating Western culture, which views land in terms of domination [\"property\" ] and use, and that of Native Americans, in which concepts of the domination of the land is not only alien, but contrary to a belief system that holds land sacred.\" The Brennan dissent continues: Rather than address this conflict in any meaningful fashion, however, the Court disclaims all responsibility for balancing these competing and potentially irreconcilable interests, choosing instead to turn this difficult task over to the Federal Legislature. Such an abdication is more than merely indefensible as an institutional matter: by defining respondents' injury as \"nonconstitutional,\" the Court has effectively bestowed on one party to this conflict the unilateral authority to resolve all future disputes in its favor, subject only to the Court's toothless exhortation to be \"sensitive\" to affected religions. In my view, however, Native Americans deserve---and the Constitution demands---more than this.... Today, the Court holds that a federal land use decision that promises to destroy an entire religion does not burden the practice of that faith in a manner recognized by the Free Exercise Clause. . . I find it difficult, however, to imagine conduct more insensitive to religious needs than the Government's determination to build a marginally useful road in the face of uncontradicted evidence that the road will render the practice of respondents' religion impossible. Nor do I believe that respondents will derive any solace from the knowledge that, although the practice of their religion will become \"more difficult\" as a result of the Government's actions, they remain free to maintain their religious beliefs. Given today's ruling, that freedom amounts to nothing more than the right to believe that their religion will be destroyed. The safeguarding of such a hollow freedom not only makes a mockery of the \"policy of the United States to protect and preserve for American Indians their inherent right of freedom to believe, express, and exercise the[ir] traditional religions,\" ante at  485 U. S. 454 (quoting AIRFA), it fails utterly to accord with the dictates of the First Amendment. I dissent.[^74] [emphasis added] ↑ The U.S. Government's Free Exercise of Domination on the Basis of the Bible An 1830 U.S. congressional report explains that \"Christian and civilized nations\" had laid the \"foundations of the States which constitute this confederacy.\" [^75] The report said that the nations from Western Europe \"were instructed or misled as to the nature of their duties by the precepts and examples contained in the volume [the Bible] which they acknowledged as the basis of their religious rites and creeds.\" [^76] Specifically, to \"go forth, to subdue and replenish the earth, were received as divine commands or relied on as plausible pretexts to cover mercenary enterprises by the Governments which gave the authority and the adventurers who first discovered and took possession of the New World.\" [^77] The U.S. congressional report was referring of course to the \"subdue and dominate\" language from Genesis 1:28 in the Bible. The report was saying that the biblical language to \"go forth\" to other parts of the planet and \"subdue\" (dominate) the earth was either interpreted as a command from \"God,\" or else biblical language was treated by \"Governments\" and \"adventurers\" as a basis for identifying geographical places that had been previously unknown to them, which they claimed to take possession of. This explains the basis upon which so-called Christian and civilized nations claimed a right of domination over (the right to subdue) whatever non-Christian lands they were able to identify. The report continues: Whether they were right or wrong in their construction [interpretation] of the sacred text [of the Bible], or whether their conduct can in every respect be reconciled with their professed objects or not, it is certain that possession, actual or constructive, of the entire habitable portion of this continent was taken by the nations of Europe, divided out, and held originally by the right of discovery as between themselves and by rights of discovery and conquest [domination] as against the aboriginal inhabitants.\" [^78] On the basis of the Christian Bible, specifically the passage Genesis 1:28, the U.S. federal government claims what William Blackstone called \"the sole despotic dominion\" (a property right of domination) over the Sacred and Significant Places of Native Nations and Peoples, including San Francisco Peaks. The Ninth Circuit Court of Apeals applied this way of thinking in Navajo Nation v. USFS, when the Court said: \"And Congress specifically noted that Roy and Lyng would apply in cases such as this one: '[P]re-Smith case law makes it clear that strict scrutiny does not apply to government actions involving only management of internal Government affairs or the use of the Government's own property or resources.\" Applying an apostrophe 's' to the word \"Government,\" and the phrase \"own property,\" are two means by which the Court maintains the framework of domination. The complete phrase \"the Government's own property\" (emphasis added), demonstrates the U.S. Government's claim of a right of domination over the Sacred and Significant Places of Original Nations, such as San Francisco Peaks. Those were the places with which the Original Nations and Peoples of the continent continue to have a cultural and spiritual relationship. And that relationship extends back thousands of years prior to when the political system called the United States came into existence. The claim of \"property\" that the United States government is presently asserting is traced back to Christendom's claim of a right of domination against all non-Christians. This explains why some framework such as the American Indian Religious Freedom Act was needed in the first place, to address the fact that a Christian/non-Christian bigotry had been applied to our original nations and peoples for generations. It is this Christian religious framework of domination that is still being used by the United States government at San Francisco Peaks against non-Christian spiritual and ceremonial practitioners in the name of the \"property\" (domination) rights of the United States. ↑ Why Religious Freedom Arguments Are Not Designed to Defeat The U.S. Government's Claim Of A Right of Domination Against Original Nations and Peoples We need to make clear and unambiguous our steadfast opposition to the U.S. government's claim of a right of domination over our lives as Native peoples. Our original free existence is and always will be the default position for our nations and peoples. We have the fundamental right to live free from domination. And, we now have the ability to clearly identify the system of domination being used against us. The argument presented here is quite different than insisting that the human rights of dominated (\"Indigenous\" ) nations and peoples must be upheld. There is no international human rights framework that accords people the right to live free from the domination of \"the State,\" which is considered a given, and not open to challenge. When we do not openly name and oppose the domination system of the United States, it's as if we as Native people are accepting (which we are not) the idea that we, by our very nature, subject to a dominating political power. Because the United States was founded on the basis of a system of domination, it stands to reason that it's the very nature of the United States to dominate our nations and peoples. We are able to identify and oppose the system of domination by using the specific words \"the claim of a right of domination.\" The argument that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution accords traditional healers and spiritual leaders the right to pray and to conduct ceremonies is not an effective means of opposing the U.S. government's claim of a right of domination (\"property\" ). Imagine a scenario in which federal government officials have stated to traditional spiritual people: \"The federal government of the United States has the right to use its system of domination (\"property\" ) against you.\" Meekly responding \"Well, we have the right to pray and conduct our ceremonies\" based on the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not in any way challenge the U.S. government's claimed right of domination over our lands and our lives as original nations. ↑ A Three-Pronged Counter Argument to the U.S. Claim of a Right of Domination Against Our Original Nations and Peoples There is, however, a way of responding that has yet to be advanced: 1) Our original nations are first in time, and therefore first in right.  This is a response to the \"first invaders in time, first invaders in right\" argument; 2) Void when initiated, you cannot grant what you don't possess. This means the Vatican papal bulls and royal charters of England were null and void from the moment they were issued. Why? For the simple reason that the Roman Catholic popes and the kings of England had no rightful jurisdiction beyond the immediate boundaries of their home country. This is illustrated by King Henry VII Instruction to the Cabots to \"geting unto us\" the \"jurisdiction\" (\"jurisdictionem\" in Latin) and \"domination title\" (\"titulum dominium\" in Latin), wording which contains the king's admission that he had neither of those two things at the time he issued his commission to John Cabot and his sons.[^79] Christian popes and other monarchs certainly had no rightful jurisdiction thousands of nautical miles across the Atlantic Ocean. They could not rightfully send their own home-jurisdiction by proxy across an entire ocean, and rightfully claim a right of domination over the lands of the free and independent nations living in distant places. And, lastly, 3) \"Anything wrong from the beginning can never be made right, because it was wrong, and thus invalid, from its inception,\" as expressed by Western Shoshone Elder Glenn Wasson. Their claim of a right of domination will never become valid, because their claim was invalid from the outset. Threat, duress, and coercion do not give rise to or create any valid authority over those who have been wrongfully subjected to the claim of a right of domination. ↑ Conclusion These days, it is typical to hear the United States of America being portrayed as a \"democracy\" even though they (the \"States\" ) have operated for more than two centuries as a federal system of domination in relation to the original nations and peoples of this continent. This is especially true when it comes to our Sacred and Significant Places. Federal employees of the U.S. government, and even tribal government officials, are not likely to have known before now the information about domination found in this essay. No one, however, who ends up reading this essay, will be able to feign ignorance about the U.S. claim of a right of domination. As a model of a way forward for Traditional Healers and Ceremonial Leaders, a powerful challenge to the United States was presented by the Yakama Nation in the amicus legal brief that the nation submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court in the Cougar Den case in 2018. The Yakama Nation, guided by the leadership of Chairman JoDe Goudy, and influenced by the framework of domination found in this essay, decided upon that course of action. It marks the first time that an Original Nation of the continent has directly challenged the U.S. government's claim of a right of discovery and domination. Anyone who might wish to make a counterargument to oppose what we have presented here, is going to have a difficult time crafting a meaningful and effective response to rebut the information we have provided. After all, it would be senseless for anyone to claim that the language of domination found in the Vatican papal bulls, or in the Johnson v. McIntosh ruling, and elsewhere does not actually exist. It does exist. Authoritative sources spanning centuries contain this information, even those documents which illustrate the organic laws of the United States. Our responsibility is to have dialogue with U.S. government officials, including, when possible, members of the U.S. Supreme Court,[^80] and hold them accountable to end their nefarious claim of a right of Christian domination over our spiritual people, over our Sacred and Significant Places, and over our Original Nations and Peoples and our Homelands. We need to transition to decision-making based on the Natural Laws of Creation that sustain all Life, which are the basis for our ceremonies. Those Laws of Creation guided our Ancestors and Spiritual Ways of Life before and after the invasive arrival of the ships of Christendom. ↑ Notes [^1]: Steven T. Newcomb, Pagans in the Promised Land, Chapter 4, \"Colonizing the Promised Land,\" pp. 37-50. For example, Genesis 17:2-8: The \"God\" of the Bible said: \"And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed [sperm] after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession.\" [^2]: And the \"Lord\" said: \"And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan [by analogy, all the lands of \"North America,\" including the so-called \"San Francisco Peaks\" ] for an everlasting possession.\" [^3]: For example, Psalms 2:8 \"Ask of me and I shall give to thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.\" This conceives of the original nations and peoples, and their lands, as being the inherited property of the \"chosen people\" as per \"God's\" will. This expresses the claim of a divine right of domination pursuant \"God's mandate\" and thus \"His will.\" [^4]: 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823). [^5]: Ibid. [^6]: See generally Peter d'Erricio, Federal Anti-Indian Law, Praeger, 2022. [^7]: Robert T. Coulter and Steven M. Tullberg, Indian Land Rights, in The Aggressions of Civilization, pp. 185, 190 (Sandra L. Cadwalder & Vine Deloria, Jr., eds., 1984). [^8]: European Treaties Bearing on the History of the United States, ed., Francis Gardner Davenport, Carnegie Institution, 1917, pp. 56-63. [^9]: See Steven Newcomb, \"The Evidence of Christian Nationalism in Federal Indian Law,\" N.Y.U. Review of Law & Social Change, Vol. 20, No. 2, 1993, p. 304. [^10]: Christopher Columbus Book of Privileges: 1502 The claiming of a New World, Library of Congress, eds., John W. Hessler, Daniel De Simone, and Chet Van Duzer, Delray Beach, Florida: Levenger Press, pp. 30-31. [^11]: For example, my friend Peter d'Errico (professor emeritus at the University of Massachusetts) and I, have been studying this field of knowledge for some fifty years. We have been engaged in conversation and collaboration together for more than thirty years. [^12]: State v. Foreman, 16 Tenn. (8 Yer.) 256, 277 (1835). [^13]: Ibid. [^14]: Henry Wheaton, Elements of International Law: with a Sketch of the History of the Science, Vol. I, London: B. Fellowes, Ludgate Street, 1836. [^15]: Elements, Vol. 1, Chapter 1, § 11 \"Definition of international law,\" p. 54. [^16]: Ibid., p. 205. [^17]: Elements, Vol. 1, Chapter IV, § 5 \"Conquest and discovery,\" pp. 206--207. [^18]: \"The Right of Discovery,\" Ohio Archaeological and Historical Quarterly, Vol. II, Dec. 1988, No 3. [^19]: Ibid., p. 4. [^20]: Ibid., p. 4. [^21]: Ibid. [^22]: Ibid., p. 16. [^22]: Ibid., p. 16. [^21]: Ibid. [^25]: Ibid. [^26]: Ibid., pp. 17--18. [^27]: White v. University of California, No. 12-17489, August 27, 2014. At footnote 2, we find: Aboriginal interest in land generally is described as a tribe's right to occupy the land. It is not a property right, but \"amounts to a right of occupancy which the sovereign grants and protects against intrusion by third parties.\" Tee--Hit--Ton Indians v. United States, 348 U.S. 272, 279 (1955). The right, which is residual in nature, comes from the legal theory that discovery and conquest gave conquerors the right to own the land but did not disturb the tribe's right to occupy it. See Johnson v. M'Intosh, 21 U.S. 8 Wheat 543, 588&hl=en&assdt=40000006#p588)--91&hl=en&assdt=40000006#p591) (1823). [^28]: Hinsdale, \"Right of Discovery,\" pp. 16--17. [^29]: Wheaton, Elements, Vol. 1, Chapter IV, \"Property,\" § 5, p. 207. [^30]: Ibid., pp. 207--210. [^31]: Ibid., p. 210. [^32]: Marshall D. Ewell, A Review of Blackstone's Commentaries with Explanatory Notes for the Use of Students at Law, Second Edition, Albany, New York: Matthew Bender & Company, 1915. \"Book the Second,\" \"Of the Rights of Things,\" Chapter I, \"Of Property in General,\" p. 137. [^33]: Ibid. [^34]: Ibid. [^35]: Public Law No. 95-341, 92 Stat. 469 (August 11, 1978). [^36]: Lyng, Secretary of Agriculture, v Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association. 485 US 439 (1988), at 444. [^37]: U.S. Documents of United States Indian Policy, ed., Francis Paul Prucha, 1990, p. 160. [^38]: 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) (1823) at 596&hl=en&assdt=40000006#p596). [^39]: Benjamin Munn Ziegler, The International Law of John Marshall, p. 45-46 (1939). [^40]: European Treaties Bearing on the History of the United States and Its Dependencies to 1648, Vol. I, ed., Francis Gardner Davenport, pp. 79-83. [^41]: Ibid., p. 82. [^42]: Ibid. [^43]: City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. 544 U.S. 197 (2005). [^44]: Many people find it surprising that the person who was regarded as one of the most \"liberal\" justices on the Supreme Court would use the \"doctrine of discovery\" against the Oneida Nation. [^45]: Footnote 1 in City of Sherrill begins: \"Under the 'doctrine of discovery,' County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of N. Y., 470 U. S. 226, 234 (1985) (Oneida II) 'fee title to the lands occupied by Indians when the colonists arrived became vested in the sovereign---first the discovering European nation and later the original States and the United States, . . .'\" [^46]: Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. v. Country of Oneida 414 U.S. 661, 667 (1974) at 667. [^47]: United States As Guardian of the Hualpai Indians of Arizona v. Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Co. 314 U.S. 339 (1941) [^48]: Ibid., at 348. [^49]: Emory Washburn, American Law of Real Property (Boston: Little, Brown, 1864), Book III, Ch. III, Title by Grant, § 1 Public Grant. [^50]: Personal Correspondence, RedThought.org Presentation on McGirt v. Oklahoma, with Jode Goudy (Yakama Nation), Steven Newcomb (Shawnee/Lenape), and Peter d'Errico, professor emeritus at UMass Amherst. [^51]: Johnson v. McIntosh, at 572&hl=en&assdt=40000006#p572). [^52]: Ibid. [^53]: Ibid., at 577. [^54]: Ibid., at 572&hl=en&assdt=40000006#p572). [^55]: Ibid., at 591&hl=en&assdt=40000006#p591). [^56]: Ibid. [^57]: Ibid. [^58]: Ibid. [^59]: Ibid., 591&hl=en&assdt=40000006#p591). [^60]: Colin Turbayne, The Myth of Metaphor (Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press), 1971, p. 3. [^61]: Ibid. [^62]: United States of America v. Consolidated Wounded Knee Cases, 389 F. Supp. 235 (D. Neb 1975) January 17 1975, at 237. Quoted from Cohen's Handbook by Judge Warren Urbom: \"The whole course of judicial decision on the nature of Indian tribal powers is marked by adherence to three fundamental principles: (1) An Indian tribe possesses, in the first instance, all the powers of any sovereign state. (2) Conquest renders the tribe subject to the legislative power of the United States . . . \" [^63]: Lyng, Secretary of Agriculture, v Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association. 485 US 439 (1988) [^64]: Ibid., at 451. [^65]: Ibid., at 451-452. [^66]: Ibid., at 453. [^67]: Ibid., at 453. [^68]: Ibid., at 452. [^69]: Ibid., at 453. [^70]: Ibid., at 465. [^71]: Ibid., at 467. [^72]: Ibid., at 467--468. [^73]: Ibid., at 473. [^74]: Ibid., at 473 and at 476--477. [^75]: 21St Cong., 1st sess., H.R. Rep. No. 227, Feb. 24, 1830. [^76]: Ibid. [^77]: Ibid. [^78]: Ibid. [^79]: Francis Newton Thorpe, The Federal and State Constitutions Colonial Charters, and Other Organic Laws of the States, Territories, and Colonies New or Heretofore Forming the United States of America, Compiled and Edited under the Act of Congress of June 30, 1906, Vol. I, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1909, pp. 45--46. [^80]: What Justice Scalia Said He Didn't Know About U.S. Indian Law, Steven Newcomb, ICT News, 26 Feb 2016",
    "externalUrl": "https://originalfreenations.com/conflicting-perspectives-regarding-the-holy-mountain-called-san-francisco-peaks-and-other-sacred-and-significant-places-of-original-nations-and-traditional-healers/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/petitioners-merits-brief/",
    "title": "Inter-American Commission On Human Rights Of The Organization Of American States Case No. P-624-14",
    "publishedAt": "2023-12-28T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "The Onondaga Nation And The Haudenosaunee Against The United States Of America The Onondaga Nation And The Haudenosaunee Confederacy Supplemental Submission Brief On The Merits The first underlying colonial doctrine of federal Indian law is referred to as the “Doctrine of Discovery” by which the territories long occupied by “Indian” nations and peoples, including the Onondaga and the Confederacy, are legally deemed to be terra nullius , vacant lands open for taking, exploitation, and occupation by the first imperial European Christian nation to “discover” them.8 Chief Justice Marshall held: “So far as respected the authority of the crown, no distinction was taken between vacant lands and lands occupied by the Indians.”9 He rested his decision upon White, European cultural, and Christian supremacy: “the character and religion of its inhabitants afforded an apology for considering them as a people over whom the superior genius of Europe might claim an ascendency.”10 In reaching this legal fiction, Justice Marshall reasoned that indigenous peoples did not claim, own, their lands under European property law because of their customary law of a spiritual, familial, relationship and belief that no one could “own” the earth.11 According to Marshall, legal title to land was acquired by cultivation, a European property law concept foreign to Indians. Rather, the Indians “held their respective lands and territories each in common, …there being among them no separate property in the soil.” Justice Marshall further opined that Indians, as “uncivilized” “savages” and “heathens” (non-Christians), were required to give way and relinquish their lands to the superior race, civilization, culture, and religion of the imperial nations of Europe.",
    "tags": [
      "law",
      "OAS",
      "PDF",
      "document",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "The Onondaga Nation And The Haudenosaunee Against The United States Of America The Onondaga Nation And The Haudenosaunee Confederacy Supplemental Submission Brief On The Merits The first underlying colonial doctrine of federal Indian law is referred to as the \"Doctrine of Discovery\" by which the territories long occupied by \"Indian\" nations and peoples, including the Onondaga and the Confederacy, are legally deemed to be terra nullius, vacant lands open for taking, exploitation, and occupation by the first imperial European Christian nation to \"discover\" them.8 Chief Justice Marshall held: \"So far as respected the authority of the crown, no distinction was taken between vacant lands and lands occupied by the Indians.\"9 He rested his decision upon White, European cultural, and Christian supremacy: \"the character and religion of its inhabitants afforded an apology for considering them as a people over whom the superior genius of Europe might claim an ascendency.\"10 In reaching this legal fiction, Justice Marshall reasoned that indigenous peoples did not claim, own, their lands under European property law because of their customary law of a spiritual, familial, relationship and belief that no one could \"own\" the earth.11 According to Marshall, legal title to land was acquired by cultivation, a European property law concept foreign to Indians. Rather, the Indians \"held their respective lands and territories each in common, ...there being among them no separate property in the soil.” Justice Marshall further opined that Indians, as “uncivilized” “savages” and “heathens” (non-Christians), were required to give way and relinquish their lands to the superior race, civilization, culture, and religion of the imperial nations of Europe. Read the full brief{: .btn .btn--danger .btn--x-large}"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/philippine-doctrine-discovery/",
    "title": "The Regalian Doctrine: The Philippine Case",
    "publishedAt": "2023-04-24T07:54:46Z",
    "description": "Introduction The Philippines has over 14-17 million remaining Indigenous peoples belonging to an estimated 110 ethnolinguistic communities (between 10-20% of the total population). It also boasts of some of the most progressive legislation in the world when it comes to protecting the rights of Indigenous Peoples. One such law is the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997 with the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) as its implementing arm. Yet despite such legislation, the Philippines is notorious for having one of the highest rates of murder of Indigenous land protectors in the world (alongside Brazil), not to mention, the  incidence of dispossession and displacement of tribes that happen to be “in the right of way” of mining, dam-building, tourism, and other development projects. In previous writing (Mendoza, 2020), I have noted how the only relation imagined by the Philippine state with its Indigenous populations is that of assimilation, never recognition of their autonomous rights or sovereignty. I have tracked how the government-sanctioned imperative to “keep up” with the rest of the civilized world actively (re)produces such populations as wards of the state, in need of incorporation into the national polity, celebrating their otherness only for tourism purposes. And even among well-meaning and justice-oriented Filipino academics wishing to “indigenize” the schools’ curriculum, the prevailing sentiment tends still to be that of patronage, with the driving impetus being that of “helping rescue our exploited tribal kin” out of their impoverished conditions that, perchance, they, too, might benefit from the fruits of progress and technological advancement “just like the rest of us modernized Filipinos.” And as the nation-state presses forward—climate chaos notwithstanding—in its determined drive to achieve economic growth and development at all cost, 1 Indigenous dispossession becomes expedient and necessary “for the sake of the greater good.” As in the much-touted “Build, Build, Build” program of former President Duterte and now, the “Build, Better, More’ infrastructure program” of the newly-elected President Bong Bong Marcos, son of the former dictator, Ferdinand Marcos (Quismorio, Aug. 23, 2022).  ↩",
    "tags": [
      "law",
      "religion",
      "Christianity",
      "Philippines",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Introduction The Philippines has over 14-17 million remaining Indigenous peoples belonging to an estimated 110 ethnolinguistic communities (between 10-20% of the total population). It also boasts of some of the most progressive legislation in the world when it comes to protecting the rights of Indigenous Peoples. One such law is the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997 with the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) as its implementing arm. Yet despite such legislation, the Philippines is notorious for having one of the highest rates of murder of Indigenous land protectors in the world (alongside Brazil), not to mention, the  incidence of dispossession and displacement of tribes that happen to be \"in the right of way\" of mining, dam-building, tourism, and other development projects. In previous writing (Mendoza, 2020), I have noted how the only relation imagined by the Philippine state with its Indigenous populations is that of assimilation, never recognition of their autonomous rights or sovereignty. I have tracked how the government-sanctioned imperative to \"keep up\" with the rest of the civilized world actively (re)produces such populations as wards of the state, in need of incorporation into the national polity, celebrating their otherness only for tourism purposes. And even among well-meaning and justice-oriented Filipino academics wishing to \"indigenize\" the schools' curriculum, the prevailing sentiment tends still to be that of patronage, with the driving impetus being that of \"helping rescue our exploited tribal kin\" out of their impoverished conditions that, perchance, they, too, might benefit from the fruits of progress and technological advancement \"just like the rest of us modernized Filipinos.\" And as the nation-state presses forward---climate chaos notwithstanding---in its determined drive to achieve economic growth and development at all cost,[^1] Indigenous dispossession becomes expedient and necessary \"for the sake of the greater good.\" Such stark policy disconnect and contradiction cannot be accounted for merely by reference to \"lack of good governance,\" i.e., the notion that if only the right people were elected into office, then the implementation problem would be taken care of. The roots of the problem run much deeper---reaching back not only to the foundational land and tenure laws arbitrarily instituted in the country as part of colonial era legislation but, I would argue, to the very emergence of the Philippine nation-state---post-independence---not as a liberatory force for good, but, unwittingly, as a continuing armature of domination and conquest, this time, vis-a-vis its own indigenous populations. This it does in its unqualified adoption of the notorious Doctrine of Christian Discovery (DOCD)---known as the Regalian Doctrine in its Spanish iteration---that served as Europe's instrument of colonial genocide and theft of Indigenous territories around the globe. As variously argued elsewhere in this series of essays, despite the DOCD being nothing more than a legal fiction and a religious contrivance conjured literally out of thin air, its material and symbolic power continues to grind on inexorably in many places around the globe as a destructive force majeure, its supremacist and expansionist ideology exploding worlds and introducing a death dynamic on the planet (whose end logic might well earn Achille Mbembe's (2019) usage of the term \"necropolitics\" in the contemporary times). Referred to as \"a perfect marginalization tool\" (Lynch, 2011, p. 9) it is one that has yet to be challenged in any meaningful way up to the present moment. As legal scholar Owen J. Lynch (2011) observes ruefully: [Despite] [t]he constitutional foundation for popular sovereignty [being] reiterated over a century and a half later in the Constitution of the Philippine Republic...the transition of the Philippine state from a colony to a republic resulted in little change.... Instead, the new republic largely mirrored the policies and designs of the former colonial government....(P. 2) I submit that a continuing source of aggravation in state-Indigenous relations in the Philippine case is the entrenchment of the logic of the DOCD in the country's  land and property laws in the form of the Regalian Doctrine or Jura Regalia. The term \"regalia\" derives from the Spanish crown's assertion, upon its takeover of the islands beginning in the 1500s, of its right to ownership of all lands by sheer dint of \"discovery\" and conquest. As stated in the Laws of the Indies, the body of laws promulgated by the Spanish crown in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries for the government of its colonial possessions in the Americas and elsewhere outside Europe (including the Philippine islands): We having acquired full sovereignty over the Indies, and all lands, territories, and possessions not heretofore ceded away by our royal predecessors, or by us, or in our name, still pertaining to the royal crown and patrimony, it is our will that all lands which are held without proper and true deeds of grant be restored to us according as they belong to us, in order that after serving before all what to us or to our viceroys, audiencias, and governors may seem necessary for public squares, ways, pastures, and commons in those places which are peopled, taking into consideration not only their present condition, but also their future and probable increase, and after distributing to the natives what may be necessary for tillage and pasturage, confirming in them what they now have and giving them more if necessary, all the rest of said lands may remain free and unencumbered for us to dispose of as we wish. (In Baleva, 2019, p. 112, itals. in the original) The institution of such a legal fiction of possession and ownership by the subterfuge of \"discovery\" and conquest did not stop with the ending of Spanish rule in the wake of a nationwide revolutionary uprising that lasted from 1896 to 1898. Rather, it was merely carried over and reinforced by the United States colonial administration upon its spurious \"acquisition\" (from Spain) of the Philippine archipelago at the turn of the 20th century.[^2] Worse, it was subsequently adopted in toto by the postcolonial Philippine government with the enshrinement of its tenets in the country's constitution (all across its 1935, 1973, and 1987 iterations) with the state taking over as successor administrator, thereby resulting in the \"effective negation of the nation's Indigenous cultures and heritage\" (Lynch, 2011, p. 8). Notwithstanding the growing attention in contemporary literature (cf. Baleva, 2019; Belgica, Feb. 9, 2023;  Cuasay, July 2003; Cuasay, 2005; Lynch, 1988, 2011; Maentz, 2022, among others) to the doctrine's saliency in matters of ongoing (and increasing) tensions between indigenous assertions of rights and the state's prioritizing of corporatist interests, there has yet to emerge, particularly within Philippine legal studies, a concerted and thoroughgoing effort and commitment to interrogate the ideological underpinnings of the Doctrine. As Lynch (2011) one more time rues: After more than half a century of political independence, substantive continuity between the colonial and politically independent Philippine state...raises a host of questions regarding the nature of the Philippine social contract. Perhaps foremost is the question of when, if ever, was there any substantive democratic reconstitution of the Philippine State that genuinely considered and reflected the aspirations, rights, and potentials of the entire citizenry, especially the poor, rural, majority. (P. 3) I submit that such demystificatory work, particularly in the public discourse, is an absolute necessity if more just and equitable modes of relation were ever to be opened up and reimagined (between the state and the country's assimilated majorities, on the one hand, and the nation's unassimiliated minoritized Indigenous populations, on the other). And therein lie the stakes in this revisitation: for the State to repudiate its role as a successor colonial power and for Indigenous communities to be restored their right to their ancestral domains, there has to be a thoroughgoing recognition of the \"undemocratic origins, evolution, and effects of many contemporary laws and legal concepts\" (Lynch, 2011, p. 18) as rooted in the Regalian Doctrine. For as long as its colonialist oeuvre remains entrenched and operating in capillaric fashion within the country's state institutions (and in the popular imagination), any progressive legislation pertaining to Indigenous peoples is likely to simply multiply the complexities and contradictions. Philippine Indigenous Life Against the Grain The discourse of the Regalian Doctrine, as is the case with the DOCD, presents an interesting — if damning and distorting — counter-mirror to Indigenous life. When Spain first came to what are now known as the Philippine islands,[^3] it found diverse ethnic groups of people already living in loosely-federated coastal village settlements called barangay (a word for a traditional boat), numbering anywhere from 50 to 100 families and aggregating mostly through kinship relationships. But as well, numerous nomadic hunter-gatherer tribes[^4] believed to be the lands' original inhabitants were known to have thrived across the islands, although increasingly  driven inland into the mountains by the influx of Malay farming settlers (Steere, 1898). Although inter-island trading was not uncommon among the former communities, the Spanish conquerors found scandalous the total absence of private ownership even among the settled farming native communities, to wit: Baranganic society had one distinguishing feature: the absence of private property in land. The chiefs merely administered land in the name of the barangay. The social order was an extension of the family with chiefs embodying the higher unity of the community. (Constantino in Baleva, 2019, p. 109) Consequently, as Lynch (1988) maps what eventually became the legal landscape under Spain: The primary innovation introduced by the Spaniards concerning legal rights to natural resources was the concept that land could be exclusively owned by individuals. In other words, \"the outstanding novelty\" was not that the Crown claimed to own all the land. Rather, it \"was the gradual adoption of the European principle of individual ownership.\" (P. 82) This was a radical concept that effectively transformed the islands' commons to commodities that can be privately owned, bought, exploited, and sold. And given that assertion of ownership required formal documentary registration and titling  to private persons, with the burden of application for such requiring literacy and submission to the legal requirements, the disadvantage (to put it mildly) to Indigenous peoples is patently glaring: the rendering of many native inhabitants squatters in their own homelands with the onus on them to have to struggle interminably from thereon to have their right to their ancestral domains recognized and respected. Notwithstanding royal proscriptions against the usurpation of indigenous lands (i.e., \"you shall not occupy or take possession of any private property of the Indians\"), Baleva (2019) notes, \"[R]eal property held in common increasingly became antiquated and supplanted by private ownership that was evidenced by document titles. The Real Audencia in Manila, which was tasked to safeguard customary property rights, and ensure that possession of ancestral domains that were illegally conveyed was reinstated to their rightful owners, was a dismal failure. The Crown's policies that were favorable to indigenous peoples were weighed against what was required for the perpetuation of the colony. (P. 110, emphasis added) As many Philippine Indigenous tribes put it, \"Gradually, control over our ancestral lands was lost as the settlers came armed, not with guns, but with titles\" (in Sebastian in Maentz, 2022, p. 65). The introduction of the encomienda system in 1594 under King Philip II in furtherance of conquest and colonization was part of the whole process of land privatization and enclosure of the commons. Spanish conquistadors, friars, local nobles (principalia), and settlers were provided land and given legal right to exact tribute from the indigenous populations (in the form of gold, food, cloth, minerals and labor) in exchange for purported protection and instruction in the Christian faith. The brutal (virtual slave) system was finally abolished in 1720 amidst protests and reports of rampant abuses by the encomenderos, but not before its century and a half of existence came close to wiping out all memory of traditional and indigenous knowledge of a different order of life and relation to land prior to colonization (Guzman, R., Sept. 15, 2021). As Lynch (1988) concludes, \"The colonial government over a span of three and a quarter centuries created and upheld a documented private property regime\" (p. 84) where there was nonesuch previously. There is not enough space here for a more nuanced recounting of the countless convolutions, confusions, and conundrums generated by this concocted European-derived private property regime---firmly kept in place throughout the American occupation (1898-1946) and by the Philippine government post-independence---on peoples with a very different relation to land and orientation to life. But the single most devastating disruption that could (and can) be visited on such peoples is displacement from the very soils that have birthed and fed them.  As Kalinga warrior chieftain and leading opponent of the World Bank-funded Chico River Basin Dam Project Macli-ing Dulag declared in protest before he was subsequently assassinated by military forces in 1980: You ask if we own the land. And mock us. \"Where is your title?\" When we query the meaning of your words, you answer with taunting arrogance. \"Where are the documents to prove that you own the land?\" Title. Documents. Proof (of ownership). Such arrogance to speak of owning the land, when you shall be owned by it. How can you own that which outlive\\[s\\] you?...(In Baleva, 2019, p. 141) Redefining Human Being: Christian and Civilizational Re-engineering In perusing the wrenching legal convolutions stemming from the anomalous Regalian Doctrine across both colonial and postcolonial regimes, one finds that the imposition of a property regime is not only productive of the colonial project of wealth extraction and imperialist expansion but constitutive of a new mode of human being that would be compatible with the vision of a more prosperous, progressive, ever-advancing, ever-improving new world populated by highly-evolved human \"subjects,\" shaped by and aspiring to the entire agenda of what we now call Modernity first beginning to marshal its novelties on the world stage after 1492. Such subjectivity is mandatorily Christian; ruled by a form of rationality detachable from, and unconcerned with feelings, passions, and intuition; acquisitive, with a \"natural desire to accumulate wealth, enjoy a life of material comforts, and master nature, (based on the biblical understanding that the end of human life is the exercise of mastery and dominion over the earth); \"inherently calculating, utilitarian, result-oriented..., concerned with maximizing possible advantages from a given unit of human effort; individualistic, not beholden to relationships of interdependency\" with  either human or more-than-human others; and finally, invested in the notion of private ownership, according to Locke's own words, \"'God gave the world to man in common, but...it cannot be supposed he meant it should always remain common and uncultivated.  He gave it to the use of the Industrious and Rational...'\" (in Mendoza, 2013, pp. 11-12). Thus the terms \"uncivilized tribes,\" \"non-Christian,\" \"of a low grade of civilization, usually living in tribal relationships apart from settled communities,\" \"citizens of low degree of intelligence,\" etc. (in Baleva, 2019, pp. 126-127) that littered Supreme Court decisions (particularly during the American period) became explicit codes for denoting---in the minds of judges, state officials, elites, and, ultimately, the mainstream public---any group of people that resist assimilation and stubbornly persist in their \"backward\" and \"anachronistic\" ways of being. As one such ruling[^5] stated: The majority opinion says \"they are restrained for their own good and the general good of the Philippines.\" They are made to accept the civilization of the more advanced Filipinos whether they want it or not. They are backward and deficient in culture and must be moved from their homes, however humble they may be and \"brought under the bells\" and made to stay on a reservation.\" (in Baleva, 2019, P. 127). Embedded within this understanding of human subjectivity is a civilizational narrative that, at bottom, is supremacist in essence and orientation. But not only is supremacy presupposed toward other people groups, but, first and foremost, toward the more-than-human world. Here, the category \"human\" ceases to denote a natural being but elevates the existence it references above the state of nature as its ruler, conqueror, and dominator. So much so that modes of living premised on a respectful, sacred, non-conquering relationship with the natural world (e.g., hunting-gathering, pastoral nomadism, and subsistence farming lifeways that prioritize living close to land and are mindful of limits[^6] and reciprocal obligations with their land bases) are now anathema. They are deemed to be \"animal-like\" and thus desacratory of the supposedly exalted place of humans as \"just a little lower than the angels\" (Psalm 8:4-8) within the prescribed Christian understanding . Quintessentially ethnocentric in worldview orientation, this civilizational narrative  is a perfect expression of what Argentinian critical theorist Walter Mignolo (April 3, 2007) refers to as a logic controlled by a \"totalitarian notion of Totality\"---one that \"negates, excludes, and occludes difference and the possibility of other totalities\" (p. 451). In other words, this is a worldview that permits no alternative to its vision of human being, reducing all that came before it to mere \"savagery\" and \"primitivism\" (as in the repeated use of the terms  \"wild tribes,\" \"uncivilized,\" \"remontados[^7]. As a supremacist conceit , its exclusive notion of the \"good life\" is confined to that of city-state living---a social order built on settled monocrop agriculture, centralized government, surplus product hoarded in a regime of private ownership, organized warfare, standing armies, hierarchically-promulgated religion (i.e., Christianity), and elite commitment to literacy, technological advancement, and endless growth. Treating land and nature as mere \"resource\" and enshrining comfort, convenience, and wealth accumulation as the highest good (and evidence of God's manifest blessing), its singular outcome is nothing short of the planet's ruination. Having foreclosed consideration of those antique cultures that, over millennia, have achieved relative success in evolving richly diverse modes of organizing human life without devastating their land bases, modern hubris leaves our imaginations severely impoverished and bereft of alternatives. The intractability of this supremacist civilizational discourse (as embodied in the Doctrine of Christian Discovery and its Spanish articulation in the Regalian Doctrine) now stands as one of our greatest existential challenges. But even the most progressive legal minds remain captive to its hubris, as the 2005 United States Supreme Court ruling in the Sherrill v Oneida Indian Nation of New York so damnably demonstrates. Denying the Oneida Nation tribal immunity over their ancestoral and territorial lands in that case, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg reasoned that \"this land, initially vested to European powers through the Doctrine of Discovery, had simply been out of the Oneida's control for too long, rendering sovereignty in this instance an 'ancient' and untenable concept\" (Nîtôtemtik, Sept. 25, 2020). \"Its embers,\" she added, had \"long ago gr\\[own\\] cold\" and could not now be \"rekindled\" (in AIISP, Jan. 4, 2021). It is this unwillingness to disrupt the status quo that keeps this devastating Doctrine alive and firmly entrenched institutionally. And all of this while the planet's very survival hangs in the balance and the killing and dispossession of the last keepers of the earth, i.e., the world's Indigenous peoples, continues unabated. Lamentably, in the Philippine case, the situation in this regard is no more hopeful. As Bae Naraval, an adopted Indigenous leader among the Matigsalug Tribe in Southern Philippines remarked in an interview (concerning the Tribe's collective application for ancestral land titles with the National Commission on on Indigenous Peoples \\[NCIP\\]): We think we have the NCIP but we are not really protected by the NCIP. We think we have the government, but we're not really protected by the government. They are even the ones who become the enemies of the Tribes, the local government. So instead of the Tribes fighting for their area, they opt not to anymore. How can they fight? They don't even have food for themselves. How can they afford a lawyer? Most of those imprisoned here are members of the Tribe who fight for their area. You are the owner of the area because it is within the ancestral land, you are part of the Tribe, but you are the one imprisoned. And the rich just smile and build their resorts. Until today, nobody is stopping the bulldozers that enter the ancestral land. (Naraval in Maentz, 2022, pp. 18-19) Ultimately, if we truly understood the stakes, we would endeavor to make the fight of our Indigenous kin our own (because ultimately it is!) and face our own profound culpability. For those of us no longer living indigenously and now occupying land stolen by fiat from other people, our relationship is not abstract but concrete.  We, the modernized, urbanized, assimilated subjects of empire living well-resourced lifestyles stand as beneficiaries of this  ongoing dispossession and, in regard to the reality of our collective planetary predicament, it is now becoming irrepressibly clear that \"[t]he fight against mass extinction and the fight of Indigenous communities for survival and sovereignty is one and the same\" (Sebastian in Maentz, 2022, p. 5). Bibliography AIISP (Jan. 4, 2021). Ruth Bader Ginsburg's notoriety in Indian country and Cornell's campus landscape. Last accessed: 2/26/2023. Baleva, M. K. A. (2019). Regaining paradise lost: Indigenous land rights and tourism.   Belgica, J. (Feb. 9, 2023). The 'regalian doctrine' and the 'doctrine of discovery. The Manila Times. . Last accessed: Feb. 26, 2023. Cuasay, P. (July 2003). Indigenizing law or legalizing governmentality? The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act and the Philippine Supreme Court. Working paper for the panel \"Indigenous Knowledge in the Commons,\" Politics of the Commons: Articulating Development and Strengthening Local Practices, Chiang Mai University RCSD. ( ). Last accessed 2/26/2023. (2005). Indigenizing law or legalizing governmentality? The Philippine Indigenous Peoples Rights Act and Postcolonial Hybridity. In P. Cuasay & C. Vaddhanaphuti (Eds.). Commonplaces and comparisons: Remaking eco-political spaces in Southeast Asia (pp. 52-76). Chiang Mai, Thailand: Regional Center for Social Science and Sustainable Development. Guzman, R. (Sept. 15, 2021). Rediscovering our traditional and indigenous knowledge in agriculture. Ibon . Last accessed: 2/26/2023. Headland, T. N. (Oct. 1987). Kinship and social behavior among Agta Negrito hunter-gatherers. Ethnology 26(4) 261-280. Maentz, J. (2022). Homelands. Jacob Maentz and Morree Fine Books, Netherlands. Mbembe, A. (2019). Necropolitics. Durnham, NC: Duke University Press. Magos, A. P. 1997. The Concept of Mari-it (Dangerous Zones) in Panaynon Worldview and its Impact on Sustainable Human Development. SEAMEO-Jasper Fellowship Monograph Series 5. Mendoza, S. L. (2013). Savage representations in the discourse of modernity: Liberal ideology and the impossibility of nativist longing. Decolonization, Indigenization, Education, and Society. 2 (1), 1-19. Mendoza, S. L. (2020). The Philippine Nation-State and the Killing of Indigenous Peoples: Christianity and Modernity as Walls of Legitimation and Conquest. In J. Havea (Ed.). Mission and context (pp. 95-110).(Book Series: Theology in the Age of Empire). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Mignolo, W. D. (April 3, 2007) Delinking, Cultural Studies, 21:2, 449--514. Nalangan, A. R. I. (2018). The mari-it in twelve selected folktales of Malay, Aklan. Undergraduate Thesis, University of the Philippines Visayas. Nîtôtemtik, T. (Sept. 25, 2020). Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Legacy, reconciliation, and the Doctrine of Discovery. . Last accessed: 2/26/2023. Lynch, O. J. (1988). Land rights, land laws, and land usurpation: The Spanish Sea (1565-1898). Philippine Law Journal 63, 82-111. (2011). Colonial legacies in a fragile republic: ​​A history of Philippine land law and state formation with emphasis on the early U.S. regime, 1898-1913. Quezon City, Philippines: University College of Law. Quismorio, E. (Aug. 23, 2022). Goodbye 'Build, Build, Build'; P1.196-T sought for PBBM's 'Build, Better, More' infrastructure program. Manila Bulletin. Last accessed: 2/26/2023. Steere, J. B. (June 25, 1898). The wild tribes of the Philippines. Scientific American 78 (26) 407. Last accessed: 2/26/2023. The LawPhil Project (n.d.).  Rubi et. al. vs. Provincial Board of Mindoro. Last accessed 2/27/2023>. Footnotes [^1]: As in the much-touted \"Build, Build, Build\" program of former President Duterte and now, the \"Build, Better, More' infrastructure program\" of the newly-elected President Bong Bong Marcos, son of the former dictator, Ferdinand Marcos (Quismorio, Aug. 23, 2022). [^2]: On June 12, 1898, following the successful routing of the Spanish army (save for some isolated strongholds in parts of Manila) in a nationwide revolutionary uprising, the Philippines declared its independence from close to 350 years of Spanish rule, thus becoming the first republic in Asia. The United States, abiding by the DOCD and deeming the newly liberated territory as now \"empty\" (i.e., unoccupied by a European power, the native inhabitants effectively not human enough to count) would find its opportunity to finally join the superpower land grab. Spain, at this point, loath to surrender to mere \"Indios,\" decided to strike a deal with the United States in the 1898 Treaty of Paris, conceiving of a mock battle where it would surrender instead to the U.S. and \"cede\" the Philippines in exchange for 20 million dollars. It was now the U.S.'s turn to assert \"ownership\" over the Philippine archipelago. [^3]: The first expedition arrived in 1521 via Spain-sponsored Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan's voyage (his stint cut short by his killing by a poisoned arrow in a hostile encounter with the natives), and then again in 1565 with the arrival of Miguel Lopez de Legaspi who served as the first Governor-General of the Philippine islands. [^4]: Collectively, they were termed \"Negritos\" due to their dark skin, kinky hair, and relative smallness of stature (cf. Headlund, Oct. 1987) [^5]: As can be seen  in the case of the March 7, 1919 Rubi Decision, in which a petition for habeas corpus in favor of Rubi and other Manguianes of the Province of Mindoro who alleged that the Maguianes are being illegally deprived of their liberty by being held against their will on a certain reservation was denied (c.f. The LawPhil Project, n.d.). The case exhibited a quite telling \"judicial construction\" and imposition of the \"determination of the essence\" of the identity of native Filipinos in its outcome. Such practices of relocating Indigenous populations to \"reservations\" date back to the Spanish Colonial Government policy of reducciones, wherein Indios were forced to reside \"within hearing distance of the peals of the Church bell\" and in concentrated numbers (Baleva, 2019, pp. 125-126). The resettlements were meant to facilitate management, control, and surveillance of the colony by a small number of armed Spanish constabulary. [^6]: Such as in the observance of the Indigenous practice of mari-it, places in the Wild watched over by taglugar, (spirit guardians) and understood as off-limits to humans (Magos, 1997; Nalangan, 2018). [^7]: \"[M]en who have again mounted the saddle of savagery\" (Steere, 1898, p. 407),"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/podcast/200-years-of-johnson-v.-mintosh-indigenous-responses-to-the-religious-foundations-of-racism/",
    "title": "CrossCurrents Vol. 74. No. 4. Special Issue: 200 Years of Johnson v. M’Intosh: Indigenous Responses to the Religious Foundations of Racism",
    "publishedAt": "2025-06-30T12:27:30Z",
    "description": "In 2022 Syracuse University received a Henry Luce Foundation grant to support the work of Philip P. Arnold and the Indigenous Values Initiative's Doctrine of Discovery Project We received three years of funding for '200 Years of Johnson v. M'Intosh: Indigenous Responses to the Religious Foundations of Racism.' This grant and project has been a collaborative initiative made possible through relationships developed over 30 years between academic and Indigenous communities. At its core, the project seeks to interrogate and critically examine connections between the Doctrine of Christian Discovery (DoCD), the Catholic Papal Bulls that undergird the Doctrine, and the Doctrine's pernicious influence on United States Indian Law today.",
    "tags": [
      "law",
      "religion",
      "values",
      "environment",
      "nokings",
      "featured",
      "responses",
      "blog",
      "podcast"
    ],
    "textContent": "In 2022 Syracuse University received a Henry Luce Foundation grant to support the work of Philip P. Arnold and the Indigenous Values Initiative's Doctrine of Discovery Project (doctrineofdiscovery.org). We received three years of funding for \"200 Years of Johnson v. M'Intosh (JvM): Indigenous Responses to the Religious Foundations of Racism.\" This grant and project has been a collaborative initiative made possible through relationships developed over 30 years between academic and Indigenous communities. At its core, the project seeks to interrogate and critically examine connections between the Doctrine of Christian Discovery (DoCD), the Catholic Papal Bulls that undergird the Doctrine, and the Doctrine's pernicious influence on United States Indian Law today. The 200th anniversary of JvM provided an excellent moment to challenge the theology and jurisprudence of the DoCD and this critical Supreme Court decision. The project delved into a range of products and written works such are included in this volume. The essays, podcasts, conference, and public outreach activities of the project grant have helped to raise awareness about the harmful impacts of the DoCD. \\[…\\] We are excited to be collaborating with CrossCurrents on this special edited volume as we believe it will provide support to this global, inter/intra-religious movement to: (1) dismantle existing knowledge paradigms about DoCD; (2) increase the number of religious leaders and their followers who have publicly repudiated the DoCD; and (3) apply pressure on the Vatican to rescind the Catholic Papal Bulls that have created the foundational justification for the Doctrine. The work of CrossCurrents and its parent organization The Association for Public Religion and Intellectual Life (APRIL) has highlighted issues of inter-cultural contact between different religious communities that has dominated the field of religious studies for the last 50 years or more.2 Along these lines, our work extends that of historian of religion Charles Long, for example, who examined religion's role in settler-colonialism and the oppression of Indigenous Peoples. In Native American and Indigenous Studies (NAIS) this reached a peak around the 500th anniversary of Columbus' \"discovery\" of the New World. In more recent decades, multiple academics and activists have been focused on the DoCD.",
    "externalUrl": "https://muse.jhu.edu/issue/55074"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/podcast/S04E01/",
    "title": "S04E01: Unearthing the Foundations: Examining Native American Legal Battles and the Doctrine of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2024-04-23T10:00:01Z",
    "description": "Introduction We begin this episode with a  land acknowledgement . This podcast episode is a recording of Law Panel III Federal Anti-Indian Law from the conferece The Religious Origins of White Supremacy: Johnson v. M’Intosh and the Doctrine of Christian Discovery . During this panel, the panelists discuss the Doctrine of Discovery and its impact on Indigenous peoples. They highlight the need for greater integration of these discussions in law schools and the importance of challenging the doctrine in legal cases. The panelists also address the issue of plenary power, which grants the US government absolute authority over Indigenous nations. They argue that the doctrine of Christian discovery and domination is still actively used to take Indigenous lands and disrupt their resources. The panelists emphasize the need to challenge these doctrines and raise awareness about their ongoing impact. Don’t forget to leave us a review wherever you get your podcasts.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "audio",
      "featured",
      "blog",
      "Podcast"
    ],
    "textContent": "Introduction We begin this episode with a land acknowledgement. This podcast episode is a recording of Law Panel III Federal Anti-Indian Law from the conferece The Religious Origins of White Supremacy: Johnson v. M’Intosh and the Doctrine of Christian Discovery. During this panel, the panelists discuss the Doctrine of Discovery and its impact on Indigenous peoples. They highlight the need for greater integration of these discussions in law schools and the importance of challenging the doctrine in legal cases. The panelists also address the issue of plenary power, which grants the US government absolute authority over Indigenous nations. They argue that the doctrine of Christian discovery and domination is still actively used to take Indigenous lands and disrupt their resources. The panelists emphasize the need to challenge these doctrines and raise awareness about their ongoing impact. Don't forget to leave us a review wherever you get your podcasts.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay2/s4e1/",
    "externalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/season4/episode-01/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/podcast/S04E02/",
    "title": "S04E02: Exploring the American Religious Tapestry: From Civil Religion to Secularism and the Impact of the January 6th Insurrection",
    "publishedAt": "2024-04-23T10:54:46Z",
    "description": "Introduction We begin this episode with a  land acknowledgement . In this podcast episode, hosts Phil Arnold and Sandy Bigtree interview Joel Harrison, an associate professor of religion at Northern Virginia Community College, and two of his students, Jason Armstrong and Christian Oppenhagen. Harrison and his students recently attended and presented at a conference on the religious origins of white supremacy and the Doctrine of Christian Discovery. They discuss how the conference impacted their understanding of the Doctrine of Discovery and its connection to white supremacy and Christian nationalism. They also explore the ways in which the language of demons and chosenness is used to justify violence and oppression. The conversation highlights the importance of incorporating the Doctrine of Discovery into academic curricula and engaging in conversations about its ongoing impact. Don’t forget to leave us a review wherever you get your podcasts.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "audio",
      "featured",
      "blog",
      "Podcast"
    ],
    "textContent": "Introduction We begin this episode with a land acknowledgement. In this podcast episode, hosts Phil Arnold and Sandy Bigtree interview Joel Harrison, an associate professor of religion at Northern Virginia Community College, and two of his students, Jason Armstrong and Christian Oppenhagen. Harrison and his students recently attended and presented at a conference on the religious origins of white supremacy and the Doctrine of Christian Discovery. They discuss how the conference impacted their understanding of the Doctrine of Discovery and its connection to white supremacy and Christian nationalism. They also explore the ways in which the language of demons and chosenness is used to justify violence and oppression. The conversation highlights the importance of incorporating the Doctrine of Discovery into academic curricula and engaging in conversations about its ongoing impact. Don't forget to leave us a review wherever you get your podcasts.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay2/s4e2/",
    "externalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/season4/episode-02/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/podcast/S04E03/",
    "title": "S04E03: Reclaiming Sacred Ground: Indigenous Sovereignty, Environmental Wisdom, and the Path to Restorative Justice with Patrick Gonzalez-Rogers",
    "publishedAt": "2024-04-23T11:54:46Z",
    "description": "Introduction We begin this episode with a  land acknowledgement . In this episode of the Mapping The Doctrine Of Discovery Podcast, hosts Phil Arnold and Sandy Bigtree interview Patrick Gonzalez-Rogers, a faculty member at the Yale School of Environment. They discuss the doctrine of discovery and its ongoing impact on Indigenous peoples and the environment. Gonzalez-Rogers highlights the need to challenge the Western construct of law and its narrow definition of religion, which often fails to recognize the sacredness of the land and the interconnectedness of all things. He also suggests the possibility of engaging Christian denominations in conversations about returning land to Indigenous communities as a form of restorative justice. The hosts and guest emphasize the importance of Indigenous perspectives and traditional knowledge in shaping environmental policy and conservation efforts. They also discuss the need for a political shift and a new set of values that prioritize sustainability and the well-being of the Earth. Don’t forget to leave us a review wherever you get your podcasts.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "audio",
      "featured",
      "blog",
      "Podcast"
    ],
    "textContent": "Introduction We begin this episode with a land acknowledgement. In this episode of the Mapping The Doctrine Of Discovery Podcast, hosts Phil Arnold and Sandy Bigtree interview Patrick Gonzalez-Rogers, a faculty member at the Yale School of Environment. They discuss the doctrine of discovery and its ongoing impact on Indigenous peoples and the environment. Gonzalez-Rogers highlights the need to challenge the Western construct of law and its narrow definition of religion, which often fails to recognize the sacredness of the land and the interconnectedness of all things. He also suggests the possibility of engaging Christian denominations in conversations about returning land to Indigenous communities as a form of restorative justice. The hosts and guest emphasize the importance of Indigenous perspectives and traditional knowledge in shaping environmental policy and conservation efforts. They also discuss the need for a political shift and a new set of values that prioritize sustainability and the well-being of the Earth. Don't forget to leave us a review wherever you get your podcasts.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay2/s4e3/",
    "externalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/season4/episode-03/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/podcast/S04E04/",
    "title": "S04E04: Reckoning with the Legacy of Colonization: A Dialogue on Native American Erasure and Resilience with Tink Tinker",
    "publishedAt": "2024-04-23T12:54:46Z",
    "description": "Introduction We begin this episode with a  land acknowledgement . In this episode of the Mapping the Doctrine of Discovery podcast, hosts Phil Arnold and Sandy Bigtree interview Professor Tink Tinker, an expert on Native American issues and the excesses of Christianity among Native American peoples. Tinker discusses his background as a citizen of the Osage Nation and his renouncement of Christianity after writing a book on the genocide of American Indians by Christian missionaries. He highlights the tension between individual salvation in Christianity and the communal focus of Native American spirituality. Tinker also discusses the impact of Christianity on Native American communities and the erasure of indigenous people in Europe. The conversation touches on the film “Killers of the Flower Moon” and the Sand Creek Massacre, as well as the presence of Native American spirituality in academic institutions. Tinker shares his work at the Four Winds organization and the efforts to address the history of the Doctrine of Discovery at Iliff School of Theology, including the repatriation of a book cover made from the skin of a murdered Lenape Indian. The episode concludes with a discussion on the importance of education and the need for collaboration between Native and non-Native academics. Don’t forget to leave us a review wherever you get your podcasts.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "audio",
      "featured",
      "blog",
      "Podcast"
    ],
    "textContent": "Introduction We begin this episode with a land acknowledgement. In this episode of the Mapping the Doctrine of Discovery podcast, hosts Phil Arnold and Sandy Bigtree interview Professor Tink Tinker, an expert on Native American issues and the excesses of Christianity among Native American peoples. Tinker discusses his background as a citizen of the Osage Nation and his renouncement of Christianity after writing a book on the genocide of American Indians by Christian missionaries. He highlights the tension between individual salvation in Christianity and the communal focus of Native American spirituality. Tinker also discusses the impact of Christianity on Native American communities and the erasure of indigenous people in Europe. The conversation touches on the film \"Killers of the Flower Moon\" and the Sand Creek Massacre, as well as the presence of Native American spirituality in academic institutions. Tinker shares his work at the Four Winds organization and the efforts to address the history of the Doctrine of Discovery at Iliff School of Theology, including the repatriation of a book cover made from the skin of a murdered Lenape Indian. The episode concludes with a discussion on the importance of education and the need for collaboration between Native and non-Native academics. Don't forget to leave us a review wherever you get your podcasts.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay2/s4e4/",
    "externalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/season4/episode-04/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/podcast/S04E06/",
    "title": "S04E06: Unveiling Histories: Colonialism, Faith, and Identity in the Americas with João Chaves",
    "publishedAt": "2024-05-16T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // → Subscribe Introduction We begin this episode with a  land acknowledgement . In this podcast episode, hosts Phil Arnold and Sandy Bigtree interview João Chaves , an assistant professor of the History of Religion in the Americas at Baylor University. Chaves discusses the history of Christianity in Brazil and its connections to the United States, particularly in relation to the Doctrine of Discovery. He explains how missionaries from the US, particularly Southern Baptists, played a role in the colonization and dispossession of native land in Brazil. Chaves also discusses the influence of Christian nationalism in Brazil and the rise of right-wing politics in the country. The hosts and Chaves also touch on the importance of telling the truth about the history of institutions, including universities, and the need to confront and address past injustices.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "audio",
      "featured",
      "land-theft",
      "doctrineofdiscovery",
      "podcast",
      "Brazil",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // → Subscribe)) Introduction We begin this episode with a land acknowledgement. In this podcast episode, hosts Phil Arnold and Sandy Bigtree interview João Chaves, an assistant professor of the History of Religion in the Americas at Baylor University. Chaves discusses the history of Christianity in Brazil and its connections to the United States, particularly in relation to the Doctrine of Discovery. He explains how missionaries from the US, particularly Southern Baptists, played a role in the colonization and dispossession of native land in Brazil. Chaves also discusses the influence of Christian nationalism in Brazil and the rise of right-wing politics in the country. The hosts and Chaves also touch on the importance of telling the truth about the history of institutions, including universities, and the need to confront and address past injustices.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay2/s4e6/",
    "externalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/season4/episode-06/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/podcast/s05e01/",
    "title": "S05E01: Bridging History and Today: Religion, Law, and Indigenous Influences in American Democracy with Winnifred Fallers Sullivan",
    "publishedAt": "2024-09-09T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Dive into the history of religious freedom in the U.S. with Winifred Sullivan! Explore the intersection of faith, law, and indigenous influences shaping American democracy. Don't miss this enlightening episode!",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "audio",
      "featured",
      "land-theft",
      "doctrineofdiscovery",
      "podcast",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // → Subscribe In this episode of the Mapping the Doctrine of Discovery podcast, hosts Phil Arnold and Sandy Bigtree interview Winnifred Fallers Sullivan, a scholar of religion and law. Sullivan discusses her work at the Center for Religion and the Human at Indiana University, which aims to teach religion in a public and accessible way. She also explores the history of religion and law in the United States, highlighting the shifting role of religion in the Constitution and the challenges of defining religion in a legal context. The hosts also discuss the influence of Indigenous nations, such as the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, on American democracy and the need to re-narrate the history of America to include these influences.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay2/s5e1/",
    "externalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/season5/episode-01/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/podcast/s05e02/",
    "title": "S05E02: Exploring the Legacy of Vine Deloria Jr. on Native American Thought with Philip Deloria",
    "publishedAt": "2024-09-10T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Unpack the transformative power of indigenous knowledge and its impact on modern politics with Philip Deloria. From colonialism to Native sovereignty, this episode covers it all.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "audio",
      "featured",
      "land-theft",
      "doctrineofdiscovery",
      "podcast",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // → Subscribe In this episode of the Mapping the Doctrine of Discovery podcast, hosts Phil Arnold and Sandy Bigtree interview Philip Deloria, a scholar of history and Indigenous Studies/Native Studies. In this episode we discuss how Indigenous/Native Studies is expanding into various venues and exploring new possibilities. There is growing interest in the connection between the founding of Western democracy and the Haudenosaunee, as well as the impact of colonization and the Doctrine of Discovery. Indigenous practitioners and scholars are coming together to address the rise of fascism and domination worldwide and to find alternative ways of living on the Earth. In Native American history, there is a focus on economic analysis, particularly the management of annuities and trust funds by the federal government. This financial analysis sheds light on the role of Indian money in the development of infrastructure and the economy of the United States. Overall, Native Studies is evolving and addressing complex issues related to history, identity, values, and the relationship between indigenous peoples and the natural world.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay2/s5e2/",
    "externalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/season5/episode-02/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/podcast/s05e03/",
    "title": "S05E03: Reclaiming Faith: Dismantling white Christian Supremacy and Healing Through Indigenous Spirituality with Soulforce",
    "publishedAt": "2024-11-18T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Dive into Reclaiming Faith: Dismantling White Christian Supremacy and Healing Through Indigenous Spirituality with Soulforce!",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "audio",
      "featured",
      "land-theft",
      "doctrineofdiscovery",
      "podcast",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // → Subscribe",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay2/s5e3/",
    "externalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/season5/episode-03/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/podcast/s05e04/",
    "title": "S05E04: Unveiling the Doctrine of Discovery: Historical Injustice and Pathways to Healing with Steven J. Schwartzberg",
    "publishedAt": "2024-11-18T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Join us for a thought-provoking conversation on faith, nationalism, and Indigenous sovereignty. Special guest Steve Schwartzberg shares insights on historical myths and their lasting legacies. Don't miss it!",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "audio",
      "featured",
      "land-theft",
      "doctrineofdiscovery",
      "podcast",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // → Subscribe",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay2/s5e4/",
    "externalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/season5/episode-04/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/podcast/s05e05/",
    "title": "S05E05: Reimagining Legal Frameworks: Protecting Native American Sacred Sites and Sovereignty with Michael McNally",
    "publishedAt": "2025-01-28T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Indigenous values challenge our frameworks of law and spirituality. Are we ready to listen? Dive into our latest episode and let's discuss the future of sacred rights!",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "audio",
      "featured",
      "land-theft",
      "doctrineofdiscovery",
      "podcast",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // → Subscribe Water is life, but can the court truly protect it? 💧 Join us as we unravel the sacred and the law in Indigenous contexts. The recent podcast episode delves deep into the intersection of Indigenous rights, law, and spirituality, centering on Michael McNally's book, \"Defend the Sacred.\" This book sheds light on the complexities of Native American religious freedoms, questioning the efficacy of existing legal frameworks and the deep historical roots of Indigenous spirituality. Throughout the episode, the hosts engage in a rich dialogue about the limitations of conventional religious freedom discourse and the ways Indigenous communities leverage these frameworks to assert their rights. A significant focus of the conversation is the Standing Rock protests, a fundamental moment that galvanized a global movement against environmental degradation and in defense of sacred lands. The phrase \"water is life\" resonates throughout the episode, embodying the deep connection between Native communities and their natural resources. The hosts discuss the historical context that birthed the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, emphasizing the persistent struggles Native peoples face in asserting their spiritual rights in a legal system overwhelmingly rooted in Western frameworks. This underpins a more extensive critique of colonial structures imposed upon Indigenous communities, including the systematic erasure of traditional governance systems. The conversation highlights a significant philosophical divergence between Indigenous values and the legal definitions of rights that often fail to capture the complex relationality and responsibilities deeply embedded within Native cultures. Through their discussion, the hosts argue that the current legal approaches often overlook the significant cultural and spiritual implications of Indigenous practices. By revisiting foundational treaties, they explore how a modern interpretation of these agreements can serve as a pathway to restoring sovereignty and addressing historical injustices. The episode raises crucial questions about the future of the Indigenous rights movement amid a political landscape increasingly characterized by nationalism and a disregard for collective rights. The conversation also moves towards a hopeful narrative as they reflect on movements like Standing Rock that obtained global attention and solidarity, illustrating that public discourse surrounding Native rights is evolving. This evolution emphasizes the importance of allyship with Indigenous voices and understanding their experiences within the broader narrative of American history. One key takeaway is that a loss in court does not signify the end of a struggle but can motivate continued resistance and resilience among Indigenous peoples. Ultimately, the episode serves as a call to action for listeners to reconsider their understanding of religious freedom and the rightful place of Indigenous spirituality within the legal system. By fostering respect for Indigenous ways of knowing, listeners are encouraged to participate actively in supporting Indigenous rights and advocating for meaningful engagement with their traditions and landscapes. The episode closes on a note of hope, contemplating the power of a long view in Indigenous struggles, one that appreciates history while looking forward to a more equitable future grounded in respect for all beings and the Earth itself. Indigenous values challenge our frameworks of law and spirituality. Are we ready to listen? Dive into our latest episode and let's discuss the future of sacred rights!",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay2/s5e5/",
    "externalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/season5/episode-05/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/podcast/s06e01/",
    "title": "S06E01: Defending Mother Earth from The Doctrine of Christian Discovery #NoKings",
    "publishedAt": "2025-06-30T10:27:30Z",
    "description": "This episode is a live recording of The Doctrine of Christian Discovery, The Jesuits, and Laudato si: Defending Mother Earth an educational event that took place on Saturday, June 14, 2025 from 1:00-4:00PM. This event seredepitiously coincided with the #NoKings protests which were happening across the nation.",
    "tags": [
      "law",
      "religion",
      "values",
      "environment",
      "nokings",
      "featured",
      "blog",
      "podcast"
    ],
    "textContent": "⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // → Subscribe Special Episode This episode is a live recording of The Doctrine of Christian Discovery, The Jesuits, and Laudato si: Defending Mother Earth an educational event that took place on Saturday, June 14, 2025 from 1:00-4:00PM. This event seredepitiously coincided with the #NoKings protests which were happening across the nation. The event at the Skä•noñh &emdash; Great Law of Peace Center focused on the Doctrine of Discovery, the Jesuits, and Laudato Si. Speakers discussed the Thanksgiving address, emphasizing gratitude and respect for nature. Philip P. Arnold highlighted the Jesuits' role in colonization and the need for Jesuit institutions to address their history. Christiana Zenner and Kim Carrefour stressed the importance of indigenous knowledge and environmental justice. Oren Lyons and Jake Edwards underscored the significance of the Great Tree of Peace and the need for world peace. The discussion concluded with a call for Jesuit institutions to educate on their historical impact and promote reconciliation. The discussion centers on the challenges faced by Native American communities in preserving their traditions and sovereignty. Speakers highlight the impact of colonial hierarchies and the suppression of indigenous practices. They emphasize the importance of language revitalization, food sovereignty, and traditional practices. Historical accounts of forced assimilation, such as the Sullivan Clinton campaign of 1779, are recounted, illustrating the violent suppression of Native cultures. The conversation also touches on the significance of treaties, the role of Christian missionaries, and the need for land return to foster environmental and cultural healing.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay3/s6e1/",
    "externalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/season6/episode-01/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/podcasts/doctrine-christian-discovery-podcast/",
    "title": "Listsen to the Doctrine of Christian Discovery Podcast Now",
    "publishedAt": "2024-02-20T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Listen to the podcast on  Megaphone ,  Spotify  or  Apple .",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "press-release",
      "podcast",
      "doctrine",
      "featured",
      "blog",
      "podcasts"
    ],
    "textContent": "Listen to the podcast on Megaphone, Spotify or Apple.",
    "externalUrl": "https://goodfaithmedia.org/doctrine-of-christian-discovery/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/pope-tour-doctrine-discovery/",
    "title": "Pope’s Indigenous tour signals a rethink of mission legacy",
    "publishedAt": "2020-08-01T18:55:46Z",
    "description": "For decades, Indigenous peoples have demanded the Holy See formally rescind the 15th century papal bulls, or decrees, that gave European kingdoms the religious backing to claim lands that their explorers “discovered” for the sake of spreading the Christian faith. Church officials have long rejected those concepts, insisted the decrees merely sought to ensure European expansion would be peaceful, and said they had been surpassed by subsequent church teachings strongly affirming the dignity and rights of Indigenous peoples.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "doctrine-discovery",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "For decades, Indigenous peoples have demanded the Holy See formally rescind the 15th century papal bulls, or decrees, that gave European kingdoms the religious backing to claim lands that their explorers “discovered” for the sake of spreading the Christian faith. Church officials have long rejected those concepts, insisted the decrees merely sought to ensure European expansion would be peaceful, and said they had been surpassed by subsequent church teachings strongly affirming the dignity and rights of Indigenous peoples.",
    "externalUrl": "https://apnews.com/article/pope-francis-canada-religion-vatican-city-2c2fbd7e29f871c1cdbc5308a0c7ab44"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/press-release-confernece-legal-theological-theory/",
    "title": "Syracuse University to Host Conference that Addresses Legal and Theological Theory of the Doctrine of Christian Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2023-09-30T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Quick Actions Register Now Call for Artists Call for Papers",
    "tags": [
      "event",
      "Conference",
      "Christianity",
      "link",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Quick Actions Register Now{: .btn .btn--info .btn--x-large} Call for Artists{: .btn .btn--success .btn--x-large} Call for Papers{: .btn .btn--warning .btn--x-large}",
    "externalUrl": "https://artsandsciences.syracuse.edu/religion/news/university-to-host-conference-that-addresses-legal-and-theological-theory-of-the-doctrine-of-christian-discovery/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/property-law-settler-colonialism/",
    "title": "Property Law, Settler-Colonialism, and the Vatican",
    "publishedAt": "2024-06-25T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Newsflash!  Property law in the U.S. is not rooted in the Constitution. America's legal foundation for property law (possession), \"anti-Indian law\" and the concept of nation-states is religious, not secular. Where did this deep sense of entitlement, hierarchy, and dominion over unknown lands and its original sovereign peoples originate? How was this wilderness continent, upon which its people depended -- for millennia -- for survival, end up being converted into \"real estate\" by a bunch of European Christian princes and pirates? Most people who own real estate, work and live on this settler-colonized land we now call \"America,\" cannot answer the question.  So, how can we discern a proper answer? U.S. Supreme Court chief justice John Marshall, the fourth, and longest-serving chief justice (1801-1835), told us so -- over 200 years ago. The Doctrine of Christian Discovery originated in Europe in the 15 th  Century and is melded into the U.S. Supreme Court's precedent case, Johnson v. McIntosh (1823). Careful decoding of the imaginative legal language in this seminal U.S. Supreme Court case reveals the fascinating history that informs present legal thinking and how we arrived at this place and time. To grasp a deeper comprehension of how the age-old doctrines of settler-colonialism, religious discrimination and wars of conquest influence our lives today, Steven T. Newcomb's book Pagans in the Promised Land: Decoding the Doctrine of Christian Discovery (2007) is essential reading. Old Testament stories provide the underpinnings, retold in the Roman Church's 15 th  Century papal bulls.  Centuries later, these Vatican policy documents helped to 'legitimize' the conceptual source of U.S. government legal doctrine that persists today to define nation-states, property, and anti-Indian law. Legal precedents written in the early 19 th  Century remain hidden under opaque strata of human imagination, cultural conditioning, and consciousness. In 1493, the bull Inter Caetera, issued by Pope Alexander VI, granted the monarchs of Spain ownership of roughly half the \"discovered\" world.  Representatives contracted by Spanish and Portuguese monarchs exploited that official church license to claim \"discovered\" lands, with extensive state military backing to guarantee success. \"English Royals\" crafted their own (legal) rights of imagined ownership, certified by its homegrown Anglican form of \"civilized Christianity.\"  In 1578, Sir Humphrey Gilbert was granted a charter from the Crown authorizing him to \"…discover and take possession of such remote, heathen, and barbarous lands, as were not actually possessed by any Christian prince or people…\" Decades later, the Crown granted others charters to conquer, loot and plunder unclaimed territory in the \"New World.\" Comprehending the relationship between settler-colonialism, Old Testament stories, European monarchs and the Vatican's holy decrees is essential to understanding the chaos and war in the world today. What is most important to understand is how the Doctrine of Christian Discovery impacts our world, here and now. This 500-year-old religious dogma is still being used.  In the 21 st  century the U.S. Supreme Court continues to rationalize the \"dominion\" and \"chosen people\" dogma and mindset of the Old Testament and 15 th  century Christendom. Property: The exclusive right of possessing, enjoying and disposing of a thing; ownership. In the beginning of the world, the Creator gave to man dominion over the earth, over the fish of the sea and the fowls of the air,and over every living thing. This is the foundation of man's property in the earth... Prior occupancy of land and of wild animals gives to the          possessor the property of them.   Webster's (1828). This is the pathology of the hierarchical dominating mentality that moves all settler-colonizer societies. \"Their god was on their side.\"  Where have we heard that lately?  Enough of this nonsense!",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "colonialism",
      "doctrine-of-discovery",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Newsflash!  Property law in the U.S. is not rooted in the Constitution. America's legal foundation for property law (possession), \"anti-Indian law\" and the concept of nation-states is religious, not secular. Where did this deep sense of entitlement, hierarchy, and dominion over unknown lands and its original sovereign peoples originate? How was this wilderness continent, upon which its people depended -- for millennia -- for survival, end up being converted into \"real estate\" by a bunch of European Christian princes and pirates? Most people who own real estate, work and live on this settler-colonized land we now call \"America,\" cannot answer the question.  So, how can we discern a proper answer? U.S. Supreme Court chief justice John Marshall, the fourth, and longest-serving chief justice (1801-1835), told us so -- over 200 years ago. The Doctrine of Christian Discovery originated in Europe in the 15 th  Century and is melded into the U.S. Supreme Court's precedent case, Johnson v. McIntosh (1823). Careful decoding of the imaginative legal language in this seminal U.S. Supreme Court case reveals the fascinating history that informs present legal thinking and how we arrived at this place and time. To grasp a deeper comprehension of how the age-old doctrines of settler-colonialism, religious discrimination and wars of conquest influence our lives today, Steven T. Newcomb's book Pagans in the Promised Land: Decoding the Doctrine of Christian Discovery (2007) is essential reading. Old Testament stories provide the underpinnings, retold in the Roman Church's 15 th  Century papal bulls.  Centuries later, these Vatican policy documents helped to 'legitimize' the conceptual source of U.S. government legal doctrine that persists today to define nation-states, property, and anti-Indian law. Legal precedents written in the early 19 th  Century remain hidden under opaque strata of human imagination, cultural conditioning, and consciousness. In 1493, the bull Inter Caetera, issued by Pope Alexander VI, granted the monarchs of Spain ownership of roughly half the \"discovered\" world.  Representatives contracted by Spanish and Portuguese monarchs exploited that official church license to claim \"discovered\" lands, with extensive state military backing to guarantee success. \"English Royals\" crafted their own (legal) rights of imagined ownership, certified by its homegrown Anglican form of \"civilized Christianity.\"  In 1578, Sir Humphrey Gilbert was granted a charter from the Crown authorizing him to \"…discover and take possession of such remote, heathen, and barbarous lands, as were not actually possessed by any Christian prince or people…\" Decades later, the Crown granted others charters to conquer, loot and plunder unclaimed territory in the \"New World.\" Comprehending the relationship between settler-colonialism, Old Testament stories, European monarchs and the Vatican's holy decrees is essential to understanding the chaos and war in the world today. What is most important to understand is how the Doctrine of Christian Discovery impacts our world, here and now. This 500-year-old religious dogma is still being used.  In the 21 st  century the U.S. Supreme Court continues to rationalize the \"dominion\" and \"chosen people\" dogma and mindset of the Old Testament and 15 th  century Christendom. Property: The exclusive right of possessing, enjoying and disposing of a thing; ownership. In the beginning of the world, the Creator gave to man dominion over the earth, over the fish of the sea and the fowls of the air,and over every living thing. This is the foundation of man's property in the earth... Prior occupancy of land and of wild animals gives to the          possessor the property of them.   Webster's (1828). This is the pathology of the hierarchical dominating mentality that moves all settler-colonizer societies. \"Their god was on their side.\"  Where have we heard that lately?  Enough of this nonsense!",
    "externalUrl": "https://www.counterpunch.org/2024/06/25/property-law-settler-colonialism-and-the-vatican/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/quote/peace-natural-world/",
    "title": "Tadodaho on peace and the natural world",
    "publishedAt": "2020-06-30T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "“Peace can only be attained when human beings live in proper relationship to the natural world” Tadodaho",
    "tags": [
      "peace",
      "religion",
      "Haudenosaunee",
      "quote",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "“Peace can only be attained when human beings live in proper relationship to the natural world” Tadodaho"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/quote/severed-tongues/",
    "title": "Tadodaho on language",
    "publishedAt": "2022-10-06T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "“They severed our tongues so we couldn’t speak our language then punished us for not being able to speak it.” - Tadodaho",
    "tags": [
      "language",
      "Haudenosaunee",
      "quote",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"They severed our tongues so we couldn’t speak our language then punished us for not being able to speak it.\" - Tadodaho"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/reapprasing-the-doctrine-discovery/",
    "title": "Reappraising the Doctrine of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2023-02-15T07:54:46Z",
    "description": "The European doctrine of discovery principle, recognized as recently as 1986 by a federal district court as a legal fiction, nevertheless remains one of the most entrenched and baffling legal doctrines undergirding federal Indian policy and law.",
    "tags": [
      "church",
      "Christianity",
      "Christian",
      "Repudiations",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Again, were we to inquire by what law or authority you set up a claim \\[to our land\\], I answer, none! Your laws extend not into our country, nor ever did. You talk of the law of nature and the law of nations, and they are both against you. Corn Tassel (Cherokee, 1785) The European doctrine of discovery principle, recognized as recently as 1986 by a federal district court as “a legal fiction,” nevertheless remains one of the most entrenched and baffling legal doctrines undergirding federal Indian policy and law. It’s continuing legal and perceptual force perpetuates a second class national status for Native nations and relegates individual Natives to a second class citizenship status with regards to their incomplete property rights. This doctrine holds, under its most widely understood and debilitating definition, that European explorers’ ‘discovery’ of land in what became known as the Americas gave the discovering European nation–and the United States as successor–absolute legal title and ownership of land, reducing Indigenous peoples to being mere tenants holding only a lesser beneficial interest in their Aboriginal homelands. Although this bizarre doctrine has come under increasing and well-deserved scrutiny by Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars and commentators, the discovery principle, along with the doctrine of plenary power and the trust doctrine, represents one of the essential paradigmatic legs on which is constructed the federal government’s allegedly superior political and territorial standing vis-a-vis Indigenous nations. Like these other important and equally problematic legal rules, discovery has more than one definition. When it is defined as conquest or as benevolent paternalism, it belittles the autonomy of Native nations and leaves them in a relatively powerless political and economic position to the federal government. It deprives Native nations of full legal ownership of lands they have inhabited since time immemorial. However, and to use Chief Justice John Marshall’s phrase, when we view the “actual state of things” that developed during the colonial and early American period, discovery was actually understood as doing nothing more than granting exclusive and preemptive rights to the discovering nation. And the exclusive right the U.S. gained was the right to be first purchaser of Indigenous land should a Native nation decide to sell any of its territory. It is this “actual state of affairs” that this essay recalls and elaborates on. The Pope “Discovers” Discovery Originally, the concept of “discovery” was a theological fiction first produced in the late 1400s by the Catholic Pope. It was later transformed into a political fiction by European heads of state, and then into a legal fiction by Chief Justice John Marshall in his first major Indian law case, Johnson v. McIntosh in 1823. In present-day parlance discovery has been dangerously re-purposed as popular fiction that serves to revise neo-colonial history, fuel oppressive legal decisions, and assuage majority culture guilt. Left unchallenged, the myth-making associated with the way discovery is currently defined–that it completely eradicated or at a minimum diluted Indigenous title--poses grave threats to Indigenous legal, political, and cultural identity because such definitions wrongly deny the inalienable sovereign rights of Native peoples to governance and full title to their own territories. Without question the doctrine of discovery is one of the most important tenets of federal Indian law, working in tandem with other doctrines (e.g., trust, plenary power, reserved rights) that provide the ambiguous and uneven political framework for modern day Indigenous/State relationships. Notwithstanding its general acceptance, the discovery concept has been misused and misunderstood and serves to distort perceptions of both the past and present and it should be stricken from the federal government’s political and legal vocabulary. Discovery, as originally conceived in Pope Alexander VI’s 1493 papal bull, granted the Spanish exclusive interests in the Americas. When Portugal petitioned for a share of the spoils the following year the Treaty of Tordesillas granted both countries the authority to divide much of the Western hemisphere between them and to ignore the territorial rights of existing Native nations in the process. This sanctified division is what most people remember about the doctrine. But it is more complicated than just saying the Pope gave European Catholics the rights to colonize and convert.  In reality, the absolute denial of Native land rights was replaced less than fifty years later when Charles V, the devoutly religious Spanish emperor, sought the advice of Francisco de Vitoria, a prominent theologian, as to what rights the Spanish could legally and morally claim in the New World. Vitoria, in a clear rebuttal to the Pope and the discovery notion, declared that Natives peoples were the true owners of their lands. He reasoned the Spanish could not claim title through discovery because this action could only be justified where property was ownerless. Felix Cohen, a leading architect of federal Indian law, reiterated Vitoria’s statement in his well-known Handbook of Federal Indian Law (1941), when he wrote that “even the Pope has no right to partition the property of the Indians, and in the absence of a just war, only the voluntary consent of the aborigines could justify the annexation of their territory.”  So, in fact, the original no-holds barred papal doctrine of the discovery was discarded early on in favor of Vitoria’s view of Indigenous property rights. Subsequent legal and political relations between Native nations and competing European powers over the following three centuries were generally based on this philosophical understanding of Natives as true landowners. Treaty-making between Indigenous nations and Europeans, and later the U.S, affirmed that Native peoples were recognized as land-owning nations on par with any other political power.  Had Pope Alexander’s original sweeping decree of unlimited Christian domination held sway, there would have been no reason for colonizers to engage in complex diplomatic relations with Native nations. Furthermore, contrary to common assumptions that ultimate legal title to occupied Native lands passed upon discovery to European states or the U.S. as successor, the historical record, both written and oral, shows that legal ownership remained with Tribal nations. And for the most part, Native peoples retained legal ownership of their respective territories until such time as they formally ceded their claims to lands in consensual treaty arrangements with one of the competing European states or, later, the American government. The Confirmation of Indigenous Land Rights in Treaties, Laws, and Cases Three classes of evidence—1) the actual political and diplomatic relations between Native nations and Spain, France, Great Britain; 2) the record of the federal government in its dealing with Native peoples as evidenced in treaties, policies, and statutes; and 3) a number of relevant Supreme Court decisions that have addressed the doctrine of discovery--affirm that ownership of the North American continent rested in the hands of Indigenous peoples. This is not to say that massive injustices were not committed against Native peoples, with great swaths of land being taken without viable recourse. These events have been well chronicled. However, it is critically important that Native peoples recall their actual historical engagements with foreign powers and the over-arching legal basis of their inherent and recognized rights to land ownership. Even as other political powers sought to vanquish them, Native peoples retained power over their lands, just as they retained inherent political, economic, and cultural sovereignty. To simply say that the papal discovery doctrine allowed colonizers to take land without consideration of Indigenous property rights is to passively accept a revised history that wrongly claims that Native nations never had those rights in the first place. In reality, the discovery doctrine (either the papal or the Vitoria version) was only sometimes referenced during much of the colonial period as land was bought, sold, and traded with the understanding that Indigenous peoples held ownership rights.  But it was famously reprised and redefined by the U.S. Supreme Court in Johnson v. McIntosh (1823) when Chief Justice John Marshall, in a case without any Native parties, dramatically modified historical understandings and suggested the doctrine of discovery was both a mechanism designed to prevent conflict between European competitors vying for lands in the New World and that it provided discovering powers with a “superior” title to the one held by Native peoples. However, he also declared that in relations between colonizing powers and Indigenous nations, the doctrine affirmed that Tribal nations were the “rightful occupants of the soil,” and acknowledged that they had “a legal as well as just claim to retain possession of it, and to use it according to their discretion.” While on the surface, Marshall’s resurrection and redefinition of the concept offers some support for Indigenous property rights, the details of the decision were a major setback for Native peoples’ sovereign territorial rights.  His interpretation gave the discovering state the exclusive or preemptive right to purchase land from the indigenous inhabitants.  Even though Native nations had the right to own their lands, their right to sell was limited. In this sense, he wrote, “rights to complete sovereignty, as independent nations, were necessarily diminished.”  Marshall seemed fixated on the doctrine and reversed definitional course in Worcester v. Georgia (1832). Discovery he said, was merely “an exclusive principle which shut out the right of competition among those who had agreed to it; not one which could annul the previous rights of those \\[like tribes\\] who had not agreed to it.”  The concept was thus reinvigorated and became a standard point of legal reference. Since then numerous judicial rulings have referenced the doctrine. One of the most notable was Tee-Hit-Ton v. United States (1955) involving Alaskan Natives in which the Supreme Court equated the discovery doctrine with the doctrine of conquest. In that case, written during the destructive Termination era, the discovery doctrine was misused to deny Alaskan Native nations any legal title to their lands, whatsoever.  Justice Stanley F. Reed’s inaccurate description of the Americans’ alleged conquest of Natives bears repetition: “Every American schoolboy knows that the savage tribes of this continent were deprived of their ancestral range by force and that, even when the Indians ceded millions of acres by treaty in return for blankets, food and trinkets, it was not a sale but the conquerors’ will that deprived them of their land.” Reed’s statement ranks among the most glaring and racist misrepresentations of fact ever uttered by a Supreme Court justice. Little in the historical record corroborates his contention that Alaskan Natives or many other Native peoples had been conquered, and, in fact, federal Indian policy and the history of treaty making give ample evidence to the contrary. Nevertheless, this spurious decision has never been overturned and it continues to undermine Indigenous property rights, as evidence by its citation in a recent 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision, White v. University of California (August 2014), involving human remains of the Kumeyaay Nation of California. Despite historical facts, the legal fiction of the discovery doctrine endures. But why is there such a drive these days to revert to the long ago discredited papal version of the doctrine of discovery when historical reality and ample legal evidence clearly show it was not used in any practical way by subsequent colonizers after Vitoria’s writings? Adherence to this discredited definition serves two purposes, both detrimental to contemporary Indigenous nations.  The first seems to be a well-intentioned eagerness by some, often with progressive Christian affiliations, to acknowledge the injustice of former generations of colonizers. By hearkening back to a time when immigrants to the Americas were given supposedly given free reign to conquer and pillage, today’s sympathetic non-Native citizens and certain church leaders of the larger culture can apologize for the sins of their forbears. At the same time, the exercise provides the opportunity for them to distance themselves from blame, even though most are the inheritors of privileges gained at the expense of Native peoples. Second, as the mythical narrative goes, because the injustices were so numerous, so horrific and undocumented, there is a perception that no practical recourse remains. Conveniently, if there is no record, there can be no remedy so it’s time everyone agrees to heal, join hands, and move forward as one nation, putting grievances and claims aside. The phenomenon is fascinating—it is simultaneously an enthusiastic embrace of a historically inaccurate and cutthroat view of the discovery doctrine and a profound disavowment of current reality. In this way, overlaying history with the original papal doctrine of discovery becomes at once a way to show sympathy with Native peoples while at the same time denying them any substantive justice. To simplistically explain away loss of territory as the fault of the doctrine of discovery is to ignore Indigenous retained land rights and forget that Native ancestors were determined, intelligent, and politically astute people who defended their sovereign territories through strength and reason. To accept a dumbed-down version of history is to relegate Indigenous people to the role of perpetual victim. It is to accept that Natives were “conquered” and as such are no more than rapidly disappearing ethnic groups of a by-gone era who no longer deserve the vital rights outlined in their diplomatic accords. Words matter. Native peoples have come together to successfully challenge the use of derogatory mascots, to rename offensive places, and are presently fighting to retain the essential right to decide their children’s future, because it is plain that reckless use of words impacts Native peoples directly. While arcane legal terms may seem far removed from our daily lives, they also drive behavior and determine policy with significant consequences. Abandonment of the flawed concept of the doctrine of discovery, both in legal and everyday parlance, makes good common sense. Indigenous nations should strive to enlist terms that accurately reflect what “actually” transpired in countless treaty negotiations, land transactions, and other binding agreements. To do so would be a significant first step in reformulating federal Indian policy and law so that justice, fairness, and historical accuracy were the basis of political relations."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/redpaper/nuclear-reactors-not-green/",
    "title": "Nuclear Reactors are Not Green: A Red Paper",
    "publishedAt": "2019-03-27T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "A Red Paper by Onondaga Nation, Haudenosaunee Environmental Task Force and American Indian Law Alliance. As we work together to attempt to save the Mother Earth from climate chaos, it is important not to be mis-lead by false claims. We were told that fracked gas [methane] was a “bridge fuel”, as were to transition to renewable energy generations. We learned that fracking was a bridge to nowhere and that fracked gas is actually worse than burning coal, due to the extreme impacts of methane on climate change. Today, New York State and Bill Gates have taken the position that nuclear reactor generated electricity is “green”; but we know this is false, short sighted and once again, fails to account for the entire life cycle of the uranium/nuclear reactor industry.One of the voices that has here-to-fore been excluded from this discussion is that of Indigenous peoples. On December 15, 2018, the Onondaga Nation, joined by the Haudenosaunee Environmental Task Force and the American Indian Law Alliance, filed a motion to join, as  Amici Curiae, 1    the state court challenge to Governor Cuomo’s 2015 “Clean Energy Standard”, which used the false claim of “clean” nuclear energy to meet his goal of 50 % clean power production for the state by 2030.This red paper is largely taken from the text of the Nation’s General Counsel’s Affirmation in support of that Amici motion, but the legal text that was necessary to meet the standards for such motion has been removed, to make it more readable and hopefully, more useable.  For more see the attached Nuclear Reactors are Not Green Red Paper (46 page PDF)",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "power",
      "energy",
      "green",
      "blog",
      "redpaper"
    ],
    "textContent": "A Red Paper by Onondaga Nation, Haudenosaunee Environmental Task Force and American Indian Law Alliance. As we work together to attempt to save the Mother Earth from climate chaos, it is important not to be mis-lead by false claims. We were told that fracked gas [methane] was a \"bridge fuel\", as were to transition to renewable energy generations. We learned that fracking was a bridge to nowhere and that fracked gas is actually worse than burning coal, due to the extreme impacts of methane on climate change. Today, New York State and Bill Gates have taken the position that nuclear reactor generated electricity is \"green\"; but we know this is false, short sighted and once again, fails to account for the entire life cycle of the uranium/nuclear reactor industry.One of the voices that has here-to-fore been excluded from this discussion is that of Indigenous peoples. On December 15, 2018, the Onondaga Nation, joined by the Haudenosaunee Environmental Task Force and the American Indian Law Alliance, filed a motion to join, as Amici Curiae,1  the state court challenge to Governor Cuomo's 2015 \"Clean Energy Standard\", which used the false claim of \"clean\" nuclear energy to meet his goal of 50 % clean power production for the state by 2030.This red paper is largely taken from the text of the Nation's General Counsel's Affirmation in support of that Amici motion, but the legal text that was necessary to meet the standards for such motion has been removed, to make it more readable and hopefully, more useable.  For more see the attached Nuclear Reactors are Not Green Red Paper (46 page PDF)",
    "externalUrl": "https://aila.ngo/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/NukeRedPaper3-25-19.pdf"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/religious-origins-cfa/",
    "title": "Call for Artists",
    "publishedAt": "2023-09-29T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Submit now Theme: The Religious Origins of White Supremacy:  Johnson V. M’Intosh and the Doctrine of Christian Discovery. Eligibility: There are no hard restrictions on genre, subject matter, or media; however, we ask artists to keep the conference theme and description in mind when creating and/or selecting work for submission. The artwork must also be suitable or print-friendly for posters, promotional graphics, conference programs, etc. There are no age restrictions. Artists of all ages may submit their work. For artists under the age of eighteen (18), parent or legal guardian permission is required. Compensation and Transfer of Ownership: Each artist whose piece is selected for exhibition will receive a one-time payment of $1,500.00 USD.  As part of this payment, artists will be required to sign an agreement transferring ownership of their piece (including any copyrights) to the Indigenous Values Initiative (IVI). Artist will also receive one (1) conference pass to attend any and all conference sessions. During the conference our distinguished jurists, other invited jurists, as well conference participants, will vote and select the best in show piece. There will be three awards given of first, second and third prize. First Prize – $5,000 USD Second Prize – $3,000 USD Third Prize – $2,000 USD Submission requirements: Artists may submit one piece of artwork for consideration. Each submission must include a description of the artwork, detailing inspiration, medium, process of creation, physical dimensions. Submitted artwork must be of high-resolution quality (300 DPI, .jpeg or .png recommended). If applicable, please include a layered version (.ai, .psd, .indd) of the artwork Digital Submission of Works by November 1 Artist Selection and Notification by November 15 If selected physical objects must be received by November 30 All selected artworks will be exhibited during the conference at Syracuse University from Dec 8-10. Submissions Due by October 30, 2023 Submit now",
    "tags": [
      "event",
      "Conference",
      "Christianity",
      "Christian-Zionism",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Submit now{: .btn .btn--success .btn--x-large} Theme: The Religious Origins of White Supremacy:  Johnson V. M'Intosh and the Doctrine of Christian Discovery. Eligibility: There are no hard restrictions on genre, subject matter, or media; however, we ask artists to keep the conference theme and description in mind when creating and/or selecting work for submission. The artwork must also be suitable or print-friendly for posters, promotional graphics, conference programs, etc. There are no age restrictions. Artists of all ages may submit their work. For artists under the age of eighteen (18), parent or legal guardian permission is required. Compensation and Transfer of Ownership: Each artist whose piece is selected for exhibition will receive a one-time payment of $1,500.00 USD.  As part of this payment, artists will be required to sign an agreement transferring ownership of their piece (including any copyrights) to the Indigenous Values Initiative (IVI). Artist will also receive one (1) conference pass to attend any and all conference sessions. During the conference our distinguished jurists, other invited jurists, as well conference participants, will vote and select the best in show piece. There will be three awards given of first, second and third prize. First Prize -- $5,000 USD Second Prize -- $3,000 USD Third Prize -- $2,000 USD Submission requirements: Artists may submit one piece of artwork for consideration. Each submission must include a description of the artwork, detailing inspiration, medium, process of creation, physical dimensions. Submitted artwork must be of high-resolution quality (300 DPI, .jpeg or .png recommended). If applicable, please include a layered version (.ai, .psd, .indd) of the artwork Digital Submission of Works by November 1 Artist Selection and Notification by November 15 If selected physical objects must be received by November 30\\ All selected artworks will be exhibited during the conference at Syracuse University from Dec 8-10. Submissions Due by October 30, 2023 Submit now{: .btn .btn--success .btn--x-large}"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/religious-origins-white-supremacy/",
    "title": "The Religious Origins of White Supremacy: Johnson v. M'Intosh and the Doctrine of Christian Discovery.",
    "publishedAt": "2023-03-29T11:54:46Z",
    "description": "The conference will take place at Syracuse University from 8-10 December 2023.",
    "updatedAt": "2023-09-28T09:54:46Z",
    "tags": [
      "event",
      "Conference",
      "Christianity",
      "Christian-Zionism",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Quick Actions Register Now{: .btn .btn--info .btn--x-large} Call for Artists{: .btn .btn--success .btn--x-large} Schedule{: .btn .btn--warning .btn--x-large} The Call For Papers is Now Closed Details - The conference will take place at Syracuse University from 8-10 December 2023. Sponsored by: - Henry Luce Foundation - Syracuse University Description In the 1823 US Supreme Court decision, Johnson v M'Intosh, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote,\"...discovery gave title to government...[and] the sole right of acquiring the soil from the natives.\" This decision underpins US property law. Marshall's deliberate use of the word \"discovery\" is an intentional reference to 15 th Century Catholic Papal Bulls, which stated that any Christian who \"discovers\" a land populated by non-Christians has superior title, or rights of ownership, over that land. In essence, Johnson codifies into US law the principle of Euro-Christian domination over Indigenous Peoples. In the most devastating sense, the Doctrine of Christian Discovery (DoCD) legitimized exploitation, extraction, and enslavement globally and enshrined these practices as the basis of U.S. property law still cited today as recently as 2005 (in Sherrill v. Oneida) and 2020 (McGirt v. Oklahoma). In the 200 th year of Johnson, there is an urgent need for global recognition of the decision's implications as reifying the DoCD and its exploitation of Indigenous Peoples and their connection to land, regarded as a living being (Mother Earth in English.) This conference builds on the history of collaboration at Syracuse University with Indigenous communities across Central New York by expanding dissemination of the pernicious ideologies of DOCD and Johnson, leading to further repudiation of these ideologies and towards healing and repair. The project's key collaborators include Syracuse University, American Indian Law Alliance (AILA), Indigenous Values Initiative (IVI), The Skä-noñh -- Great Law of Peace Center, and others. For more see the Doctrine of Discovery Project site (doctrineofdiscovery.org). Event flyer. ⤓ Download Image , ⤓ Download PDF . Registration Register Now{: .btn .btn--info .btn--x-large} Call for Papers We are interested in paper and session proposals from scholars, students, activists, artists, lawyers, policy makers, religious leaders, Indigenous leaders, and more. Our conference seeks to bring together a broad coalition of people working on examining not only the Doctrine of Christian Discovery but also the religious origins of white supremacy. Downloads - Flyer image - Flyer PDF Thematic Panels We are interested in creating thematic panels on the following topics: - Religious Racism - White Christian Nationalism - What are the mythic origins of white supremacy within the Doctrine of Christian Discovery (DoCD)? - International implications of Johnson v. M'Intosh - International implications of the DoCD and white supremacy - The continuing impact of Johnson, DoCD, and white supremacy on Indigenous peoples - Continuing Environmental impact of Johnson, DoCD, and white supremacy - The rise of Christian Nationalism around the world - Religious dimensions of racism - Religious repudiations and resistance the DoCD - Legal resistance to Johnson and the DoCD? - How do we address and resist Johnson and settler colonialism today? Paper Submission Instructions - Please send in a 300-word abstract of your paper and/or panel - CV/Resume - Proposals should be received by September 15 - Acceptance notices will be sent on October 1 - Papers from graduate students are encouraged. - Undergraduate panels with a professor are also encouraged. - For questions please email Prof. Philip P. Arnold at - All submissions msut be via the form. Paper Submissions{: .btn .btn--success .btn--x-large} Call for Artists Eligibility: There are no hard restrictions on genre, subject matter, or media; however, we ask artists to keep the conference theme and description in mind when creating and/or selecting work for submission. The artwork must also be suitable or print-friendly for posters, promotional graphics, conference programs, etc. There are no age restrictions. Artists of all ages may submit their work. For artists under the age of eighteen (18), parent or legal guardian permission is required. Compensation and Transfer of Ownership: Each artist whose piece is selected for exhibition will receive a one-time payment of $1,500.00 USD.  As part of this payment, artists will be required to sign an agreement transferring ownership of their piece (including any copyrights) to the Indigenous Values Initiative (IVI). Artist will also receive one (1) conference pass to attend any and all conference sessions. During the conference our distinguished jurists, other invited jurists, as well conference participants, will vote and select the best in show piece. There will be three awards given of first, second and third prize. First Prize -- $5,000 USD Second Prize -- $3,000 USD Third Prize -- $2,000 USD Submission requirements: Due by October 30, 2023 Artists may submit one piece of artwork for consideration. Each submission must include a description of the artwork, detailing inspiration, medium, process of creation, physical dimensions. Submitted artwork must be of high-resolution quality (300 DPI, .jpeg or .png recommended). If applicable, please include a layered version (.ai, psd, .indd) of the artwork Digital Submission of Works by November 1 Artist Selection and Notification by November 15 If selected physical objects must be received by November 30 All selected artworks will be exhibited during the conference at Syracuse University from Dec 8-10. If you have questions, please email Prof. Philip P. Arnold at . Submissions{: .btn .btn--success .btn--x-large}"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/religious-underpinnings-private-property/",
    "title": "The religious underpinnings of one of America’s most sacred concepts, private property",
    "publishedAt": "2024-06-30T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Read Steve Kelly's analysis of how Christian Discovery doctrine shaped U.S. property law, anti-Indian law, and modern settler-colonial legal frameworks.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "colonialism",
      "doctrine-of-discovery",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Newsflash: Property law in the U.S. is not rooted in the Constitution. America’s legal foundation for property law (possession), “anti-Indian law,” and the concept of nation-states is religious, not secular. Where did this deep sense of entitlement, hierarchy and dominion over unknown lands and its original sovereign peoples originate? How was this wilderness continent, upon which its people depended – for millennia – for survival, end up being converted into “real estate” by a bunch of European Christian princes and pirates? Most people who own real estate, work and live on this settler-colonized land we now call “America,” cannot answer the question. So, how can we discern a proper answer? U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall, the fourth, and longest-serving chief justice (1801-1835), told us so – more than 200 years ago.  The Doctrine of Christian Discovery originated in Europe in the 15th Century and is melded into the U.S. Supreme Court’s precedent case, Johnson vs. McIntosh (1823).  Careful decoding of the imaginative legal language in this seminal U.S. Supreme Court case reveals the fascinating history that informs present legal thinking and how we arrived at this place and time.  To grasp a deeper comprehension of how the age-old doctrines of settler-colonialism, religious discrimination and wars of conquest influence our lives today, Steven T. Newcomb’s book “Pagans in the Promised Land: Decoding the Doctrine of Christian Discovery” (2007) is essential reading.  Old Testament stories provide the underpinnings, retold in the Roman Church’s 15th Century papal bulls. Centuries later, these Vatican policy documents helped to ‘legitimize’ the conceptual source of U.S. government legal doctrine that persists today to define nation-states, property, and anti-Indian law.  Legal precedents written in the early 19th Century remain hidden under opaque strata of human imagination, cultural conditioning and consciousness. In 1493, the bull  Inter Caetera , issued by Pope Alexander VI, granted the monarchs of Spain ownership of roughly half the “discovered” world. Representatives contracted by Spanish and Portuguese monarchs exploited that official church license to claim “discovered” lands, with extensive state military backing to guarantee success.  “English Royals” crafted their own (legal) rights of imagined ownership, certified by its homegrown Anglican form of “civilized Christianity.” In 1578, Sir Humphrey Gilbert was granted a charter from the Crown authorizing him to  “…discover and take possession of such remote, heathen, and barbarous lands, as were not actually possessed by any Christian prince or people…” Decades later, the Crown granted others charters to conquer, loot and plunder unclaimed territory in the “New World.” Comprehending the relationship between settler-colonialism, Old Testament stories, European monarchs and the Vatican’s holy decrees is essential to understanding the chaos and war in the world today. What is most important to understand is how the Doctrine of Christian Discovery impacts our world, here and now. This 500-year-old religious dogma is still being used. In the 21 st  century the U.S. Supreme Court continues to rationalize the “dominion” and “chosen people” dogma and mindset of the Old Testament and 15th century Christendom.  Property: “ The exclusive right of possessing, enjoying and disposing of a thing;  ownership. In the beginning of the world, the Creator gave to man   dominion over the earth, over the fish of the sea and the fowls of the air,  and over every living thing. This is the foundation of man’s  property  in t he earth… Prior occupancy of land and of wild animals gives to the  possessor the  property  of them,”  according to an 1828 Webster’s dictionary. This is the pathology of the hierarchical dominating mentality that moves all settler-colonizer societies. “Their god was on their side.”  Where have we heard that lately? Enough of this nonsense. Steve Kelly is an artist, gardener and environmental activist who lives in Bozeman, Montana. ",
    "externalUrl": "https://dailymontanan.com/2024/06/29/the-religious-underpinnings-of-one-of-americas-most-sacred-concepts-private-property/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/resource/The-Evidence-of-Christian-Nationalism-in-Federal-Indian-Law/",
    "title": "The Evidence of Christian Nationalism in Federal Indian Law: The Doctrine of Discovery, Johnson v. McIntosh, and Plenary Power",
    "publishedAt": "2012-05-05T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Newcomb, Steven T. “The Evidence of Christian Nationalism in Federal Indian Law: The Doctrine of Discovery, Johnson v. McIntosh, and Plenary Power.”  NYU Rev. L. & Soc. Change  20 (1992): 303. Download PDF",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "PDF",
      "law",
      "Nationalism",
      "Christian-Nationalism",
      "Indian-Law",
      "Christianity",
      "Federal-Indian-Law",
      "Land-Rights",
      "blog",
      "Resource"
    ],
    "textContent": "Newcomb, Steven T. \"The Evidence of Christian Nationalism in Federal Indian Law: The Doctrine of Discovery, Johnson v. McIntosh, and Plenary Power.\" NYU Rev. L. & Soc. Change 20 (1992): 303. Download PDF",
    "externalUrl": "https://socialchangenyu.com/review/evidence-of-christian-nationalism-in-federal-indian-law-the-doctrine-of-discovery-johnson-v-mcintosh-and-plenary-power-the/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/revoke-papal-bulls/",
    "title": "“Revoke the Papal Bulls”: Our Response to the Vatican’s March 30 Statement on the Doctrine of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2023-05-10T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "  Let us set the context for this discussion. The context begins with the free existence of our Native nations and peoples, extending back to the beginning of our time through our oral histories and traditions,  contrasted  with the system of domination that was carried by ship across the ocean and imposed on everyone and everything. From that starting point we end up with a non-Christian view-from-the-shore with our Ancestors looking out at the invading ships sailing from Western Christendom, and a view-from-the-ship perspective, with the colonizers moving toward our Ancestors with the intention of establishing the Christian empire’s system of domination where it did not yet exist. Below we discuss the recent Vatican Statement on the Doctrine of Discovery with a view-from-the-shore perspective, while realizing that the Vatican officials wrote their statement with a view-from-the-ship (church) perspective.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "news",
      "papal-bulls",
      "featured",
      "responses",
      "joint-statement-responses",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "  Let us set the context for this discussion. The context begins with the free existence of our Native nations and peoples, extending back to the beginning of our time through our oral histories and traditions, contrasted with the system of domination that was carried by ship across the ocean and imposed on everyone and everything. From that starting point we end up with a non-Christian view-from-the-shore with our Ancestors looking out at the invading ships sailing from Western Christendom, and a view-from-the-ship perspective, with the colonizers moving toward our Ancestors with the intention of establishing the Christian empire's system of domination where it did not yet exist. Below we discuss the recent Vatican Statement on the Doctrine of Discovery with a view-from-the-shore perspective, while realizing that the Vatican officials wrote their statement with a view-from-the-ship (church) perspective.",
    "externalUrl": "https://originalfreenations.com/revoke-the-papal-bulls-our-response-to-the-vaticans-march-30-statement-on-the-doctrine-of-discovery/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/river/beginning-analysis-settler-colonialism/",
    "title": "Part 2: The beginning of an Analysis of Settler Colonialism Emerges at AMC 2022",
    "publishedAt": "2023-05-09T07:54:46Z",
    "description": "Indigenous women from around Africa arrived to traditionally Native land bases that were often in turmoil. If the Indigenous nations of the place were able to escape genocidal attempts by European-Americans, they were being violently forced to relocate and under immense pressure to give up their sovereignty. The vast majority of Black women arrived enslaved (mostly laboring for whites and to a much less extent Indigenous slavers); a structure that sought to strip them of their specific nation, culture, and heritage and force into a social position devoid of structural agency within the context of the settler colonial contestation--that is to make them 'Black slaves'.",
    "tags": [
      "law",
      "religion",
      "Christianity",
      "Environment",
      "river-series",
      "featured",
      "blog",
      "river"
    ],
    "textContent": "Introduction In the 1600s when enslaved Africans disembarked en masse and travel weary to this land mass, they arrived in a place where hundreds of Indigenous groups lived since time immemorial.[[1]](#ftn1) Since that moment The majority of the interactions between Black people and Indigenous Peoples living in the so-called United States occur(red) in the bloody context of settler colonial imperialism. Black people were kidnapped, trafficked, enslaved, segregated, imprisoned, and assassinated by individuals and a system that did not value our personhood, but sought to exploit our bodies and souls.[[2]](#ftn2) Indigenous peoples were (and continue to be) exploited, infected, schooled, silenced, relegated, and murdered by individuals and a system that did not (and does not) value their personhood, but sought (and seeks) to erase their bodies and souls.[[3]](#ftn3) In the 21 st century, both remain tolerated but targeted, appropriated, and tokenized.[[4]](#ftn4) In response to lived conditions, feminisms developed in various Black and Indigenous communities as part of resisting settler-colonialism, racism, sexism, capitalism and classism, and other forms of oppression. Feminist movements in Black and Indigenous communities have been proximate, overlapping, and mutually reinforcing, but also at times in tension with one another. Though both expansive areas of collective work, Black feminisms and Indigenous feminisms tend to center different aspects of the struggle for liberation. Some strain between movements comes from the inadvertent solidification of the settler state that can happen as some Black feminists struggle for their freedom and self-determination within the settler state without explicitly articulating an analysis of settler colonialism. Other tensions come from some Indigenous feminists' refusal of participation in solidarity politics in a way that weakens 'BIPOC' coalitions facing repression, and various expressions of uninterrogated antiblackness. This paper posits that the Doctrine of Discovery (DoD), a 15th century set of religious and state decrees that facilitated Christian European global exploration and expropriation, is a ripe site to analyze together for both Indigenous and Black feminist organizers because it allows for the incorporation of an analysis of settler colonialism without de-centering issues that are essential to Black feminist theory and practice. As a Black feminist organizer with some experience organizing alongside Indigenous feminists, this set of four blogs will: 1. Examine the absence of a settler colonial analysis in two moments in the theoretical lineage of US Black feminism--the Combahee River Collective statement of 1977 and the Allied Media Conference AfroFeministFutures panel in 2022. 2. Explore opportunities presented for the inclusion of a settler colonial analysis 3. Analyze how engaging the Doctrine of Discovery can be a way Black feminists incorporate an analysis of settler colonialism without de-centering the issues that are essential to Black feminist theory and practice. 4. Imagine a future in which Black and Indigenous Feminisms make common cause, for the purpose of healing our lineages, and practicing the liberatory politics we aspire. Part 1{: .btn .btn--primary} Part 2{: .btn .btn--success} Part 3{: .btn .btn--warning} Part 4{: .btn .btn--danger} The beginning of an Analysis of Settler Colonialism Emerges at AMC 2022 Indigenous women from around Africa arrived to traditionally Native land bases that were often in turmoil. If the Indigenous nations of the place were able to escape genocidal attempts by European-Americans, they were being violently forced to relocate and under immense pressure to give up their sovereignty. The vast majority of Black women arrived enslaved (mostly laboring for whites and to a much less extent Indigenous slavers); a structure that sought to strip them of their specific nation, culture, and heritage and force into a social position devoid of structural agency within the context of the settler colonial contestation--that is to make them 'Black slaves'. Black and Indigenous Feminist Futures Institute co-director Tiffany Lethabo King's work reminds that in the ferocious porosity of the earth-cum-plantation, the genocide that happened on the plantation grounds could be felt by the Indigenous Africans as they recalibrated to the new, tragic vibrations of the soil... and that this feeling \"shaped their experience of enslavement and Blackness.\"[^5] They knew land and agroecology well, and could tell the land was disturbed. Early on in the panel, Frazier noted that Black feminism was \"a movement for Black women's power that originated when we arrived on these shores.\"[^6] Choosing to make the arrival of enslaved Africans to the US as the starting point for this struggle for power has consequences. The first is that it elongates the timeframe in which US-based Black feminism is generally understood to exist. It is usually circumscribed as a \"1970s onward\" phenomenon that refined and built on and contested whitestream feminism's foundations. Frazier's main point seemed to be that Black feminism did not start with white women's experiences as its referent. The second consequence of Frazier's comment situates the beginning of the Black feminist movement directly in a nascent US settler colonial context.[^7] Frazier was accessing the era before Black and Indigenous joint struggle against white possession and oppression was dispersed by colonial cacophony. \"We can reinvigorate [those moments] and reactivate them and bring them into a now...\" King insists.[^8] Frazier, initially winding up her answer about the challenges facing Black feminists and our allies took an additional moment to talk about colonization, Indigenous positionality, and land directly. She shared a crucial piece of data that only she knew, but by conveying it created an AfroFeministFuture that was not possible before her articulation: Back in the day when we, Barbara and Beverly and I, were trying to write the [Combahee River Collective] statement, there is something about the statement that 'if Black women are free, then everyone else will, of necessity, be free.' And I still don't feel 100% comfortable with that. We are on land that was stolen and colonized and we struggle to make Indigenous women and the lives of Indigenous women at the center...and so I'm still trying to figure out how we braid those human experiences together so that when we talk about who's---what does freedom really mean and for whom---I think we have to begin more...we have to expand our vision on that. But again I'm not going to go on and on.\" [someone from the audience far from the mic yells \"go on!!\" There is some laughter, and then rousing applause for Frazier's words].[^9] With these words Frazier created an opening to discuss the concept of freedom in light of settler colonialism. What she meant by the half sentence \"I think we have to begin more...\" remains unclear. But the sentiment of the imperative for an expanded vision was one of the most poignant moments of the panel in terms of audience reaction and interaction from other panelists. As the enthusiastic applause died down, Ransby-Sporn began her comments, saying, \"Wow, thanks for that. I want to talk more about that!\" She pauses for an extended moment. However, her next comments spoke to the original question that was asked by moderator Bailey, as it related to Black women's freedom and centering those experiencing racial, gender, sexual, and class oppression. As often happens on panels, panelists' comments are influenced by what they hear others say. The multi-vocal design of a panel is already a disruption to the one-keynote speaker model. I wonder if the way Ransby-Sporn later speaks about the Combahee River Collective framework, as a framework of orienting to whomever is the most marginalized in a given situation, may be influenced by Frazier's comments. Either way it was a missed opportunity to speak further about the topic. Seeing their framework in this way, that it evolves over time, allows for greater openings for Black-Native revolutionary partnerships. Other than Frazier's comment, Indigenous women were not explicitly named again in the panel. Relationships to land were mentioned by Love with regards to rematriation (what is known to be an entire movement in some Indigenous communities), and the importance of holistic, loving, and regenerative relationships Black women could have with the land if we were free to do so. Love then moved back into metaphor, speaking about the \"social remediation of our soul soil.\"[^10] The work Black feminists have done and continue to do is tremendous. Yet there remains a key missing piece in both the Combahee River Collective and the AMC AfroFeministFutures panel: a robust analysis of settler colonialism. This elision replicates settler colonial erasure of indigenous peoples, their lives, and theorizations. Indigenous feminist theorizing was not completely invisible, but more than a land acknowledgment and more than a mention emerging between official questions is necessary to address the conditions we seek to ameliorate and the oppression we work to destroy. In addition to solidarity, the ability to articulate what's at stake for us as Black folks living in a settler colonial context is imperative for many reasons, the next section of this paper will discuss five. Reasons to Integrate an Analysis of Settler Colonialism in Black Feminist Theory Incorporating an analysis of settler colonialism in Black feminist theory will increase shared language and conceptual frameworks between it and Indigenous feminist theory. This sharing can create resonance powerful enough to cut through the colonial cacophony and help us, as Frazier articulated her desire, to braid our human experiences together. What follows are five reasons why I think this is important. The first reason we must be able to articulate an analysis of settler colonialism is because Black feminists don't want to participate in harming other communities. bell hook's definition of love, which is a well-known animating force for Black feminism, is defined as \"a combination of care, commitment, knowledge, responsibility, respect, and trust.\"[^11] Hatcher brought that definition forth on the panel. Ransby-Sporn followed up saying that this love is incompatible with oppression. \"The type of love we espouse requires accountability, reciprocity, consistency, and clarity. It is aligned and animates a radical politic and vision.\"[^12] Settler colonialism, like slavery and racism, is a structure of the society, not an event in its history.[^13] It is an ongoing harm, and its assumptions are embedded in all racist and sexist policies and extra-legal actions.[^14] When our politics furthers the logic of elimination, however inadvertently, it becomes unloving, and requiring of accountability, un/learning, re/commitment, and change. Any refusal to take it seriously constitutes a move to innocence, which, even though we are not white people, reproduces the harm of settler colonialism associated with settler moves to innocence.[^15] The second reason is that Black feminists have an invitation to acknowledge our positions within empire, however revealing and humbling this may be. It's an opportunity for self-reflective inquiry. Asking ourselves questions like, what does it mean to build wealth for ourselves and the Black community in a system based on white possession, Indigenous dispossession, and Black people as possessions? What does it mean to work for food sovereignty on stolen land? Critical Indigenous studies insists, in the words of Byrd, that: settler, native, and arrivant each acknowledge their own positions within empire and then reconceptualize space and history to make visible what imperialism and its resultant settler colonialisms and diasporas have sought to obscure.[^16] As a part of Indigenous critical theories, Indigenous feminist theories invite such acknowledgment, reconceptualization, and visibilization to happen in combination with an analysis of how the enduring impacts of patriarchy and other interlocking systemic oppressions refract the societal positions of each settler, native, and arrivant. Furthermore, Indigenous feminist theories value place-based and contextual analyses that result in practical positive impacts in the lives of Indigenous women, their communities, and nations. The imperative to address patriarchy and other interlocking systems of oppression makes Indigenous feminists ideal co-conspirators for Black feminists. Responding to the invitation from other feminists through doing the hard work of developing shared language and a conceptual framework could bring us closer to together. We wouldn't be starting from zero. Tiffany Lethabo King, Cheryl Harris, and Tiya Miles, among others have written extensively. And as Frazier evidenced, even if a sentence of solidarity did not explicitly get in the Combahee River Collective statement there was a desire to also center Indigenous women's experiences---especially Indigenous feminist theorizing and activism. The discussion around what got included or not must have been intense as Frazier is still uncomfortable with its omission 45 years later. This desire that got articulated explicitly in 2022, renewing the opportunity to build on it. Third, there are women who are both Black and Indigenous. Challenging settler colonialism is a key part of their existence and resistance work, and since Black feminism cares about all oppressions that impact any Black women, settler colonialism should be very important to Black feminists. There are a number of content creators and movement leaders with this identity who are offering ideas and methods with regard to this, arising out of a variety of contexts, for example B. Anderson, Kailea Frederick, Sister Sadada Jackson, Shanya Cordis, Xhercis Méndez, Waltrina Middleton and more. Their intersectional leadership is important because it is not simply a matter of Black women ceding all central space to Indigenous women and only following. They bring together their identities in unique ways, have unique kinship networks, and their positionality as people who experience both settler-colonialism and racism in their life allow for a political orientation to imagine something like: Returning to Combahee together. Fourth, shared language and analysis can assist in addressing ongoing antiblackness in Indigenous communities. Frazier noted in her comments that \"many 19 th century movements floundered due to racism, and really being able to see Black people as human equals remains a struggle today.\"[^17] While Indigenous feminists generally have love and compassion for Black women and our communities, antiblack racism exists, even in activist spaces. I have experienced it personally. Furthermore, denial of the pervasive and global nature of antiblack racism as something that must be addressed in anticolonial structures has also created persistent tension between some activist groups. Language for Black people beyond the label settler is not solidified yet, but it can be quite painful when Indigenous people refer to all others as settlers. Learning the contours of another person or group's anguish can create spaces of empathy where deeper levels of one's own concerns can be shared. Given that \"the building of a mass movement to leverage our powers will be an incredible challenge because most people are too conventional to appreciate feminist organizing,\"[^18] Black and Indigenous feminists can reduce isolation by co- developing a response to settler-colonialism that is complex enough to address both the manifestations of dispossession and antiblack racism that exist simultaneously in the contexts in which we organize. The LANDBACK Manifesto's language around the explicit connections between Black and Indigenous liberations addresses the dearth of addressing antiblackness in many other Indigenous and white settler anticolonial organizing spaces as well as sets a standard for other expressions of solidarity.[^19] Fifth, settler colonialism impacts Black women as well. In The White Possessive, Moreton-Robinson writes, \"the question of how anyone came to be white or black in the United States is inextricably tied to the dispossession of the original owners and the assumption of white possession.\"^20 Because settler colonialism impacted Black people, we can integrate an analysis of settler colonialism while still maintaining the movement's integrity and a focus on the practical improvement of the lives of Black femmes and communities. Engaging the Doctrine of Discovery (DoD) can assist in this process because in addition to being the root of settler colonialism in the US and worldwide, this European colonial framework created the religious, legal, and mental justifications for invasion and slavery that negatively disrupted life on the continent of Africa. References AfroFeministFutures For the World We Want. Allied Media Conference, Allied Media Project, 2022.   Arvin, Maile, Eve Tuck, and Angie Morrill. \"Decolonizing feminism: Challenging connections between settler colonialism and heteropatriarchy.\" Feminist formations(2013): 8-34. Beloved Community, Asheville, North Carolina. .  Black Women Radicals www.blackwomenradicals.com Byrd, Jodi A. The transit of empire: Indigenous critiques of colonialism. U of Minnesota Press, 2011. Collective, Combahee River. \"The Combahee river collective statement.\" (self-published in 1977), cited in Words of Fire: An Anthology of African American Feminist Thought, ed. Beverly Guy-Sheftall (New York: New Press, 1995), 233. Gilmore, Ruth Wilson. Golden gulag: Prisons, surplus, crisis, and opposition in globalizing California. Vol. 21. Univ of California Press, 2007. Hayes, Kelly. \"How to Talk about #NoDAPL: A Native Perspective.\" Truthout, October 28, 2016. Retrieved from: . hooks, bell. All about love: New visions. Harper Perennial, 2001. Indigenous Feminist Power Panel, . King, Tiffany Lethabo with brontë velez, \"On the Black Shoals: Part 2\" For the Wild. December 14, 2022, . Kivel, Paul. Living in the shadow of the cross: Understanding and resisting the power and privilege of Christian hegemony. New Society Publishers, 2013. LANDBACK Manifesto. . Lawrence, Bonita, and Enakshi Dua. \"Decolonizing antiracism.\" Social justice4 (102 (2005): 120-143. Miller, Robert J., et al. Discovering indigenous lands: The doctrine of discovery in the English colonies. Oxford University Press, 2010. Moreton-Robinson, Aileen. \"Writing Off Treaties\" Chapter 4 in The white possessive: Property, power, and indigenous sovereignty. U of Minnesota Press, 2015. Tuck, Eve, and K. Wayne Yang. 2012. \"Decolonization Is Not a Metaphor.\" Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society1: 1-40. Wolfe, Patrick. \"Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native.\" Journal of genocide research4 (2006): 387-409. Doctrine of Disovery Papal Bulls: Dum Diversas 18 June, 1452, The Bull Romanus Pontifex (Nicholas V), January 8, 1455 and The Bull Inter Caetera (Alexander VI), May 4, 1493. Later expansions of these bulls include the Treaty of Tordesillas, June 7, 1494, the Patent Granted by King Henry VII to John Cabot and his Sons, March 5, 1496, The Requerimiento, 1513. . Footnotes [^1]: There are numerous timeframes in which to locate the beginning of settler-colonialism. Tarren Andrews, for example, dates it to the Medieval era. 1492 represents a particular type of rupture as well. I choose 1600 because of the sheer volume of \"commerce\" moving across the Atlantic in toxic triangles and quadrilaterals by this point in time. Furthermore, there are numerous ways to name both Indigenous connections to place while recognizing shared evolutionary history, without destabilizing Indigenous connections.  Indigenous Peoples are connected to their homelands in an indissoluble, irreducible way, and in ways very different than European settler-colonists. I do not see this as a contradiction to the shared human evolutionary history of ancient migration of everyone from the Great Rift Valley in what is now called eastern Africa. People walked from there all over the world, and became some of the first humans to relate to all sorts of different lands and waters, to become indigenous to those places. As the timescales are vastly different (10,000 years ago vs. 1000 years ago), and \"time immemorial\" refers to \"the time we collectively remember\". Numerous indigenous groups on Turtle Island, for example, do not have a collective memory of the trek from Africa and their stories begin with them located en situ. Though the collective trek happened, sharing that information with Indigenous Peoples whose origin stories state otherwise should not be used to displace their claim of being aboriginal to their homelands, instead, only used to recognize the ultimate kinship among humans (homo sapiens) making all people deserving of mutual recognition as persons. Personhood, and relatedly, belonging through kinship or social circumstances, has not always been afforded to people of African descent, both within and outside of some Indigenous communities. [^2]: Hayes, Kelly. \"How to Talk about #NoDAPL: A Native Perspective.\" Truthout, October 28, 2016. Retrieved from: . [^3]: Ibid. [^4]: As an author who primarily identifies ethnically as a person of African descent, I will use personal or collective pronouns when speaking about Black people and our experience. Like many “African-Americans”, I have ancestors who are “Native-Americans.” That history and those connections were not kept alive in my immediate or extended families. Therefore, I employ the third person singular and plurals when referring to indigenous people and their experiences. [^5]: King, Tiffany Lethabo with brontë velez, \"On the Black Shoals: Part 1\" For the Wild. December 7, 2022, . For more on the Black and Indigenous Feminist Futures Institute see [^6]: Frazier, AfroFeministFutures For the World We Want. [^7]: Other origin points could be women's interventions in various forms of pre-modern African patriarchal systems, or Black women's contact with Phoenician, Chinese, or European explorers, or in one small nation's resistance to another nation's regional hegemony in Africa, for example. [^8]: King with velez, \"On the Black Shoals: Part 2\". [^9]: After answering the question on the AMC panel, at 35:32 Frazier makes her additional remarks. [^10]: Love, AfroFeministFutures For the World We Want. [^11]: hooks, bell. All about love: New visions. Harper Perennial, 2001. [^12]: Ransby-Sporn, AfroFeministFutures For the World We Want. [^13]: Wolfe, Patrick. \"Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native.\" Journal of genocide research 8.4 (2006): 387-409. [^14]: Building on to Gilmore's definition of racism here, \"\"Racism, specifically, is the state-sanctioned or extralegal production and exploitation of group-differentiated vulnerability to premature death.\" in Gilmore, Ruth Wilson. Golden gulag: Prisons, surplus, crisis, and opposition in globalizing California. Vol. 21. Univ of California Press, 2007. [^15]: Tuck and Wang, \"Decolonization is not a metaphor.\" [^16]: Byrd, Transit of Empire, xxx. (Italics added) [^17]: Frazier, AfroFeministFutures For the World We Want. [^18]: Frazier, AfroFeministFutures For the World We Want. [^19]: LANDBACK Manifesto. In conversation with Dr. Danika Medak-Saltzman, she says, \"core beliefs of most Indigenous communities historically make clear there is an understanding of the human family and our responsibilities to each other. Decolonizing ought to mean eliminating the influences of colonization which always already should mean eliminating antiblackness within and across native communities.\" [^20]: Moreton-Robinson, Aileen. \"Writing Off Treaties\" Chapter 4 in The white possessive: Property, power, and indigenous sovereignty. U of Minnesota Press, 2015. (page 84)"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/river/combahee-river/",
    "title": "Part 1: The Origins of the Combahee River Collective Statement",
    "publishedAt": "2023-05-08T07:54:46Z",
    "description": "50 miles from Charleston, South Carolina, is the mouth of the Combahee River, named for the Indigenous people of the place. It was home to numerous plantations where Black people were forced into the institution of slavery. Just after the Revolutionary war battles fought in the area, this fecund place supplied vast amounts of water for some of the new country's largest rice plantations, producing immense wealth for European-Americans (who now understood themselves to be white); returning none to the Indigenous Peoples, lands, and trafficked African laborers (now categorized as Black people) there.",
    "tags": [
      "law",
      "religion",
      "Christianity",
      "Environment",
      "river-series",
      "featured",
      "blog",
      "river"
    ],
    "textContent": "Introduction \"Asia, Africa, and Europe all meet in the Americas to labor over the dialectics of free and unfree, but what of the Americas themselves and the prior peoples upon whom that labor took place?\" Jodi Byrd, Transit of Empire: Indigenous Critiques of Colonialism [A prayer] that \" we might come to know, love, and care for one another with deeper and more rigorous intimacy.\" brontë velez In the 1600s when enslaved Africans disembarked en masse and travel weary to this land mass, they arrived in a place where hundreds of Indigenous groups lived since time immemorial.[^1] Since that moment The majority of the interactions between Black people and Indigenous Peoples living in the so-called United States occur(red) in the bloody context of settler colonial imperialism. Black people were kidnapped, trafficked, enslaved, segregated, imprisoned, and assassinated by individuals and a system that did not value our personhood, but sought to exploit our bodies and souls.[^2] Indigenous peoples were (and continue to be) exploited, infected, schooled, silenced, relegated, and murdered by individuals and a system that did not (and does not) value their personhood, but sought (and seeks) to erase their bodies and souls.[^3] In the 21 st century, both remain tolerated but targeted, appropriated, and tokenized.[^4] In response to lived conditions, feminisms developed in various Black and Indigenous communities as part of resisting settler-colonialism, racism, sexism, capitalism and classism, and other forms of oppression. Feminist movements in Black and Indigenous communities have been proximate, overlapping, and mutually reinforcing, but also at times in tension with one another. Though both expansive areas of collective work, Black feminisms and Indigenous feminisms tend to center different aspects of the struggle for liberation. Some strain between movements comes from the inadvertent solidification of the settler state that can happen as some Black feminists struggle for their freedom and self-determination within the settler state without explicitly articulating an analysis of settler colonialism. Other tensions come from some Indigenous feminists' refusal of participation in solidarity politics in a way that weakens 'BIPOC' coalitions facing repression, and various expressions of uninterrogated antiblackness. This paper posits that the Doctrine of Discovery (DoD), a 15th century set of religious and state decrees that facilitated Christian European global exploration and expropriation, is a ripe site to analyze together for both Indigenous and Black feminist organizers because it allows for the incorporation of an analysis of settler colonialism without de-centering issues that are essential to Black feminist theory and practice. As a Black feminist organizer with some experience organizing alongside Indigenous feminists, this set of four blogs will: 1. Examine the absence of a settler colonial analysis in two moments in the theoretical lineage of US Black feminism--the Combahee River Collective statement of 1977 and the Allied Media Conference AfroFeministFutures panel in 2022. 2. Explore opportunities presented for the inclusion of a settler colonial analysis 3. Analyze how engaging the Doctrine of Discovery can be a way Black feminists incorporate an analysis of settler colonialism without de-centering the issues that are essential to Black feminist theory and practice. 4. Imagine a future in which Black and Indigenous Feminisms make common cause, for the purpose of healing our lineages, and practicing the liberatory politics we aspire. Part 1{: .btn .btn--primary} Part 2{: .btn .btn--success} Part 3{: .btn .btn--warning} Part 4{: .btn .btn--danger} The Origins of the Combahee River Collective Statement 50 miles from Charleston, South Carolina, is the mouth of the Combahee River, named for the Indigenous people of the place. It was home to numerous plantations where Black people were forced into the institution of slavery. Just after the Revolutionary war battles fought in the area, this fecund place supplied vast amounts of water for some of the new country's largest rice plantations, producing immense wealth for European-Americans (who now understood themselves to be white); returning none to the Indigenous Peoples, lands, and trafficked African laborers (now categorized as Black people) there. Indigenous and Black people repeatedly rebelled against the coercion, despite the punishing violence white people perpetuated upon them in order to maintain possession and build the US nation-state. Some of the early interactions between Black and Indigenous people happened in captivity in military forts--shared cells of incarceration for resistance to white possession of land, labor, and life.[^5] It was at the Combahee River that Harriet Tubman led a Union Army regiment in a raid that destroyed millions of dollars of supplies going to the Confederate Army and freed over 750 enslaved Africans. This rebellion would be an inspiration to a quintessential Black feminist group over a century later. Black feminism is an ideology of Black women's (and those read as Black women) inherent worth and a practice of liberation of Black women and their communities from all oppression. It is a response to an anti-black, anti-female status quo. Through organizations, statements, political coalitions, and other forms of solidarity building and change-making, Black feminism confronts the interlocking systems of oppression of Black people (and others multiply oppressed and marked by the structures of white supremacist cisgendered heteropatriarchy) worldwide and offers an alternative vision for society. The common articulation of the movement traces its origin to resistance to enslavement and the particular ways that the institution impacted Black females. Regardless of their personal gender expression, they were gendered as women and experienced sexism. The sexual violence perpetrated against Black women in the context of the plantation and the impunity for white men, white women, and Black men who committed it created a devastating type of isolation. This dehumanization resulted in the articulation of a political framework that challenged the white feminist movement (in which racism existed), and the Black civil rights community (in which patriarchy existed), as well as broader society.[^6] The Combahee River Collective, as a specific Black feminist formation, lasted six years and was active in the Boston area from 1974-1980. In 1977, members Demita Frazier, Barbara and Beverly Smith, penned a statement that has become a central touchstone of the Black Feminist movement. Their self-description and reason for writing states: We are a collective of Black feminists who have been...involved in the process of defining and clarifying our politics, while at the same time doing political work within our own group and in coalition with other progressive organizations and movements. The most general statement of our politics at the present time would be that we are actively committed to struggling against racial, sexual, heterosexual, and class oppression, and see as our particular task the development of integrated analysis and practice based upon the fact that the major systems of oppression are interlocking. The synthesis of these oppressions creates the conditions of our lives. As Black women we see Black feminism as the logical political movement to combat the manifold and simultaneous oppressions that all women of color face.[^7] The powerful statement of liberation was a strategic move named in honor of Harriet Tubman, a Black woman whose powerful strategy generated liberation. Taking action to rupture society's operations in order to create space and safety for oneself and all oppressed others in order to generate change is Combahee's legacy. Within the 4,000+ word statement, the writers focus on the genesis of contemporary Black feminism, their Collective's politics, beliefs, practices, issues, and the difficulties for Black feminists as they organize. The end of the introduction features the following paragraph: We might use our position at the bottom, however, to make a clear leap into revolutionary action. If Black women were free, it would mean that everyone else would have to be free since our freedom would necessitate the destruction of all the systems of oppression.[^8] Throughout the next four decades Black feminist organizing has taken many forms as it combats \"the manifold and simultaneous oppressions that women of color face.\"[^9] It's intellectual contributions include Kimberlé Crenshaw's Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex law review article which coined the term intersectionality, Pauli Murray's genius contributions to the world, Toni Cade Bambara and followers in the arts, Audre Lorde, bell hooks, Assata Shakur, the Spelman College Comparative Women's Studies program, and many more today.[^10] The Black Lives Matter, and #MeToo movements are also powerful grassroots expressions of the leap into revolutionary action invited by Black feminism and the Combahee River Collective and their antecedents. The writers did not explicitly address the settler colonial context in which they were writing, or in which Harriet was fighting. They wrote that they saw themselves at the bottom of society, as exploited Black female queer laborers. Critical Indigenous Studies scholar Jodi Byrd invites going a layer under the bottom. \"But what of the Americas themselves and the prior peoples upon whom that labor took place? Byrd asks.\"[^11] This question is poignant because the liberal settler colonial nation-state is interested in shoring up its existence by finding ways to incorporate racialized populations to see their future within it. Many \"diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice\" efforts function to reify the state even while supposedly challenging it. Though for Black feminists the politics of representation has never been the main focus--rather the self-determination and wellbeing of our communities--the presence of the state and its functionaries was taken as a given. For Indigenous feminists, the theorizing against and beyond the settler colonial state itself, toward sovereignty and nationhood is key.[^12] Using the imagery of perpetual cacophony that makes it difficult to orient oneself amidst noise, Byrd articulates the nation-states deflection and attention clouding: As liberal multicultural settler colonialism attempts to flex the exceptions and exclusions that first constituted the United States to now provisionally include those people othered and abjected from the nation-state's origins, it instead creates a cacophony of moral claims that help to deflect progressive and transformative activism from dismantling the ongoing conditions of colonialism that continue to make the United States a desired state formation within which to be included. That cacophony of competing struggles for hegemony within and outside institutions of power, no matter how those struggles might challenge the state through loci of race, class, gender, and sexuality, serves to misdirect and cloud attention from the underlying structures of settler colonialism that made the United States possible as oppressor in the first place. As a result, the cacophony produced through U.S. colonialism and imperialism domestically and abroad often coerces struggles for social justice for queers, racial minorities, and immigrants into complicity with settler colonialism.[^13] This treacherous reality is why it is important that even Black feminists explicitly articulate that settler colonialism is one of the interlocking systems of oppression. This elision in the Combahee River Collective statement leaves open the door for the US nation-state to co-opt Black feminism. Allied Media Conference Panel: AfroFeministFutures A generation later, in 2022, the AfroFeministFutures panel at the Allied Media Conference (AMC) drew on the Combahee River Collective's statement in order to theorize for the future.[^14] As the opening panel to the most highly respected conference in young leftist activist circles, the selection of this topic reaffirmed how Black feminist principles and organizing are seen as the foundation for transformative possibilities and sharp analysis. All three of the Combahee River Collective statement writers are still alive. One, Demita Frazier, JD was on the panel and created an energizing linkage between eras. She was joined by Paris Hatcher of Black Feminist Futures, Emmanuelle 'Emani' Love of Wage Love Apothecary, Asha Ransby-Sporn of Chicago's Black Youth Project (BYP100) fame and Dissenters antimilitarism effort. The panel was moderated by Dr. Moya Bailey, author of Misogynoir Transformed: Black Women's Digital Resistance.[^15] The panel began with a robust acknowledgement of the place of Detroit--the land (how it was stolen and the Indigenous people who call it home) and the waves of settlement by arrivants, immigrants, settlers, refugees, and their combinations. The acknowledgement also spoke of liberation practices that took place in Detroit, ostensibly to locate the AMC in this tradition. The first question asked the panelists which systems of oppression does the Black feminist work they do actively seek to destroy? The answers included combating: Policing, incarceration, and militarism (as the violent and armed part of the state that actively works to keep white supremacy, patriarchy, and capitalism/neoliberalism in place through violence or threats of violence) Individualism and perfectionism (cultural manifestations of heteropatriarchal white supremacy) Misogynoir and transmisogynoir (the particular type of intersectional hatred that Black women and Black trans folks face) Structural racism Homelessness Spiritual injustice (trauma inflicted by dominant Christian thinking) Their answers reflected issues on which they specialize, even as they make common cause with broader movements. Other key points from the panel included: Recognizing that the Black community is actually multiple communities, not a monolith. Inviting non-Black allies to de-center themselves as they seek to be in solidarity Examining the risks involved in dismantling white supremacy Doing the very difficult healing of internalized inferiority within oneself Highlighting stories as the foundation for building political campaigns and understanding issues Resisting tokenism and learning from the most marginalized Encouraging a shift away from state-centered solutions and activism, and shifting our relationships to one another in the process Destroying settler colonialism, or noting it as one of the interlocking systems of oppression did not happen in direct response to any question. The word decolonization was used only twice during the panel: once emphasizing the need to decolonize the spirit, and another time in reference to the mind. While critical thinking and spiritual agency are important, these uses do not refer to the return of land to indigenous people. Tuck and Wang, authors of Decolonization is Not a Metaphor have cautioned against using the word decolonization in North America when speaking about anything other than the distinct project of disordering the colonial world.[^16] When used as metaphor, it often functions as signaling \"both an awareness of the significance of Indigenous and decolonizing theorizations\" but to include them in another struggle. This can downplay the incommensurability of efforts for recognition and/or sovereignty with those of civil and/or human rights struggles. Following Arvin, Tuck, and Morrill, it is important to craft alliances that directly address differences.\"[^17] References AfroFeministFutures For the World We Want. Allied Media Conference, Allied Media Project, 2022.   Arvin, Maile, Eve Tuck, and Angie Morrill. \"Decolonizing feminism: Challenging connections between settler colonialism and heteropatriarchy.\" Feminist formations(2013): 8-34. Beloved Community, Asheville, North Carolina. .  Black Women Radicals www.blackwomenradicals.com Byrd, Jodi A. The transit of empire: Indigenous critiques of colonialism. U of Minnesota Press, 2011. Collective, Combahee River. \"The Combahee river collective statement.\" (self-published in 1977), cited in Words of Fire: An Anthology of African American Feminist Thought, ed. Beverly Guy-Sheftall (New York: New Press, 1995), 233. Gilmore, Ruth Wilson. Golden gulag: Prisons, surplus, crisis, and opposition in globalizing California. Vol. 21. Univ of California Press, 2007. Hayes, Kelly. \"How to Talk about #NoDAPL: A Native Perspective.\" Truthout, October 28, 2016. Retrieved from: . hooks, bell. All about love: New visions. Harper Perennial, 2001. Indigenous Feminist Power Panel, . King, Tiffany Lethabo with brontë velez, \"On the Black Shoals: Part 2\" For the Wild. December 14, 2022, . Kivel, Paul. Living in the shadow of the cross: Understanding and resisting the power and privilege of Christian hegemony. New Society Publishers, 2013. LANDBACK Manifesto. . Lawrence, Bonita, and Enakshi Dua. \"Decolonizing antiracism.\" Social justice4 (102 (2005): 120-143. Miller, Robert J., et al. Discovering indigenous lands: The doctrine of discovery in the English colonies. Oxford University Press, 2010. Moreton-Robinson, Aileen. \"Writing Off Treaties\" Chapter 4 in The white possessive: Property, power, and indigenous sovereignty. U of Minnesota Press, 2015. Tuck, Eve, and K. Wayne Yang. 2012. \"Decolonization Is Not a Metaphor.\" Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society1: 1-40. Wolfe, Patrick. \"Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native.\" Journal of genocide research4 (2006): 387-409. Doctrine of Disovery Papal Bulls: Dum Diversas 18 June, 1452, The Bull Romanus Pontifex (Nicholas V), January 8, 1455 and The Bull Inter Caetera (Alexander VI), May 4, 1493. Later expansions of these bulls include the Treaty of Tordesillas, June 7, 1494, the Patent Granted by King Henry VII to John Cabot and his Sons, March 5, 1496, The Requerimiento, 1513. . Footnotes [^1]: There are numerous timeframes in which to locate the beginning of settler-colonialism. Tarren Andrews, for example, dates it to the Medieval era. 1492 represents a particular type of rupture as well. I choose 1600 because of the sheer volume of \"commerce\" moving across the Atlantic in toxic triangles and quadrilaterals by this point in time. Furthermore, there are numerous ways to name both Indigenous connections to place while recognizing shared evolutionary history, without destabilizing Indigenous connections.  Indigenous Peoples are connected to their homelands in an indissoluble, irreducible way, and in ways very different than European settler-colonists. I do not see this as a contradiction to the shared human evolutionary history of ancient migration of everyone from the Great Rift Valley in what is now called eastern Africa. People walked from there all over the world, and became some of the first humans to relate to all sorts of different lands and waters, to become indigenous to those places. As the timescales are vastly different (10,000 years ago vs. 1000 years ago), and \"time immemorial\" refers to \"the time we collectively remember\". Numerous indigenous groups on Turtle Island, for example, do not have a collective memory of the trek from Africa and their stories begin with them located en situ. Though the collective trek happened, sharing that information with Indigenous Peoples whose origin stories state otherwise should not be used to displace their claim of being aboriginal to their homelands, instead, only used to recognize the ultimate kinship among humans (homo sapiens) making all people deserving of mutual recognition as persons. Personhood, and relatedly, belonging through kinship or social circumstances, has not always been afforded to people of African descent, both within and outside of some Indigenous communities. [^2]: Hayes, Kelly. \"How to Talk about #NoDAPL: A Native Perspective.\" Truthout, October 28, 2016. Retrieved from: https://truthout.org/articles/how-to-talk-about-nodapl-a-native-perspective/. [^3]: Ibid. [^4]: As an author who primarily identifies ethnically as a person of African descent, I will use personal or collective pronouns when speaking about Black people and our experience. Like many “African-Americans”, I have ancestors who are “Native-Americans.” That history and those connections were not kept alive in my immediate or extended families. Therefore, I employ the third person singular and plurals when referring to indigenous people and their experiences. [^5]: King, Tiffany Lethabo with brontë velez, \"On the Black Shoals: Part 2\" For the Wild. December 14, 2022, https://forthewild.world/listen/tiffany-lethabo-king-on-the-black-shoals-316. [^6]: In regards to the white feminist movement: while originally inspired by native women's powerful positions in their own communities and supported by coalition of abolitionists, ultimately the mainstream feminist movement chose to privilege its proximity to white supremacist patriarchy and disavowed and participated in the oppression of Indigenous, Black, and other people of color. [^7]: Collective, Combahee River. \"The Combahee river collective statement.\" (self-published in 1977), cited in Words of Fire: An Anthology of African American Feminist Thought, ed. Beverly Guy-Sheftall (New York: New Press, 1995), 233. [^8]: Ibid. [^9]: Combahee River Collective statement. [^10]: See www.blackwomenradicals.com for an ongoing web archive. [^11]: Byrd, Jodi A. The transit of empire: Indigenous critiques of colonialism. U of Minnesota Press, 2011, xxv. [^12]: Lawrence, Bonita, and Enakshi Dua. \"Decolonizing antiracism.\" Social justice 32.4 (102 (2005): 120-143. [^13]: Byrd, Transit of Empire, xvii. [^14]: AfroFeministFutures For the World We Want. Allied Media Conference, Allied Media Project, 2022.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYM0Jf4mWjE [^15]: The AfroFeministFutures panel at AMC focused on what these Black feminists are working on, and their thoughts about the future. There were parallels between it and the Indigenous Feminist Power Panel that occurred at the University of Saskatchewan in 2016. Both featured individuals who bring a feminist analysis to their work in whatever sector they are in. Both Black and Indigenous feminisms have become an area of academic and popular study, and the panels focused on the political organizing and direct action efforts that generated material for the emerging field to study. In both cases, scholarship in Indigenous and Black feminists reciprocally informs ongoing feminist political organizing. Indigenous Feminist Power Panel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HnEvaVXoto. [^16]: Tuck, Eve, and K. Wayne Yang. 2012. \"Decolonization Is Not a Metaphor.\" Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society 1.1: 1-40. [^17]: Arvin, Maile, Eve Tuck, and Angie Morrill. \"Decolonizing feminism: Challenging connections between settler colonialism and heteropatriarchy.\" Feminist formations (2013): 8-34."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/river/imagining-shared-futures/",
    "title": "Part 4: Making Common Cause: Imagining Shared Futures",
    "publishedAt": "2023-05-11T07:54:46Z",
    "description": "Creating spaces like that of the AMC AfroFeministFutures panel will allow Black feminists to reflect on the legacy of Black feminism, and what futures can look like. They are a place to practice articulating a Black feminist analysis of settler colonialism as one of the interlocking systems of oppression. No doubt in the future other oppressions will be explicitly added to the list of race, class, gender, and sexuality. These panels are also spaces to reflect on how the liberal multicultural settler state is trying to entice us. As we expand our vision to unapologetically and enthusiastically also center indigenous women and land we actualize Frazier's vision of braiding our human experiences together as Black and Indigenous feminists",
    "tags": [
      "law",
      "religion",
      "Christianity",
      "Environment",
      "river-series",
      "featured",
      "blog",
      "river"
    ],
    "textContent": "Introduction In the 1600s when enslaved Africans disembarked en masse and travel weary to this land mass, they arrived in a place where hundreds of Indigenous groups lived since time immemorial.[^1] Since that moment The majority of the interactions between Black people and Indigenous Peoples living in the so-called United States occur(red) in the bloody context of settler colonial imperialism. Black people were kidnapped, trafficked, enslaved, segregated, imprisoned, and assassinated by individuals and a system that did not value our personhood, but sought to exploit our bodies and souls.[^2] Indigenous peoples were (and continue to be) exploited, infected, schooled, silenced, relegated, and murdered by individuals and a system that did not (and does not) value their personhood, but sought (and seeks) to erase their bodies and souls.[^3] In the 21st century, both remain tolerated but targeted, appropriated, and tokenized.[^4] In response to lived conditions, feminisms developed in various Black and Indigenous communities as part of resisting settler-colonialism, racism, sexism, capitalism and classism, and other forms of oppression. Feminist movements in Black and Indigenous communities have been proximate, overlapping, and mutually reinforcing, but also at times in tension with one another. Though both expansive areas of collective work, Black feminisms and Indigenous feminisms tend to center different aspects of the struggle for liberation. Some strain between movements comes from the inadvertent solidification of the settler state that can happen as some Black feminists struggle for their freedom and self-determination within the settler state without explicitly articulating an analysis of settler colonialism. Other tensions come from some Indigenous feminists' refusal of participation in solidarity politics in a way that weakens 'BIPOC' coalitions facing repression, and various expressions of uninterrogated antiblackness. This paper posits that the Doctrine of Discovery (DoD), a 15th century set of religious and state decrees that facilitated Christian European global exploration and expropriation, is a ripe site to analyze together for both Indigenous and Black feminist organizers because it allows for the incorporation of an analysis of settler colonialism without de-centering issues that are essential to Black feminist theory and practice. As a Black feminist organizer with some experience organizing alongside Indigenous feminists, this set of four blogs will: 1. Examine the absence of a settler colonial analysis in two moments in the theoretical lineage of US Black feminism--the Combahee River Collective statement of 1977 and the Allied Media Conference AfroFeministFutures panel in 2022. 2. Explore opportunities presented for the inclusion of a settler colonial analysis 3. Analyze how engaging the Doctrine of Discovery can be a way Black feminists incorporate an analysis of settler colonialism without de-centering the issues that are essential to Black feminist theory and practice. 4. Imagine a future in which Black and Indigenous Feminisms make common cause, for the purpose of healing our lineages, and practicing the liberatory politics we aspire. Part 1{: .btn .btn--primary} Part 2{: .btn .btn--success} Part 3{: .btn .btn--warning} Part 4{: .btn .btn--danger} Making Common Cause: Imagining Shared Futures Creating spaces like that of the AMC AfroFeministFutures panel will allow Black feminists to reflect on the legacy of Black feminism, and what futures can look like. They are a place to practice articulating a Black feminist analysis of settler colonialism as one of the interlocking systems of oppression. No doubt in the future other oppressions will be explicitly added to the list of race, class, gender, and sexuality. These panels are also spaces to reflect on how the liberal multicultural settler state is trying to entice us. As we expand our vision to unapologetically and enthusiastically also center indigenous women and land we actualize Frazier's vision of braiding our human experiences together as Black and Indigenous feminists. Frazier here uses the image of braiding as a metaphor, but it is also a material fact and practice that is precious to both Black and Indigenous cultures. Braiding each other's hair or other organic material are key sites of knowledge sharing, laughter, and affirmation between women, girls, grandmothers, etc. Building on Frazier, Ransby-Sporn interpreted the Combahee River Collective's statement \"if Black woman were free...\" not as one that narrows the scope of \"what freedom means and for whom\", but as a framework that points us towards putting our attention on the margins.[^5] For her, the Collective's statement was about the undoing of state violence, revolution and transformation, from the margins. Since the people writing the statement, Black queer socialist feminists, were highly marginalized at the time of writing, the statement is about whomever is at the margins, making sure they are centered in the discourse and political struggle. Examining who's at the margins \"is not a one-time event...it's an ongoing process that we have to always be engaged in. [What Combahee gave us] is a vision of collective freedom for all of us.\"[^6] Since \"the logics of white possession and the disavowal of Indigenous sovereignty are materially and discursively linked\" Black and Indigenous feminists can leverage their distinct yet connected positionalities to create a nuanced analysis with shared language and conceptual frameworks and offer it to broader activist movements for collective freedom.[^7] This work is necessary as the state becomes simultaneously more violent and more diffuse, offering green capitalist techno-solutions to the climate crisis of its own making (while the poor, Black, Indigenous, and other people bare the disproportionate burden of the crisis others created in attempts to endlessly benefit themselves at the expense of everyone and everything else). What leaps into revolutionary action will emerge from this generation of Indigenous and Black feminists being in rigorous conversation with one another? There are other methods in addition to using the DoD that have created generative relationship and have nurtured Black and Indigenous feminist collaborations.[^8] These include creating ceremonial spaces and remembering joint projects of rebellion, enjoying sacred laughter and honoring grief in the process of creating rituals, sharing stories, and conversing together. Academic, activist, spiritualist, and internet-media savvy communication approaches are all important for building the friendships of understanding and embodied solidarity that we need for our collective future.  Return to Combahee Though the Collective members never went to the site of the Combahee River raid together, the place itself would be a significant one to re-Source the Black feminist and Indigenous feminist movements and help us to relate to one another as relatives.[^9] A return to Combahee in 2027, the 50th anniversary of its writing, provides an opportunity to bring the people working on these multiple approaches together. As an exercise in futurity, I conclude with a visualization. Envision a group of Black feminists gathered along the Combahee River near the Santee Delta recreation area. They have invited Indigenous feminists to accompany them to this place for a ceremony of renewing the influential Black feminist statement for this generation. Everyone is flush(ed) with excitement to meet one another and curious how our entangled pasts might lead to shared, collaborative, intentional futures. In preparation for the moment, words from the original statement have changed, shifted, been removed, and added to: words such as \"free, bottom, isolation, revolutionary, and all systems of oppression\" have taken on new intensity and depth as an analysis of settler colonialism refracts them. The group of Black and Indigenous feminists who did the (re)writing are celebrated, since words create worlds. Bellies full of tasty food prepared lovingly, the gathered crowd remains hungry for this world we are creating anew. It is April, and most of the group traveled to the drenched soil mouth of the river by way of Charleston. The tears on their cheeks barely dry from their streaming during a visit to Emmanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, a site where white supremacist settler colonial death struck unapologetically in 2015.  The murderous act of business as usual that day created cruel reverberations across time and space that can be felt in our bodies. The crowd is determined to dance harder because of it, and the vibrations and ululations fill the sky as a murmuration makes its way north. Some people arrive later, and make their way toward the sacred fire, stopping periodically to bring up pictures of their babies on the phone. A full carload of others in active conversation pull in to the public parking area and hop out of the car asking, \"how do we actually Indigenous and Black feminist solidarities? What are the impediments to this collective building?\" Being in the same space together certainly helps, everyone agrees and hustles to the designated spot. Before any statement is spoken or dances danced though, the river itself is honored. Gifts placed along the loamy banks. The Combahee, Kusso, and Yamasee people are centered, and as many stories of the place as people wish to share, are shared. Layer upon layer is added, and stories connected to those stories are told. In the air there is a sense of plenty of time and a sense of spiritual urgency. The place of Combahee receives the stories about it and reflects back its glorious centrality to the story of liberation from slavery, of teamwork and strategy, of choice, of Harriet Tubman, of community nourishment. Tiffany Lethabo King's refrain \"I trust Black freedom dreams when they consider Native freedom\" is repeated throughout.[^10] There is also time for silence, through which we encounter each other on our own (beyond English) terms. Time enough to wipe the dust of colonial cacophony from our ears in order to hear our original sounds. Bats, mycelium, and stars observe. B. Anderson, Kailea Frederick, Sister Sadada Jackson, Shanya Cordis, Xhercis Méndez, Waltrina Middleton, Tao Leigh Goffe and their team from darklaboratory.com make offerings. As they do, the group intones with them. After the festivities, everyone returns from where they came, rearranged on the molecular level by the encounter. Copies of the reworked Combahee River Collective statement, written on tiny pocket scrolls are passed out as souvenirs--phylacteries we carry and can touch as we cross thresholds, sharing the message with our children of spirit and blood--prayers for a sovereign shared future and free spirits. We depart with the hope that in another 50 years, a generation will return to reflect and rework our words, as the world-making continues. References AfroFeministFutures For the World We Want. Allied Media Conference, Allied Media Project, 2022.   Arvin, Maile, Eve Tuck, and Angie Morrill. \"Decolonizing feminism: Challenging connections between settler colonialism and heteropatriarchy.\" Feminist formations(2013): 8-34. Beloved Community, Asheville, North Carolina. .  Black Women Radicals www.blackwomenradicals.com Byrd, Jodi A. The transit of empire: Indigenous critiques of colonialism. U of Minnesota Press, 2011. Collective, Combahee River. \"The Combahee river collective statement.\" (self-published in 1977), cited in Words of Fire: An Anthology of African American Feminist Thought, ed. Beverly Guy-Sheftall (New York: New Press, 1995), 233. Gilmore, Ruth Wilson. Golden gulag: Prisons, surplus, crisis, and opposition in globalizing California. Vol. 21. Univ of California Press, 2007. Hayes, Kelly. \"How to Talk about #NoDAPL: A Native Perspective.\" Truthout, October 28, 2016. Retrieved from: . hooks, bell. All about love: New visions. Harper Perennial, 2001. Indigenous Feminist Power Panel, . King, Tiffany Lethabo with brontë velez, \"On the Black Shoals: Part 2\" For the Wild. December 14, 2022, . Kivel, Paul. Living in the shadow of the cross: Understanding and resisting the power and privilege of Christian hegemony. New Society Publishers, 2013. LANDBACK Manifesto. . Lawrence, Bonita, and Enakshi Dua. \"Decolonizing antiracism.\" Social justice4 (102 (2005): 120-143. Miller, Robert J., et al. Discovering indigenous lands: The doctrine of discovery in the English colonies. Oxford University Press, 2010. Moreton-Robinson, Aileen. \"Writing Off Treaties\" Chapter 4 in The white possessive: Property, power, and indigenous sovereignty. U of Minnesota Press, 2015. Tuck, Eve, and K. Wayne Yang. 2012. \"Decolonization Is Not a Metaphor.\" Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society1: 1-40. Wolfe, Patrick. \"Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native.\" Journal of genocide research4 (2006): 387-409. Doctrine of Disovery Papal Bulls: Dum Diversas 18 June, 1452, The Bull Romanus Pontifex (Nicholas V), January 8, 1455 and The Bull Inter Caetera (Alexander VI), May 4, 1493. Later expansions of these bulls include the Treaty of Tordesillas, June 7, 1494, the Patent Granted by King Henry VII to John Cabot and his Sons, March 5, 1496, The Requerimiento, 1513. . Footnotes [^1]: There are numerous timeframes in which to locate the beginning of settler-colonialism. Tarren Andrews, for example, dates it to the Medieval era. 1492 represents a particular type of rupture as well. I choose 1600 because of the sheer volume of \"commerce\" moving across the Atlantic in toxic triangles and quadrilaterals by this point in time. Furthermore, there are numerous ways to name both Indigenous connections to place while recognizing shared evolutionary history, without destabilizing Indigenous connections.  Indigenous Peoples are connected to their homelands in an indissoluble, irreducible way, and in ways very different than European settler-colonists. I do not see this as a contradiction to the shared human evolutionary history of ancient migration of everyone from the Great Rift Valley in what is now called eastern Africa. People walked from there all over the world, and became some of the first humans to relate to all sorts of different lands and waters, to become indigenous to those places. As the timescales are vastly different (10,000 years ago vs. 1000 years ago), and \"time immemorial\" refers to \"the time we collectively remember\". Numerous indigenous groups on Turtle Island, for example, do not have a collective memory of the trek from Africa and their stories begin with them located en situ. Though the collective trek happened, sharing that information with Indigenous Peoples whose origin stories state otherwise should not be used to displace their claim of being aboriginal to their homelands, instead, only used to recognize the ultimate kinship among humans (homo sapiens) making all people deserving of mutual recognition as persons. Personhood, and relatedly, belonging through kinship or social circumstances, has not always been afforded to people of African descent, both within and outside of some Indigenous communities. [^2]: Hayes, Kelly. \"How to Talk about #NoDAPL: A Native Perspective.\" Truthout, October 28, 2016. Retrieved from: . [^3]: Ibid. [^4]: As an author who primarily identifies ethnically as a person of African descent, I will use personal or collective pronouns when speaking about Black people and our experience. Like many “African-Americans”, I have ancestors who are “Native-Americans.” That history and those connections were not kept alive in my immediate or extended families. Therefore, I employ the third person singular and plurals when referring to indigenous people and their experiences. [^5]: Frazier, AfroFeministFutures For the World We Want. [^6]: Ransby-Sporn, AfroFeministFutures For the World We Want. [^7]: Moreton-Robinson, The White Possessive, Introduction. [^8]: King with velez, \"On the Black Shoals: Part 1\". [^9]: In the Indigenous Feminist Power Panel, Kim TallBear expressed an interest in relating to Black leaders in a people to people way, not mediated by white supremacy. [^10]: King with velez, \"On the Black Shoals: Part 2\". This paper is a work of mutual co-arising. As I was about to turn it in on December 15, I scrolled on Instagram and saw that this conversation on For The Wild just became available to the public. So exciting! I notice that their resource lists do not cite Combahee or the AMC panel. I have reached out to brontë share this vision of what a confluence of these streams of Black feminism may look like...how she and I might work together to actualize a vision of 2027."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/river/settler-colonialism-analyized/",
    "title": "Part 3: Using the Doctrine of Discovery to Foreground an Analysis of Settler Colonialism",
    "publishedAt": "2023-05-10T12:54:46Z",
    "description": "The Doctrine of Discovery (DoD, sometimes called the Doctrine of Christian Domination) is considered a major root of settler colonialism globally. The DoD is a set of 15th-century Catholic Papal Bulls that condoned the invasion, capture, murder, kidnapping and enslavement of anyone non-Christian.",
    "tags": [
      "law",
      "religion",
      "Christianity",
      "Environment",
      "river-series",
      "featured",
      "blog",
      "river"
    ],
    "textContent": "Introduction In the 1600s when enslaved Africans disembarked en masse and travel weary to this land mass, they arrived in a place where hundreds of Indigenous groups lived since time immemorial.[^1] Since that moment The majority of the interactions between Black people and Indigenous Peoples living in the so-called United States occur(red) in the bloody context of settler colonial imperialism. Black people were kidnapped, trafficked, enslaved, segregated, imprisoned, and assassinated by individuals and a system that did not value our personhood, but sought to exploit our bodies and souls.[^2] Indigenous peoples were (and continue to be) exploited, infected, schooled, silenced, relegated, and murdered by individuals and a system that did not (and does not) value their personhood, but sought (and seeks) to erase their bodies and souls.[^3] In the 21st century, both remain tolerated but targeted, appropriated, and tokenized.[^4] In response to lived conditions, feminisms developed in various Black and Indigenous communities as part of resisting settler-colonialism, racism, sexism, capitalism and classism, and other forms of oppression. Feminist movements in Black and Indigenous communities have been proximate, overlapping, and mutually reinforcing, but also at times in tension with one another. Though both expansive areas of collective work, Black feminisms and Indigenous feminisms tend to center different aspects of the struggle for liberation. Some strain between movements comes from the inadvertent solidification of the settler state that can happen as some Black feminists struggle for their freedom and self-determination within the settler state without explicitly articulating an analysis of settler colonialism. Other tensions come from some Indigenous feminists' refusal of participation in solidarity politics in a way that weakens 'BIPOC' coalitions facing repression, and various expressions of uninterrogated antiblackness. This paper posits that the Doctrine of Discovery (DoD), a 15th century set of religious and state decrees that facilitated Christian European global exploration and expropriation, is a ripe site to analyze together for both Indigenous and Black feminist organizers because it allows for the incorporation of an analysis of settler colonialism without de-centering issues that are essential to Black feminist theory and practice. As a Black feminist organizer with some experience organizing alongside Indigenous feminists, this set of four blogs will: 1. Examine the absence of a settler colonial analysis in two moments in the theoretical lineage of US Black feminism--the Combahee River Collective statement of 1977 and the Allied Media Conference AfroFeministFutures panel in 2022. 2. Explore opportunities presented for the inclusion of a settler colonial analysis 3. Analyze how engaging the Doctrine of Discovery can be a way Black feminists incorporate an analysis of settler colonialism without de-centering the issues that are essential to Black feminist theory and practice. 4. Imagine a future in which Black and Indigenous Feminisms make common cause, for the purpose of healing our lineages, and practicing the liberatory politics we aspire. Part 1{: .btn .btn--primary} Part 2{: .btn .btn--success} Part 3{: .btn .btn--warning} Part 4{: .btn .btn--danger} Using the Doctrine of Discovery to Foreground an Analysis of Settler Colonialism The Doctrine of Discovery (DoD, sometimes called the Doctrine of Christian Domination) is considered a major root of settler colonialism globally. The DoD is a set of 15th-century Catholic Papal Bulls that condoned the invasion, capture, murder, kidnapping and enslavement of anyone non-Christian.[^5] Even before wreaking massive havoc on the peoples and ecosystems of the so-called Americas, the Doctrine of Discovery justified the Christian conquest over and mistreatment of Muslims (Saracens) and invasion of the lands of African peoples (pagans) and all of their lands. African countries and communities continue to suffer due to colonization and imperialism. And this set of religious documents that made their way into so-called secular legal frameworks in the US and elsewhere govern the lives of millions of Black people. There isn't an area of life untouched by the DoD. It influences the legal, carceral, educational, health care, and economic system, to name a few of the interlocking systems of oppressions it legitimizes. The oft cited paragraph from 1452 Dum Diversas instructs Christian explorers on what to do if they found land where no European Christians were living. They were to ...invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery.[^6] In the US the DoD's codification into law occurred in 1823 when the Supreme Courts enshrined it through its decision of Johnson v M'Intosh making the government the only eligible sellers of Native land title. Even earlier, in the 1790-1793 writings of Thomas Jefferson, the DoD was used as justification for claiming the Pacific Northwest, as well as negotiating with France and Spain around the massive purchase of land from them (without regard for Native sovereignty and life in those areas).[^7] As recently as 2005 the DoD was cited by the Supreme Court, and the DoD itself has not been repudiated by the Catholic Church. Numerous Indigenous activists and their allies have been working in disparate locations and institutions (ecclesial and otherwise) to try to build a movement to dismantle the DoD. The budding movement holds conferences and does base-building activities. It is gaining momentum and envisages itself mobilizing a broad base. It is a space for Black feminists to learn and contribute as the discourse will be greatly enhanced by the participation of a critical number of Black feminists. The first DoD decree issued in 1452 enabled Portuguese sailors to invade the homes and lands of Indigenous Peoples in west Africa: to plunder their relations, to kidnap and enslave them. Until forcibly baptized, Africans were not seen as human, and therefore the land was considered empty of humans (terra nullius), and available for \"resource extraction\" by the Portuguese crown. As Portugal lost power, other European nations justified by the power of the DoD laid claim to the same lands (and more!) of Indigenous Africans, possessing it and all \"moveable and immovable goods.\" Indigenous Africans, like Indigenous Peoples in the so-called Americas, were considered moveable goods and real estate. Slavery became an economic engine, moving these \"goods and real estate\" across the Atlantic. While slavery takes up significant space in our imaginary as African diasporic peoples living in the US, recognizing the harm settler colonialism, via the DoD, caused to us as indigenous peoples can help us get back in touch with our own indigeneity and sense of land connection. However distant in the past, it did exist. Whether or not we remember the land skills of our ancestors, King maintains that wherever we are, \"the land is making space for you. It remembers you. It is calling you and pulling you towards it.\"[^8] Our communities lived in ways that were reciprocal, regenerative, and relational with the environments they had known for thousands of years. The wound of being torn from those is incalculable. Whether or not our indigeneity was fully eliminated in this process remains an open and heartbreaking question. In addition to the violence of separation from one's sovereign home, plantation slavery in Brazil, the Caribbean, and the US extracted labor from Black bodies as part of projects of extraction from the Earth. This caused trauma to both entities and forged a traumatic relationship between them. Gesturing back to and extending Emani Love's comment on the panel, healing Black relationship to land is rebellion against settler colonial racial capitalism which sought to break it. The ability of police to kill with near total impunity both Black and Indigenous people today is evidence of the DoD, as is the violent state repression when either community mobilizes for self-determination. The DoD document Requerimiento reveals the blueprint. It was read to peoples whose lands were being encountered by the Spanish for the first time. If an Indigenous community did not willingly surrender their land, liberty, and lifeways, and convert to European Christianity, the following would happen: We will take you and your wives and children and make them slaves, and as such we will sell them, and will dispose of you and them as Their Highnesses order. And we will take your property and will do to you all the harm and evil we can, as is done to vassals who will not obey their lord or who do not wish to accept him, or who resist and defy him. We avow that the deaths and harm which you will receive thereby will be your own blame, and not that of Their Highnesses, nor ours, nor of the gentlemen who come with us.\"[^9] This sentiment is echoed in 'Virginia Slave Codes' two centuries later, which both racially codified slavery and permitted violence against racialized people: All servants imported and brought into the Country...who were not Christians in their native Country...shall be accounted and be slaves. All Negro, mulatto and Indian slaves within this dominion... shall be held to be real estate. If any slave resist his master... correcting such slave, and shall happen to be killed in such correction...the master shall be free of all punishment...as if such accident never happened.[^10] These documents form the basis of the US legal system, law enforcement, segregation, and gentrification--they are rooted in the past and ongoing systems of oppression. The frameworks for punishment for resistance, baked-in impunity for law enforcement, and the entire prison system is built on the supremacies generated by the DoD. Note the italics above as to lack of culpability for the Europeans. Locating the fight to defund the police in a settler colonial, as well as race-based, framework allows for a deeper analysis than racial hatred to understand why the system is so entrenched, and what strategies will be required to abolish it. There is a growing body of literature on police and prison abolition. Lots of exciting opportunities---due to terrifying conditions---for Black and Indigenous feminists and carceral abolitionists to connect to produce knowledge together. One such example of this is the new book (May 2023 release date) by Kelly Hayes and Miriam Kaba, called Let This Radicalize You: Organizing and the Revolution of Reciprocal Care. I am looking forward to see how the DoD is addressed, if at all. The Slave Codes later morph into Black Codes that go in effect after emancipation. These Codes control the movement of Black people and create a police state to monitor Black conduct and punish any form of \"deviance.\" This leads to segregation, which further solidifies white society's self-referentiality and supremacy thinking due to separation and spatial power (in rural and urban spaces). In the last century this meant redlining, divestment, and programs such as urban renewal. In the contemporary era this means gentrification. The connection back from gentrification to the DoD is that the DoD is a document of entitlement to claim any place they want to live, and go live there. Still today many white people feel they are entitled to live anywhere they want, claiming it for themselves and, often, changing the historic character of the space (be it a continent, country, or neighborhood). Like the European Christian explorers before them they see themselves as \"improving and investing\" while ignoring or repressing the resistance from residents along the way. The DoD is a legal, cultural, and economic framework that came from a particular religious tradition. Religion (defined as a set of stories, orientations, rituals, and meaning making activities) is visible in the DoD. Therefore, it's a vital and often overlooked site of analysis that is necessary to include in and analyze as any part of a genealogy of white supremacy. Furthermore, race, as a social construction co-developed with modern Christian religious thinking, which also co-developed with colonialism. Paul Kivel, Jewish anti-violence educator, author, and activist writes:   Researching the history of racism led me to understand that before Europeans understood themselves to be white they thought of themselves as Christian. Jews, Pagans and Muslims were the long-standing Others. When encountered, [Indigenous Peoples] and Africans became new heathens in the same good/evil equation. It was only when some Jews and Muslims, and subsequently [Indigenous Peoples] and enslaved Africans, began to convert to Christianity that white Christians felt the need to draw an uncrossable line. Even if members of these groups became Christian, they would still be ineligible for participation in society because they were not white. Being a white Christian (and a cishet man) became the criterion for being fully human.[^11] Since many Black folks have experience with the Christian church, understanding this historical background offers an opportunity to interrogate various religious inheritances. It is important to interrogate what aspects of Christianity, mediated through white supremacy, have influenced the ways Black Christians understand themselves, their theology and ethics. Some of the things considered essential to the faith have little to do with its indigenous wisdom tradition orientations in the ancient near east, and more to do with European interpretations of the previously pacifist and communal faith practices. A few examples include negative views of the naked body, constructions of masculinity and femininity, dance, and the nuclear family structure. Though there were continental Africans who were Christian before being trafficked and enslaved, most Black folks encountered the Christian church in the context of enslavement. It was generally used by white Christians in an attempt to pacify enslaved peoples. Upon reading the Biblical text, however, many connected to the stories of liberation therein. Most of the biblical stories are codified oral tradition from other indigenous groups. Issues of slavery, proto-settler colonialism, conquest, and other themes appear in the complication of texts considered \"Holy Scriptures\" by many. For Black feminists involved in organizing communities of faith, there is an opening here to de-westernize Christianity and re-situate the Bible as a product of the northern African and eastern Mediterranean geopolitical and cultural contexts. There are more reasons to use the DoD as a way to integrate an analysis of settler colonialism into Black feminism. They will emerge once Black feminists begin to wrestle with the DoD and its implications. Since Black feminism is grounded in practical action, integrating the analysis of settler colonialism will lead to actions informed by it. References AfroFeministFutures For the World We Want. Allied Media Conference, Allied Media Project, 2022.   Arvin, Maile, Eve Tuck, and Angie Morrill. \"Decolonizing feminism: Challenging connections between settler colonialism and heteropatriarchy.\" Feminist formations(2013): 8-34. Beloved Community, Asheville, North Carolina. .  Black Women Radicals www.blackwomenradicals.com Byrd, Jodi A. The transit of empire: Indigenous critiques of colonialism. U of Minnesota Press, 2011. Collective, Combahee River. \"The Combahee river collective statement.\" (self-published in 1977), cited in Words of Fire: An Anthology of African American Feminist Thought, ed. Beverly Guy-Sheftall (New York: New Press, 1995), 233. Gilmore, Ruth Wilson. Golden gulag: Prisons, surplus, crisis, and opposition in globalizing California. Vol. 21. Univ of California Press, 2007. Hayes, Kelly. \"How to Talk about #NoDAPL: A Native Perspective.\" Truthout, October 28, 2016. Retrieved from: . hooks, bell. All about love: New visions. Harper Perennial, 2001. Indigenous Feminist Power Panel, . King, Tiffany Lethabo with brontë velez, \"On the Black Shoals: Part 2\" For the Wild. December 14, 2022, . Kivel, Paul. Living in the shadow of the cross: Understanding and resisting the power and privilege of Christian hegemony. New Society Publishers, 2013. LANDBACK Manifesto. . Lawrence, Bonita, and Enakshi Dua. \"Decolonizing antiracism.\" Social justice4 (102 (2005): 120-143. Miller, Robert J., et al. Discovering indigenous lands: The doctrine of discovery in the English colonies. Oxford University Press, 2010. Moreton-Robinson, Aileen. \"Writing Off Treaties\" Chapter 4 in The white possessive: Property, power, and indigenous sovereignty. U of Minnesota Press, 2015. Tuck, Eve, and K. Wayne Yang. 2012. \"Decolonization Is Not a Metaphor.\" Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society1: 1-40. Wolfe, Patrick. \"Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native.\" Journal of genocide research4 (2006): 387-409. Doctrine of Disovery Papal Bulls: Dum Diversas 18 June, 1452, The Bull Romanus Pontifex (Nicholas V), January 8, 1455 and The Bull Inter Caetera (Alexander VI), May 4, 1493. Later expansions of these bulls include the Treaty of Tordesillas, June 7, 1494, the Patent Granted by King Henry VII to John Cabot and his Sons, March 5, 1496, The Requerimiento, 1513. . Footnotes [^1]: There are numerous timeframes in which to locate the beginning of settler-colonialism. Tarren Andrews, for example, dates it to the Medieval era. 1492 represents a particular type of rupture as well. I choose 1600 because of the sheer volume of \"commerce\" moving across the Atlantic in toxic triangles and quadrilaterals by this point in time. Furthermore, there are numerous ways to name both Indigenous connections to place while recognizing shared evolutionary history, without destabilizing Indigenous connections.  Indigenous Peoples are connected to their homelands in an indissoluble, irreducible way, and in ways very different than European settler-colonists. I do not see this as a contradiction to the shared human evolutionary history of ancient migration of everyone from the Great Rift Valley in what is now called eastern Africa. People walked from there all over the world, and became some of the first humans to relate to all sorts of different lands and waters, to become indigenous to those places. As the timescales are vastly different (10,000 years ago vs. 1000 years ago), and \"time immemorial\" refers to \"the time we collectively remember\". Numerous indigenous groups on Turtle Island, for example, do not have a collective memory of the trek from Africa and their stories begin with them located en situ. Though the collective trek happened, sharing that information with Indigenous Peoples whose origin stories state otherwise should not be used to displace their claim of being aboriginal to their homelands, instead, only used to recognize the ultimate kinship among humans (homo sapiens) making all people deserving of mutual recognition as persons. Personhood, and relatedly, belonging through kinship or social circumstances, has not always been afforded to people of African descent, both within and outside of some Indigenous communities. [^2]: Hayes, Kelly. \"How to Talk about #NoDAPL: A Native Perspective.\" Truthout, October 28, 2016. Retrieved from: . [^3]: Ibid. [^4]: As an author who primarily identifies ethnically as a person of African descent, I will use personal or collective pronouns when speaking about Black people and our experience. Like many “African-Americans”, I have ancestors who are “Native-Americans.” That history and those connections were not kept alive in my immediate or extended families. Therefore, I employ the third person singular and plurals when referring to indigenous people and their experiences. [^5]: A listing of these bulls includes Papal Bull Dum Diversas 18 June, 1452, The Bull Romanus Pontifex (Nicholas V), January 8, 1455 and The Bull Inter Caetera (Alexander VI), May 4, 1493. Later expansions of these bulls include the Treaty of Tordesillas, June 7, 1494,  the Patent Granted by King Henry VII to John Cabot and his Sons, March 5, 1496, The Requerimiento, 1513. https://doctrineofdiscovery.org/. [^6]: Dum Diversas, 1452. [^7]: Miller, Robert J., et al. Discovering indigenous lands: The doctrine of discovery in the English colonies. Oxford University Press, 2010.The \"foundational US Indian policy as stated in 1783 by General (and later President) George Washington was the 'Savage as the Wolf.' As he explained to Congress, the expectation of the United States was that Indian lands and resources would naturally be acquired by Americans. Washington compared Indians to animals that would naturally retreat and lose their lands to the advance of the United States. The US government operated under this policy until the 1960s.\" (page 66). [^8]: King with velez, \"On the Black Shoals: Part 2\". [^9]: www.doctrineofdiscovery.org [^10]: Beloved Community, . [^11]: Kivel, Paul. Living in the shadow of the cross: Understanding and resisting the power and privilege of Christian hegemony. New Society Publishers, 2013."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/rns-doctrineofdiscovery-oped/",
    "title": "Undoing the Christian nationalism of the Doctrine of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2023-05-09T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "The repudiation, which came in a statement from a bureaucratic office, not Pope Francis himself, said the doctrine had been “manipulated” by colonizers “to justify immoral acts against Indigenous peoples that were carried out, at times, without opposition from ecclesial authorities.” The native Americans also felt the statement downplayed the active role the Catholic Church took in driving the colonization and destruction of Indigenous populations.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "oped",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "The repudiation, which came in a statement from a bureaucratic office, not Pope Francis himself, said the doctrine had been “manipulated” by colonizers “to justify immoral acts against Indigenous peoples that were carried out, at times, without opposition from ecclesial authorities.” The native Americans also felt the statement downplayed the active role the Catholic Church took in driving the colonization and destruction of Indigenous populations.",
    "externalUrl": "https://religionnews.com/2023/05/08/undoing-the-christian-nationalism-of-the-doctrine-of-discovery/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/rns-stealing-land-name-god/",
    "title": "Podcast🎙️ Stealing Land in the Name of God",
    "publishedAt": "2024-05-15T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "What’s a 15th-century statement from a pope have to do with U.S. land policy today? In this conversation, Amanda Henderson and Steven Newcomb dive deeper into how the founding documents of the U.S. contain a claim of a God-ordained right for Christians to take land from non-Christians, which continues to be used as legal precedent in today’s world. Together, they advocate for a more inclusive and holistic approach to social and political change, one that acknowledges and respects Indigenous perspectives and sovereignty. Listen Now Apple Podcasts Audible Spotify",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "land-theft",
      "doctrineofdiscovery",
      "podcast",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "What's a 15th-century statement from a pope have to do with U.S. land policy today? In this conversation, Amanda Henderson and Steven Newcomb dive deeper into how the founding documents of the U.S. contain a claim of a God-ordained right for Christians to take land from non-Christians, which continues to be used as legal precedent in today's world. Together, they advocate for a more inclusive and holistic approach to social and political change, one that acknowledges and respects Indigenous perspectives and sovereignty. Listen Now Apple Podcasts Audible Spotify",
    "externalUrl": "https://religionnews.com/2024/05/15/stealing-land-in-the-name-of-god/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/settler-colonialism-higher-education/",
    "title": "Settler Colonialism in Higher Education: Syracuse University and the Legacy of the Doctrine of Discovery (... and Onondaga Limestone)",
    "publishedAt": "2024-02-01T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Keywords: Settler colonialism, higher education, land grant, the Whipple Report, Onondaga Nation, Syracuse University Introduction In this article, I examine ways in which Syracuse University, a higher education institution located in Central New York, was founded from settler colonialism vis-à-vis the Doctrine of Discovery. I provide three historical moments in which campus leaders, legal constituents, and religious actors associated with the private interests of Syracuse University have enacted fraudulent treaty making, land theft, assimilation efforts, and forced religious conversion of Indigenous Peoples. The three key historical moments are as follows: “Land Grab Beginnings”: Ezra Cornell donated to Genesee College of Lima (1865) after the college demanded for funds from The Morrill Act of 1862, which helped to secure the founding of Syracuse University, ensuring that the university benefitted from the seizure of Indigenous lands. “The Campus on the Hill”: New York State interfered with federal treaty arrangements and in 1870 Judge Comstock acquired 50-acres of farmland to donate to Syracuse University, which moved campus to “the hill” just after its founding. “The Onondaga Indian Problem” : Syracuse University’s third chancellor, Chancellor Charles Sims and his colleagues, attempted to coerce the Onondaga Nation through a fraudulent treaty (1883) to sell their lands to the state for the benefit of Syracuse University. This paper shows how higher education institution were founded from settler colonialism. I situate Indigenous resiliency in this paper by showing how the Onondaga Nation navigated political tensions and economic sovereignty through use of valuable raw materials. I intentionally examine these historical instances through the lens of settler colonialism in higher education, which I define in the next section. Defining “Settler Colonialism” in Higher Education Settler colonialism has shaped the education system throughout the world. In Decolonization is not a metaphor , Tuck and Yang (2012) describe settler colonialism as both external and internal modes— external, seizing for personal gain (e.g., forced removal of Indigenous peoples from homelands onto reservations for extraction of uranium and/ or oil) and internal, enacting control or maintenance (e.g., residential boardings schools). Tuck and Yang define settler colonialism as, settlers who arrive with “the intention of making a new home on the land, a homemaking that insists on settler sovereignty over all things in their new domain” (5). Yellow Bird (2020) provides that Indigenous scholars of higher education often define institutions of higher education as “colonial institutions” to mean institutions, situated on Indigenous lands, who provide an education from a White, Eurocentric framework. Higher education institutions fulfill both internal and external definitions of settler colonialism (Yellow Bird, 13). The following will explore ways in which Syracuse University enacted settler colonialism at its founding. “The Shining City on the Hill”: The Doctrine of Discovery and Higher Education In 1452, a Papal Bull from Pope Nicholas V bestowed “special graces . . . to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever” (Mudimbe, 2005) all over the world initiated what is known as the Doctrine of Discovery, the “special graces” to steal Indigenous lands and subjugate Indigenous peoples. In 1493 Pope Alexander VI introduced “Inter Caetera” which validated Christian conquest over non-Christians all over the world including “the New World”, classifying Indigenous peoples among the “flora and fauna” and later as “sub-human” and so too, labelling Indigenous intellect as “savage” or “barbarous” (Adams, 1988). Christopher Columbus wrote in his diaries about his encounters with Indigenous Peoples (Taino) that they would be, according to Calloway (2016) “good and intelligent servants” who would “become Christians very easily, for it seemed to me that they had no religion” (p. 73). In the short documentary, Pioneering the American Frontier (All Things Wild West, 2021, June) historian Howard Means describes that God had appointed settler the responsibility to claim Indigenous lands in the name of God. After describing ways US boundaries were established (taken), Means defines this further, that Christian settlers had an inherent right to the land, the sense that God had ordained that the American people should fulfill their boundaries, basically Manifest Destiny, that it was America’s obligation as the shining city on the hill to claim this land. (6:15) Centuries later, in 1823, the Doctrine of Discovery was adopted into US law through the Supreme Court in Johnson V. Mcintosh (1823). The context of this paper is situated right before the Dawes Act (1887) or “the General Allotment Act” was signed into law, which authorized the federal government to allot or break up Tribal lands, sell them to American citizens, and encourage Native peoples to become US citizens. Higher education institutions at their founding were directly influenced by Termination Era policies, where Indigenous Peoples were disbanded from their homelands and their lands were bought and sold to benefit American citizens and racism about Indigenous Peoples surged. “Land Grab Beginnings” In the early 19 th century, groups of economically disadvantaged populations were all too often excluded from higher education entirely— specifically farmers and blue-collar workers. In the late 1830’s a political movement swept through the United States, calling for the creation of agricultural colleges for the education of working-class people (Zimdahl, 2018). In 1857 the Morrill Act was proposed, passed in 1859, and the Morrill Land Grant College Act of 1862 was enacted. The act was passed the start of the residential boarding school era, to which the federal government sought lands to finance the founding of college and university campuses, which dispossessed Indigenous Peoples of almost one million acres of their lands (Anderson, 2022). Cornell University 1 was the largest beneficiary of the Morrill Act and received the most (about a tenth) of the total land granted to the founding and benefit of higher education institutions (O’Connell, 2020). After Cornell refused to be built on a hill in Syracuse, NY; Ezra Cornell sought out another city to found Cornell University in Ithaca, New York (approximately 50 miles south of Syracuse, NY). After confirmation that Cornell University would receive funding from the Morill Act, this stirred up considerable pushback from other schools and colleges. According to Halliday (1905), “denominational colleges tried to obtain a share of the proceeds and they succeeded in stirring up a religious sentiment against the act, on account of the proposed non - sectarian character of the new university” (p. 16). Two colleges in direct opposition to Cornell University were the Peoples College and the Genessee College at Lima, the latter which would become Syracuse University. Halliday (1095) writes, Far more unjust was the demand of Genesee College of Lima, a small denominational college which was afterward transferred to Syracuse and absorbed by Syracuse University. This institution insisted that it was entitled to a share in the land grant fund and demanded that $25,000 of that fund should be paid to it. (p. 17) After Cornell had secured their founding as the primary university to be founded from Land Grant Funds, according to Halliday (1905), Ezra Cornell had paid “$25,000 to Genesee College… which showed that the requirements laid down in the charter had been complied with, and that Cornell University had become entitled to the proceeds from the land grant fund” (p. 19). After seeking Land Grant funding and being denied, Syracuse University was founded from Ezra Cornell’s contributions to Genesee College of Lima from his own money, in lieu of Genessee College’s requests and denial for Land Grant funding.   “The Campus on the Hill” In 1870 the Methodist church held its state convention in Syracuse. During the convention a Methodist school located in Lima, NY passed a resolution towards the founding of a new university, “where Methodism had thrived for decades” (Syracuse.com). No doubt the school’s ability to charter a university was directly related to Ezra Cornell’s donation from the Morill Act, but there were several others who were interested in helping to fund such a university. Judge George Comstock of Syracuse was one such person, who offered the “the hill” on which Syracuse University now stands, which were then just 50 acres of farmland (1870) and he also donated $75,000, to contribute towards the establishment of Syracuse University. Not much is recorded about how Judge Comstock came to acquire that land. According to Greene (2000), the first building built on campus was the Hall of Languages, which would become the “most recognizable building in the history of the university” (p. 4). On September 1, 1871, the cornerstone of the Hall of Languages had been laid, which was constructed out of Onondaga Limestone. Later, in May 1873, the Hall of Languages which was built “on a fifty-acre tract of land overlooking the city of Syracuse that had been donated to the University by George F. Comstock” (p. 4). At the cost of $136, 000, The Hall of Languages was built and dedicated in May 1873, built from the finest limestone in the state. Attorney for the Onondaga Nation, Joe Heath, explains that Syracuse University’s founding and how they acquired the land is a mystery, but “how Onondaga lost it is simple: it was stolen” (para 3, Rivera, 2021). Of course, Joe Heath is referring to over 100 years prior, in which New York State illegally interfered with federal treaties to acquire lands from the Onondaga Nation and other Haudenosaunee nations through illegal deeds and treaties made with New York State officials (Graymont, 1976). New York State’s illegal dealings foreshadow much of the ways in which Syracuse University and its leadership attempted to completely undermine and eradicate the Onondaga people, which is discussed in the next section. “The Onondaga Indian Problem” The Indian Removal Policy was most favored by settler society, but while Indian land was being stolen, bought, then resold through the Allotment Act (or the Dawes Act, 1887), subsequently the “Indian problem” became much more prominent and politicized as land became available (Otis, 2014). Much of these attitudes about Indigenous Peoples were documented and well known. The third chancellor of Syracuse University, Charles Sims, a Methodist preacher, served as chair of a committee of religious converts. Sims and his constituents participated in interviews conducted by a Chairman, James S. Whipple, called The Special Committee to Investigate the Indian Problem of New York State who eventually generated a large manuscript known as “The Whipple Report” to which the committee compiled interviews with the specific purpose to assimilate and divide Indigenous lands in New York State. Sims describes how he and his colleagues attempted to negotiate a “treaty” between New York State, Syracuse University and the Onondaga Nation. Interviews recorded in the Whipple Report (1889) reveal that in Sims and his associates, pushed for total assimilation of Onondaga children in order to divide Onondaga lands to benefit Syracuse University, an effort which ultimately failed. Later Sims mentions this fraudulent treaty in his own journal notes, now located in Syracuse University’s archives called, “The Onondaga Treaty” (1883). In the following subsections, I describe Chancellor Sims’ efforts to divide and privatize Indigenous lands and the state’s efforts to do the same, in the Whipple Report. Image source: The Onondaga Treaty- Report of the Commission appointed by the State of New York 1883, Syracuse University Archives, Box 10, folder RG 01, Accessed: November 11, 2022. The Onondaga Treaty. Chancellor Sims describes the “treaty” which is now held in the Syracuse University archives, on the fifth floor of Bird Library. According to Sims’ notes, the New York State legislature appointed Sims and his colleagues to examine the “social and moral conditions and the usages of Onondaga Indians living on the reservation in this county” (Sims, 1883, p. 1). Sims continued, that on March 6, 1883, after making the report to the legislature, that he and his colleagues were commissioned to “negotiate a new treaty with the Onondaga nation looking to the division of lands in severally” (p. 2). Sims went on to describe the estimated size of the population on the Onondaga nation, treaties made with Onondaga between the state and federal governments, and his perceptions of their living conditions. He describes in length the “grotesqueness” of Onondaga nation residents, their “savage” ways, their drunkenness, and lack of civilization. Sims writes in depth about his disdain for Onondaga spiritual practices and gender dynamics which he notes that women are in charge of land acquisition, and what he refers to as “occupational possession” which is universally respected (p. 16). He writes about some “notable persons” of whom he is acquainted on the nation, but also his disagreements with marriage and lifestyle of what he refers to as the pagan religion. Finally, Sims describes his experiences with diplomacy and “ratifying” the treaty with the Onondaga. According to Sims (1883) record, After many meetings and the experience of much diplomacy a treaty was agreed upon, subject to a vote of approval by the tribe and nine o’clock Thursday morning was appointed as the time for annexing the marks of the chiefs and the signatures of the commissioners. All parties had been warned to be promptly on time. The commissioners entered the chambers from promptly at nine o’clock. The chiefs were not there yet. Half-past nine, ten, eleven, half-past eleven came and yet no chiefs. Just as the commission was about to adjourn at twelve, the Indians began to straggle in. I said, “Chief la Forte, why were you not here at nine o’clock as agreed upon, and why have you kept us waiting for so long?” “O, that’s the Indian of it,” was his perfectly self-satisfied reply. The treaty was finally signed and a day appointed for a the vote of ratification. Meantime a white man who had unlawfully leased a valuable place on the reservation went down and interviewed the voters, and when the ballot was cast, it was nearly unanimous against the treaty. It ended two years work of philanthropy and diplomacy in the interest of morals, religion, liberty, and good government in the nation of the Onondagas. (p. 30-31). The philanthropic “treaty” negotiation effort led by Chancellor Sims was indeed a fraudulent treaty. Sims describes how the Onondaga leased out some of their lands to bring work and economic stability to the nation. A mysterious man intervened in the treaty that was led by Sims. The Whipple report details more about this mysterious man with interest in the quarries of the Onondagas. The Whipple Report. A document titled, The Special Committee to Investigate the Indian Problem of New York State also known as “The Whipple Report” was designed to investigate the social, moral, and industrial condition of tribes or Indigenous nations in New York State. The special committee examined all treaties between each Indigenous nation and interviewed participants as to the conditions of each tribal nation to determine legislative action across the state. As documented in the Whipple Report, Charles Sims and Bishop Huntington, 2 both of whom were Syracuse University leaders and affiliates, mention the condition of the Onondaga Nation. Sims co-founded a local group (“committee”) which consisted of many people in the Syracuse area including religious leaders, missionaries, judges, and politicians— and of course, individuals associated with Syracuse University— to convince people to address the customs of the Onondaga Nation and the ways in which Onondaga people conducted their lives. Their group called attention to their problem with Onondaga ceremonies, agriculture, schooling, child rearing, and their marriages. The following excerpt was taken from this interview conducted with Duncan in the report (1889), Image source: The Special Committee to Investigate the Indian Problem of New York State, 1889, p. 1221. Local politicians and people of power were constantly meeting about “what to do” about the Onondaga Nation, considering their interest in the land. It was clear that this local group (“committee”), co-chaired by Chancellor Sims, wanted to do something about the “Onondaga Indian Problem” (p. 1221) to which they made mention to a “treaty” with Onondaga. According to the Whipple Report (1889) on July 9, 1888, the committee interviewed Syracuse University Chancellor Charles Sims and Sims summed up what he thought should be done about the Onondaga people and their lands, According to Chancellor Sims, Onondaga Nation lands needed to be sold off and Onondaga citizens needed to become citizens of the United States. But to the local committee’s dismay, Onondaga Nation citizens for the most part wanted nothing to do with the so-called treaty. The non-Native man who leased the quarry on the south end from the Onondaga Nation paid members of the nation to mine what is known as “Onondaga limestone,” the same type of limestone which helped to build the Brooklyn Bridge, and Genesse County Courthouse, and The Hall of Languages at Syracuse University. Conclusion In this paper, I discussed several historical moments in which Syracuse University followed in the long dark legacy of settler “discovery.” After the Doctrine of Discovery was adopted into US law, Indigenous lands were thought to be fair game for most of the general American public, especially those in power positions in institutions of higher education. In 1862 the Morrill Land Grant College Act was passed through the Supreme Court which funded the founding land-grant-colleges, directly from the sales of federally “owned” lands obtained from seizure of Indigenous lands during the allotment era. In 1865, Cornell University donated $25,000 from Morrill grant aid, towards Syracuse University’s founding (this amount is worth approximately $500,000 today). In early 1870’s Judge Comstock offered Syracuse University a mysterious 50 acres of farmland on the hill. In 1870 Syracuse University was founded. In 1883 Chancellor Charles Sims created a fraudulent treaty, which Onondaga Chiefs voted unanimously against. In 1889 the Whipple Report was published about New York State’s years of efforts to completely seize all Indigenous lands in New York State, an effort which ultimately failed. Precious limestone in Onondaga quarries, later named “Onondaga Limestone” contributed to the production of salt in the City of Syracuse (Smith, 1904, p. 199). The limestone quarries offered the Onondaga Nation some level of economic advantage and political sovereignty during a period of Indigenous termination. References Adams, K. B. (1988). Order in the Courts: Resolution of Tribal/State Criminal Jurisdictional Disputes. Tulsa LJ, 24, 89. All Things Wild West (2021, June). Pioneering The American Frontier - A documentary on The Oregon Trail . YouTube video. Retrieved: Pioneering The American Frontier - A documentary on The Oregon Trail - YouTube . Anderson, K. (2022). Land Acknowledgments at Land-Grant Libraries and Archives: A Systematic Review.  Journal of Western Archives ,  13 (1), 9. Bird, E. Y. (2020).  Settler colonial institutions of higher education: Indigenizations, generations & warriors (chasing butterflies)  (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Arizona). Retrieved: Settler Colonial Institutions of Higher Education: Indigenizations, Generations & Warriors (Chasing Butterflies) - ProQuest . Calloway, C. G. (2016). First peoples: A documentary survey of American Indian history. Bedford/St. Martin’s. Graymont, B. (1976). New York State Indian Policy after the Revolution.  New York History ,  57 (4), 438-474. Greene, J. R. (2000).  The Hill: An Illustrated Biography of Syracuse University, 1870-Present . Syracuse University Press. Halliday, S. D. (1905). History of the Agricultural College Land Grant Act of July 2, 1862: Devoted Largely to the History of the” land Scrip” which Under that Grant was Allotted to the State of New York and Afterwards Given to Cornell University. Ithaca Democrat Press. Mudimbe, V. Y. (2005). Romanus Pontifex (1454) and the expansion of Europe. Postcolonialisms: an anthology of cultural theory and criticism, 51. O’Connell, S. (2020). Cornell’s Land Grant Heritage: A Sinister Tradition. The Cornell Daily Sun. Otis, D. S. (2014).  The Dawes Act and the allotment of Indian lands  (Vol. 123). University of Oklahoma Press. Rivera, A. R. (2021). It’s Not Our Hill. The News House. Retrieved: https://www.thenewshouse.com/divide/indigenous-inequality-hill-onondaga-activists/ . Sims, C. (1883). The Onondaga Treaty- Report of the Commission appointed by the State of New York 1883 , Syracuse University Archives, Box 10, folder RG 01, Accessed: November 11, 2022. Smith, C. E. (1904). Pioneer times in the Onondaga country (No. 281). CW Bardeen. Syracuse.com. (2021, March). Looking back at Syracuse University’s founding and the creation of Orange basketball. Retrieved: Looking back at Syracuse University’s founding and the creation of Orange basketball - syracuse.com . Tuck, E., Yang, K.W. (2012). Decolonization is not a metaphor . Decolonization: Indigeneity, education & society, vol. 1, no. 1, 2012, pp. 1-40. Whipple, J. S. (1889).  Report of Special Committee to Investigate the Indian Problem of the State of New York: Appointed by the Assembly of 1888. Transmitted to the Legislature February 1, 1889  (No. 51). Troy Press Company. Zimdahl, R. L. (2003). The mission of land grant colleges of agriculture. American journal of alternative agriculture, 18(2), 103-115. Endnotes Cornell University sits on stolen Cayuga (Gayogo̱hó:nǫɁ) lands. The Cayuga Nation, a member of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, lost over 1,200 acres of land after New York State violated the 1794 Canandaigua treaty.  ↩ Present-day Syracuse University houses the School of Education in a building called “Huntington Hall,” named after Bishop Fredrick D. Huntington, a man who endorsed Christian conversion among the Onondaga people and whose participation in a local committee endorsed fraudulent treaty-making with the specific aim to divide the lands of the Onondaga Nation.  ↩",
    "tags": [
      "education",
      "Onondaga",
      "Haudenosaunee",
      "Indigenous",
      "Syracuse",
      "settler-colonialism",
      "higher-education",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Keywords: Settler colonialism, higher education, land grant, the Whipple Report, Onondaga Nation, Syracuse University Introduction In this article, I examine ways in which Syracuse University, a higher education institution located in Central New York, was founded from settler colonialism vis-à-vis the Doctrine of Discovery. I provide three historical moments in which campus leaders, legal constituents, and religious actors associated with the private interests of Syracuse University have enacted fraudulent treaty making, land theft, assimilation efforts, and forced religious conversion of Indigenous Peoples. The three key historical moments are as follows: 1. \"Land Grab Beginnings\": Ezra Cornell donated to Genesee College of Lima (1865) after the college demanded for funds from The Morrill Act of 1862, which helped to secure the founding of Syracuse University, ensuring that the university benefitted from the seizure of Indigenous lands. 2. \"The Campus on the Hill\": New York State interfered with federal treaty arrangements and in 1870 Judge Comstock acquired 50-acres of farmland to donate to Syracuse University, which moved campus to \"the hill\" just after its founding. 3. \"The Onondaga Indian Problem\": Syracuse University's third chancellor, Chancellor Charles Sims and his colleagues, attempted to coerce the Onondaga Nation through a fraudulent treaty (1883) to sell their lands to the state for the benefit of Syracuse University. This paper shows how higher education institution were founded from settler colonialism. I situate Indigenous resiliency in this paper by showing how the Onondaga Nation navigated political tensions and economic sovereignty through use of valuable raw materials. I intentionally examine these historical instances through the lens of settler colonialism in higher education, which I define in the next section. Defining \"Settler Colonialism\" in Higher Education Settler colonialism has shaped the education system throughout the world. In Decolonization is not a metaphor, Tuck and Yang (2012) describe settler colonialism as both external and internal modes---external, seizing for personal gain (e.g., forced removal of Indigenous peoples from homelands onto reservations for extraction of uranium and/ or oil) and internal, enacting control or maintenance (e.g., residential boardings schools). Tuck and Yang define settler colonialism as, settlers who arrive with \"the intention of making a new home on the land, a homemaking that insists on settler sovereignty over all things in their new domain\" (5). Yellow Bird (2020) provides that Indigenous scholars of higher education often define institutions of higher education as \"colonial institutions\" to mean institutions, situated on Indigenous lands, who provide an education from a White, Eurocentric framework. Higher education institutions fulfill both internal and external definitions of settler colonialism (Yellow Bird, 13). The following will explore ways in which Syracuse University enacted settler colonialism at its founding. \"The Shining City on the Hill\": The Doctrine of Discovery and Higher Education In 1452, a Papal Bull from Pope Nicholas V bestowed \"special graces . . . to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever\" (Mudimbe, 2005) all over the world initiated what is known as the Doctrine of Discovery, the \"special graces\" to steal Indigenous lands and subjugate Indigenous peoples. In 1493 Pope Alexander VI introduced \"Inter Caetera\" which validated Christian conquest over non-Christians all over the world including \"the New World\", classifying Indigenous peoples among the \"flora and fauna\" and later as \"sub-human\" and so too, labelling Indigenous intellect as \"savage\" or \"barbarous\" (Adams, 1988). Christopher Columbus wrote in his diaries about his encounters with Indigenous Peoples (Taino) that they would be, according to Calloway (2016) \"good and intelligent servants\" who would \"become Christians very easily, for it seemed to me that they had no religion\" (p. 73). In the short documentary, Pioneering the American Frontier (All Things Wild West, 2021, June) historian Howard Means describes that God had appointed settler the responsibility to claim Indigenous lands in the name of God. After describing ways US boundaries were established (taken), Means defines this further, that Christian settlers had an inherent right to the land, the sense that God had ordained that the American people should fulfill their boundaries, basically Manifest Destiny, that it was America's obligation as the shining city on the hill to claim this land. (6:15) Centuries later, in 1823, the Doctrine of Discovery was adopted into US law through the Supreme Court in Johnson V. Mcintosh (1823). The context of this paper is situated right before the Dawes Act (1887) or \"the General Allotment Act\" was signed into law, which authorized the federal government to allot or break up Tribal lands, sell them to American citizens, and encourage Native peoples to become US citizens. Higher education institutions at their founding were directly influenced by Termination Era policies, where Indigenous Peoples were disbanded from their homelands and their lands were bought and sold to benefit American citizens and racism about Indigenous Peoples surged. \"Land Grab Beginnings\" In the early 19 th century, groups of economically disadvantaged populations were all too often excluded from higher education entirely--- specifically farmers and blue-collar workers. In the late 1830's a political movement swept through the United States, calling for the creation of agricultural colleges for the education of working-class people (Zimdahl, 2018). In 1857 the Morrill Act was proposed, passed in 1859, and the Morrill Land Grant College Act of 1862 was enacted. The act was passed the start of the residential boarding school era, to which the federal government sought lands to finance the founding of college and university campuses, which dispossessed Indigenous Peoples of almost one million acres of their lands (Anderson, 2022). Cornell University[^1] was the largest beneficiary of the Morrill Act and received the most (about a tenth) of the total land granted to the founding and benefit of higher education institutions (O'Connell, 2020). After Cornell refused to be built on a hill in Syracuse, NY; Ezra Cornell sought out another city to found Cornell University in Ithaca, New York (approximately 50 miles south of Syracuse, NY). After confirmation that Cornell University would receive funding from the Morill Act, this stirred up considerable pushback from other schools and colleges. According to Halliday (1905), \"denominational colleges tried to obtain a share of the proceeds and they succeeded in stirring up a religious sentiment against the act, on account of the proposed non - sectarian character of the new university\" (p. 16). Two colleges in direct opposition to Cornell University were the Peoples College and the Genessee College at Lima, the latter which would become Syracuse University. Halliday (1095) writes, Far more unjust was the demand of Genesee College of Lima, a small denominational college which was afterward transferred to Syracuse and absorbed by Syracuse University. This institution insisted that it was entitled to a share in the land grant fund and demanded that $25,000 of that fund should be paid to it. (p. 17) After Cornell had secured their founding as the primary university to be founded from Land Grant Funds, according to Halliday (1905), Ezra Cornell had paid \"$25,000 to Genesee College... which showed that the requirements laid down in the charter had been complied with, and that Cornell University had become entitled to the proceeds from the land grant fund\" (p. 19). After seeking Land Grant funding and being denied, Syracuse University was founded from Ezra Cornell's contributions to Genesee College of Lima from his own money, in lieu of Genessee College's requests and denial for Land Grant funding.   \"The Campus on the Hill\" In 1870 the Methodist church held its state convention in Syracuse. During the convention a Methodist school located in Lima, NY passed a resolution towards the founding of a new university, \"where Methodism had thrived for decades\" (Syracuse.com). No doubt the school's ability to charter a university was directly related to Ezra Cornell's donation from the Morill Act, but there were several others who were interested in helping to fund such a university. Judge George Comstock of Syracuse was one such person, who offered the \"the hill\" on which Syracuse University now stands, which were then just 50 acres of farmland (1870) and he also donated $75,000, to contribute towards the establishment of Syracuse University. Not much is recorded about how Judge Comstock came to acquire that land. According to Greene (2000), the first building built on campus was the Hall of Languages, which would become the \"most recognizable building in the history of the university\" (p. 4). On September 1, 1871, the cornerstone of the Hall of Languages had been laid, which was constructed out of Onondaga Limestone. Later, in May 1873, the Hall of Languages which was built \"on a fifty-acre tract of land overlooking the city of Syracuse that had been donated to the University by George F. Comstock\" (p. 4). At the cost of $136, 000, The Hall of Languages was built and dedicated in May 1873, built from the finest limestone in the state. Attorney for the Onondaga Nation, Joe Heath, explains that Syracuse University's founding and how they acquired the land is a mystery, but \"how Onondaga lost it is simple: it was stolen\" (para 3, Rivera, 2021). Of course, Joe Heath is referring to over 100 years prior, in which New York State illegally interfered with federal treaties to acquire lands from the Onondaga Nation and other Haudenosaunee nations through illegal deeds and treaties made with New York State officials (Graymont, 1976). New York State's illegal dealings foreshadow much of the ways in which Syracuse University and its leadership attempted to completely undermine and eradicate the Onondaga people, which is discussed in the next section. \"The Onondaga Indian Problem\" The Indian Removal Policy was most favored by settler society, but while Indian land was being stolen, bought, then resold through the Allotment Act (or the Dawes Act, 1887), subsequently the \"Indian problem\" became much more prominent and politicized as land became available (Otis, 2014). Much of these attitudes about Indigenous Peoples were documented and well known. The third chancellor of Syracuse University, Charles Sims, a Methodist preacher, served as chair of a committee of religious converts. Sims and his constituents participated in interviews conducted by a Chairman, James S. Whipple, called The Special Committee to Investigate the Indian Problem of New York State who eventually generated a large manuscript known as \"The Whipple Report\" to which the committee compiled interviews with the specific purpose to assimilate and divide Indigenous lands in New York State. Sims describes how he and his colleagues attempted to negotiate a \"treaty\" between New York State, Syracuse University and the Onondaga Nation. Interviews recorded in the Whipple Report (1889) reveal that in Sims and his associates, pushed for total assimilation of Onondaga children in order to divide Onondaga lands to benefit Syracuse University, an effort which ultimately failed. Later Sims mentions this fraudulent treaty in his own journal notes, now located in Syracuse University's archives called, \"The Onondaga Treaty\" (1883). In the following subsections, I describe Chancellor Sims' efforts to divide and privatize Indigenous lands and the state's efforts to do the same, in the Whipple Report. Image source: The Onondaga Treaty- Report of the Commission appointed by the State of New York 1883, Syracuse University Archives, Box 10, folder RG 01, Accessed: November 11, 2022. The Onondaga Treaty. Chancellor Sims describes the \"treaty\" which is now held in the Syracuse University archives, on the fifth floor of Bird Library. According to Sims' notes, the New York State legislature appointed Sims and his colleagues to examine the \"social and moral conditions and the usages of Onondaga Indians living on the reservation in this county\" (Sims, 1883, p. 1). Sims continued, that on March 6, 1883, after making the report to the legislature, that he and his colleagues were commissioned to \"negotiate a new treaty with the Onondaga nation looking to the division of lands in severally\" (p. 2). Sims went on to describe the estimated size of the population on the Onondaga nation, treaties made with Onondaga between the state and federal governments, and his perceptions of their living conditions. He describes in length the \"grotesqueness\" of Onondaga nation residents, their \"savage\" ways, their drunkenness, and lack of civilization. Sims writes in depth about his disdain for Onondaga spiritual practices and gender dynamics which he notes that women are in charge of land acquisition, and what he refers to as \"occupational possession\" which is universally respected (p. 16). He writes about some \"notable persons\" of whom he is acquainted on the nation, but also his disagreements with marriage and lifestyle of what he refers to as the pagan religion. Finally, Sims describes his experiences with diplomacy and \"ratifying\" the treaty with the Onondaga. According to Sims (1883) record, After many meetings and the experience of much diplomacy a treaty was agreed upon, subject to a vote of approval by the tribe and nine o'clock Thursday morning was appointed as the time for annexing the marks of the chiefs and the signatures of the commissioners. All parties had been warned to be promptly on time. The commissioners entered the chambers from promptly at nine o'clock. The chiefs were not there yet. Half-past nine, ten, eleven, half-past eleven came and yet no chiefs. Just as the commission was about to adjourn at twelve, the Indians began to straggle in. I said, \"Chief la Forte, why were you not here at nine o'clock as agreed upon, and why have you kept us waiting for so long?\" \"O, that's the Indian of it,\" was his perfectly self-satisfied reply. The treaty was finally signed and a day appointed for a the vote of ratification. Meantime a white man who had unlawfully leased a valuable place on the reservation went down and interviewed the voters, and when the ballot was cast, it was nearly unanimous against the treaty. It ended two years work of philanthropy and diplomacy in the interest of morals, religion, liberty, and good government in the nation of the Onondagas. (p. 30-31). The philanthropic \"treaty\" negotiation effort led by Chancellor Sims was indeed a fraudulent treaty. Sims describes how the Onondaga leased out some of their lands to bring work and economic stability to the nation. A mysterious man intervened in the treaty that was led by Sims. The Whipple report details more about this mysterious man with interest in the quarries of the Onondagas. The Whipple Report. A document titled, The Special Committee to Investigate the Indian Problem of New York State also known as \"The Whipple Report\" was designed to investigate the social, moral, and industrial condition of tribes or Indigenous nations in New York State. The special committee examined all treaties between each Indigenous nation and interviewed participants as to the conditions of each tribal nation to determine legislative action across the state. As documented in the Whipple Report, Charles Sims and Bishop Huntington,[^2] both of whom were Syracuse University leaders and affiliates, mention the condition of the Onondaga Nation. Sims co-founded a local group (\"committee\") which consisted of many people in the Syracuse area including religious leaders, missionaries, judges, and politicians--- and of course, individuals associated with Syracuse University--- to convince people to address the customs of the Onondaga Nation and the ways in which Onondaga people conducted their lives. Their group called attention to their problem with Onondaga ceremonies, agriculture, schooling, child rearing, and their marriages. The following excerpt was taken from this interview conducted with Duncan in the report (1889), [Duncan]: I called a meeting of the citizens in Syracuse; Bishop Huntington attended; he has been greatly interested in the problem for years, and we had a committee appointed; John Bruce was present and assisted in it once; Judge Northrup, county judge of Onondaga county; and the Christians who would, aided us; we held several meetings on the reservation, in the school-house and in the little church; and finally it was decided that the only thing that could be done was to break up the present nation, by having a law passed, and endeavoring to obtain the signatures of enough of the Indians to ratify the change, make a new treaty, as it were; we found that nearly everybody looked upon the old treaty as a matter of sanctity and honor, and that it ought not to be broken, but ought to be changed by mutual consent. (p. 1215) Image source: The Special Committee to Investigate the Indian Problem of New York State, 1889, p. 1221. Local politicians and people of power were constantly meeting about \"what to do\" about the Onondaga Nation, considering their interest in the land. It was clear that this local group (\"committee\"), co-chaired by Chancellor Sims, wanted to do something about the \"Onondaga Indian Problem\" (p. 1221) to which they made mention to a \"treaty\" with Onondaga. According to the Whipple Report (1889) on July 9, 1888, the committee interviewed Syracuse University Chancellor Charles Sims and Sims summed up what he thought should be done about the Onondaga people and their lands, [Hon. Vreeland]: As the result of your knowledge of the condition of things upon the Onondaga reservation what ought the State to do in the premises if anything? [Chancellor Sims]: I have a very radical answer for that question; obliterate the whole tribe; make them citizens; divide all the lands among them, or sell it out and put them under the laws of citizenship in the State; that is the only thing that ever will do anything; it is the greatest farce in the world to treat them as a nation. (p. 412) According to Chancellor Sims, Onondaga Nation lands needed to be sold off and Onondaga citizens needed to become citizens of the United States. But to the local committee's dismay, Onondaga Nation citizens for the most part wanted nothing to do with the so-called treaty. [Chancellor Sims]: We negotiated a treaty with them, and a poor old fellow of this town went down there and spoiled it all among them; it is surprising as to what they get out of their stone quarries; the figures show that they get less than two cents a cord. [Hon Vreeland]: Two cents a cord? [Chancellor Sims]: Yes, sir. [Mr. Davis]: What kind of stone? [Chancellor Sims]: The finest limestone in the State of New York, such as our university is built of, and the government buildings; they are in my judgment being in the leases of the land, unless those leases are different from what they were when we examined them; their stone quarries are the most valuable part of their possession... (p. 413) The non-Native man who leased the quarry on the south end from the Onondaga Nation paid members of the nation to mine what is known as \"Onondaga limestone,\" the same type of limestone which helped to build the Brooklyn Bridge, and Genesse County Courthouse, and The Hall of Languages at Syracuse University. Conclusion In this paper, I discussed several historical moments in which Syracuse University followed in the long dark legacy of settler \"discovery.\" After the Doctrine of Discovery was adopted into US law, Indigenous lands were thought to be fair game for most of the general American public, especially those in power positions in institutions of higher education. In 1862 the Morrill Land Grant College Act was passed through the Supreme Court which funded the founding land-grant-colleges, directly from the sales of federally \"owned\" lands obtained from seizure of Indigenous lands during the allotment era. In 1865, Cornell University donated $25,000 from Morrill grant aid, towards Syracuse University's founding (this amount is worth approximately $500,000 today). In early 1870's Judge Comstock offered Syracuse University a mysterious 50 acres of farmland on the hill. In 1870 Syracuse University was founded. In 1883 Chancellor Charles Sims created a fraudulent treaty, which Onondaga Chiefs voted unanimously against. In 1889 the Whipple Report was published about New York State's years of efforts to completely seize all Indigenous lands in New York State, an effort which ultimately failed. Precious limestone in Onondaga quarries, later named \"Onondaga Limestone\" contributed to the production of salt in the City of Syracuse (Smith, 1904, p. 199). The limestone quarries offered the Onondaga Nation some level of economic advantage and political sovereignty during a period of Indigenous termination. References Adams, K. B. (1988). Order in the Courts: Resolution of Tribal/State Criminal Jurisdictional Disputes. Tulsa LJ, 24, 89. All Things Wild West (2021, June). Pioneering The American Frontier - A documentary on The Oregon Trail. YouTube video. Retrieved: Pioneering The American Frontier - A documentary on The Oregon Trail - YouTube. Anderson, K. (2022). Land Acknowledgments at Land-Grant Libraries and Archives: A Systematic Review. Journal of Western Archives, 13(1), 9. Bird, E. Y. (2020). Settler colonial institutions of higher education: Indigenizations, generations & warriors (chasing butterflies) (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Arizona). Retrieved: Settler Colonial Institutions of Higher Education: Indigenizations, Generations & Warriors (Chasing Butterflies) - ProQuest. Calloway, C. G. (2016). First peoples: A documentary survey of American Indian history. Bedford/St. Martin's. Graymont, B. (1976). New York State Indian Policy after the Revolution. New York History, 57(4), 438-474. Greene, J. R. (2000). The Hill: An Illustrated Biography of Syracuse University, 1870-Present. Syracuse University Press. Halliday, S. D. (1905). History of the Agricultural College Land Grant Act of July 2, 1862: Devoted Largely to the History of the\" land Scrip\" which Under that Grant was Allotted to the State of New York and Afterwards Given to Cornell University. Ithaca Democrat Press. Mudimbe, V. Y. (2005). Romanus Pontifex (1454) and the expansion of Europe. Postcolonialisms: an anthology of cultural theory and criticism, 51. O'Connell, S. (2020). Cornell's Land Grant Heritage: A Sinister Tradition. The Cornell Daily Sun. Otis, D. S. (2014). The Dawes Act and the allotment of Indian lands (Vol. 123). University of Oklahoma Press. Rivera, A. R. (2021). It's Not Our Hill. The News House. Retrieved: . Sims, C. (1883). The Onondaga Treaty- Report of the Commission appointed by the State of New York 1883, Syracuse University Archives, Box 10, folder RG 01, Accessed: November 11, 2022. Smith, C. E. (1904). Pioneer times in the Onondaga country (No. 281). CW Bardeen. Syracuse.com. (2021, March). Looking back at Syracuse University's founding and the creation of Orange basketball. Retrieved: Looking back at Syracuse University's founding and the creation of Orange basketball - syracuse.com. Tuck, E., Yang, K.W. (2012). Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolonization: Indigeneity, education & society, vol. 1, no. 1, 2012, pp. 1-40. Whipple, J. S. (1889). Report of Special Committee to Investigate the Indian Problem of the State of New York: Appointed by the Assembly of 1888. Transmitted to the Legislature February 1, 1889 (No. 51). Troy Press Company. Zimdahl, R. L. (2003). The mission of land grant colleges of agriculture. American journal of alternative agriculture, 18(2), 103-115. Endnotes [^1]: Cornell University sits on stolen Cayuga (Gayogo̱hó:nǫɁ) lands. The Cayuga Nation, a member of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, lost over 1,200 acres of land after New York State violated the 1794 Canandaigua treaty. [^2]: Present-day Syracuse University houses the School of Education in a building called \"Huntington Hall,\" named after Bishop Fredrick D. Huntington, a man who endorsed Christian conversion among the Onondaga people and whose participation in a local committee endorsed fraudulent treaty-making with the specific aim to divide the lands of the Onondaga Nation."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/sherrill-v-oneida-doctrine-christian-discovery-denial-treaty-rights/",
    "title": "City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation, 544 U.S. 197 (2005): THE DOCTRINE OF CHRISTIAN DISCOVERY AND DOMINATION AND THE DENIAL OF TREATY RIGHTS",
    "publishedAt": "2023-02-06T07:54:46Z",
    "description": "This shameful, land mark decision by the Supreme Court was issued just three weeks after the filing of the Onondaga Nation’s Land Rights Action. It was a remarkable decision in several ways and although it was not a land claim or a land rights action, it resulted in negative impacts on the Haudenosaunee land cases, as it has been used as the excuse to dismiss the then pending Oneida, Onondaga and Cayuga land rights cases.",
    "tags": [
      "rights",
      "law",
      "indigenous",
      "sherrill",
      "oneida",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "This shameful, land mark decision by the Supreme Court was issued just three weeks after the filing of the Onondaga Nation’s Land Rights Action. It was a remarkable decision in several ways and although it was not a land claim or a land rights action, it resulted in negative impacts on the Haudenosaunee land cases, as it has been used as the excuse to dismiss the then pending Oneida, Onondaga and Cayuga land rights cases. Less than three months Sherrill, the 2nd Circuit used that decision as the basis to dismiss the pending Cayuga land claim and in so doing, declared that Sherrill “has dramatically altered the legal landscape”[^1] for Indigenous nations’ land right cases. The Circuit used this new “equitable” rationale to also dismiss the Oneida Nation land claim in 2010 and the Onondaga Nation land rights action in 2012. FACTUAL AND LEGAL BACKGROUND: After earlier District Court rulings that illegally taken homelands could not be reclaimed in the US court system, the Oneida Nation, purchased properties from willing sellers, within the boundaries of its reservation recognized by the 1794 Treaty of Canandaigua. Since this land had been under the sovereign jurisdiction of the Nation before New York knowingly violated the three treaties, the Constitution and the Trade and Intercourse Act when it took the lands, the Oneidas took the position that any properties which they obtained on the open market, should be sovereign and under their jurisdiction once again. Therefore, the Oneida refused to pay the local property taxes, and the City brought the dispute into state court to collected the unpaid taxes. There was no dispute that the properties were within the Canandaigua recognized Oneida reservation, which has not been terminated or diminished. Despite this historical and factual background, the Supreme Court ruled that the City was authorized to tax the property, and in the process of reaching this incorrect conclusion, the Court concocted a new “equitable” defense, which it improperly labeled as “laches.” In creating this new defense, the Court ignored many of the fundamental principles of equity–such as that a party invoking equity must have “clean hands” and not have been the original wrong doer, as New York state had been. Also, courts are required to balance the equities, by examining the harm to each party from different ruling. Clearly the harm to the Nations from the loss of millions of acres of ancestral homelands was far greater than any other party’s harm and yet, this was not even acknowledged. Additionally, equitable principles mandate that when there has been an injury or harm, there must be a legal remedy from the courts. Much has been written by legal scholars in sharp criticisms of this unprecedented, rogue decision, which has been called the Plessey v. Ferguson of Indian law–because rather than correcting the history of white supremacy and colonial onslaught against Indigenous peoples, it re-affirmed the colonial rule inherent in the doctrine of Christian discovery and domination. Consistent with two centuries of blatantly unfair rulings for Indigenous peoples, when the Court was faced with balancing the rights of Indigenous peoples against those of the settlers, it reverted to its colonial pattern of always elevating the “rights” of settlers, at the expense of the Indigenous peoples. This is essentially an unbroken pattern over the past 200 years, as the US legal system has consistently fabricated rulings to justify the illegal takings of Indigenous lands. The United States could not have been created and then expanded across Turtle Island without the colonial seizure of Indigenous lands, the genocide of Indigenous peoples and the concentrated efforts to “kill the Indian and save the man”, via never- ending programs of forced assimilation. SHERRILL’S RELIANCE ON THE DOCTRINE OF DISCOVERY: The first footnote in Sherrill removes all doubt about the illegitimacy of its holding, and the clear re-affirmation of the doctrine of Christian discovery and domination, as it states that: Under the “doctrine of discovery,” fee title to the lands occupied by Indians when the colonists arrived became vested in the sovereign–first the discovering European nation and later the original States and the United States. Both before and after the adoption of the Constitution, New York acquired vast tracts of land from Indian tribes through treaties it independently negotiated, without National Government participation. (Emphasis added.)[^2] There is so much cleverly hidden messaging in this footnote that it bears closer review and discussion. Initially, it quietly embraces the doctrine of Christian discovery and domination as a central theme in U$ Indian law. This should help us understand that one of our primary focuses of work going forward is to have this racist, colonial doctrine removed and denounced. The second sentence in the footnote, is just as remarkable, to the extent that it acknowledges and then glosses over the completely illegal ways that NY took the ancestral homelands. Under what theory of international law are individual states within the United States authorized to enter into treaties? Further, she recognizes that many of the illegal takings occurred AFTER the Constitution was effective in March of 1789, and AFTER the 1790 Trade and Intercourse Act, which clearly made such takings illegal and void. The facts acknowledged in this sentence document that New York repeatedly violated federal laws when it illegally took millions of acres of Onondaga homelands. None of these historic realities seem to matter to the court, as she rushed to concoct this new “equitable” defense, which only applies to Indigenous nations land rights actions. This attempt to bury inconvenient historic facts in the process of creating such an inequitable result, fails all tests of intellectual integrity and must be addressed and corrected. DIRECT CONNECTION: DOCTRINE OF DISCOVERY RESULTS IN DISMISSALS OF HAUDENOSAUNEE LAND RIGHTS ACTIONS: The Sherrill decision came down on March 29, 2005 and less than three months later, on June 28, 2005, the 2nd Circuit used that deeply flawed decision as the basis to dismiss the Cayuga Nation land claim. There is a direct progression from the invocation of the doctrine of Christian discovery and domination 200 years ago and the dismissals of the Haudenosaunee land rights cases. Relying exclusively on Sherrill, the 2nd Circuit dismissed the Cayuga Nation land claim, despite the earlier, clear ruling in the District Court that NY had knowingly taken the Cayuga ancestral homeland illegally and despite the fact that the only remedy awarded to the Cayugas by the District Court was a $247 million monetary judgement. No land would have been transferred and no settlers would have been inconvenienced. These details made no difference to the Circuit: The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Sherrill has drastically altered the legal landscape against which we consider plaintiffs’ \\[Indian nations’ land\\] claims. We understand Sherrill to hold that equitable doctrines, such as laches, acquiescence, and impossibility, can, in appropriate circumstances, be applied to Indian land claims, even when such a claim is legally viable and within the statute of limitations. One of the few incontestable propositions about this unusually complex and confusing area of law is that doctrines and categorizations applicable in other areas do not translate neatly into those claims. (Emphasis added.)[^3]: Five years later the Circuit also dismissed the Oneida Nation land claim, which has been in litigation for over 40 years: We have used the term “laches” here . . . as a convenient shorthand for the equitable principles at stake in this case, but the term is somewhat imprecise for the purpose of deciding these principles. The Oneidas assert that the invocation of a purported laches defense is improper here because the defendants have not established the necessary element of such a defense. This omission, however, is not ultimately important, as the equitable defense recognized in Sherrill and applied in Cayuga does not focuson the elements of traditional laches. (Emphasis Added.)[^4] As the Circuit proceeded to dismiss all the Haudenosaunee land rights cases, it simply made up new rules, which only apply to Indigenous land rights cases and which they admitted were different. There is a double standard, and Indian treaties no long matter in US law. The final shoe to drop was the 2012 dismissal of the Onondaga land rights action by the Circuit: This appeal is decided on the basis of the equitable bar on recovery of ancestral land in Sherrill, and this court’s cases of Cayuga and Oneida. \\[Three specific factors determine when Indigenous land rights cases are foreclosed under these inequitable rules\\]: 1. The length of time at issue between an historic injustice and the present day; 2. The disruptive nature of claims long delayed; and 3. The degree to which these claims upset the justifiable expectations of individuals \\[i.e.: settlers\\] far removed from the events giving rise to the plaintiff’s.[^5] Therefore, because all of NY’s illegal takings of Haudenosaunee lands are more than 200 year old, US courts provide no remedy for admittedly illegal land grabs and treaty and federal law violations. There clearly is no justice or equity for Indigenous peoples in US courts. For this reason, the Onondaga Nation filed a Petition in the Organization of American States Inter-American Commission on Human Rights which charges the US with human rights violations for the illegal takings of the ancestral lands, for the environmental destruction of the sacred Onondaga Lake and other massive damages to the homeland; and because the US court provide no remedy for treaty violations. It’s time for justice, time for peace. Joe Heath Onondaga Nation General Counsel Resources City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York 544 U.S. 197 (⤓ PDF Download) City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York 544 U.S. 197 via Cornell Legal Information Institute Heath, Joseph J. The Doctrine of Christian Discovery: Its Fundamental Importance in United States Indian Law and the Need for its Repudiation and Removal. 10 Alb. Govt. L. Rev. 112 (2017) (⤓ PDF for Download). \\\\\\\\\\. A Brief History of Haudenosaunee Treaty Making and The Obligations of the United States to Protect Haudenosaunee Lands and to Not Disturb the Free Use and Enjoyment Thereof. (⤓ PDF for Download). \\\\\\\\\\. The Citizenship Act of 1924 was an Integral Pillar of The Colonization and Forced Assimilation Policies of the United States in Violation of Treaties. (⤓ PDF for Download). \\\\\\\\\\. Nations Are Sovereign; They Are Not \"Tribes.\" (⤓ PDF for download). \\\\\\\\\\. Statement on the Historical Use of the Doctrine of Christian Discovery by the United States Supreme Court Since 1823. (⤓ PDF for Download). Footnotes [^1]: Cayuga Indian Nation v. Pataki, 413 F. 3d 266, 273 (2nd Cir, 2005). [^2]: 544 US 197, at XXX. [^3]: 413 F. 3d 266, 273 (2nd Cir., 2005). [^4]: 617 F. 3e 114, 127 (2nd Cir. 2010), Cert. denied, 565 US 970 (2011). [^5]: Onondaga Nation v. New York, 500 F. App’x 87, 90 (2nd Cir. 2012)."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/six-nations-passport/",
    "title": "My six nation Haudenosaunee passport is not a 'fantasy document'",
    "publishedAt": "2015-10-30T19:34:30Z",
    "description": "Front cover of Haudenosaunee passport. Photograph: Sid Hill I’m a citizen of the six nation Haudenosaunee, commonly known as the Iroquois confederacy, one of the original peoples of what is called North and South America. We travel the world on our own passports, embracing the full rights extended by the rules of international law and diplomacy. Too often, our passports are denied by the very countries that took our land. They call them “fantasy documents”, but they are not. Home is the land of the Six Nations – the Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, Seneca and Tuscarora – which straddles the US-Canada border in New York, Quebec and Ontario. We are a sovereign nation recognized by the United States under the 1794 Treaty of Canandaigua signed by George Washington. That is not good enough for some countries, including Canada, the United States and United Kingdom. As Tadodaho , or traditional leader, of the Onondaga Nation, Haudenosaunee Confederacy, I traveled in October with Mohawk Chief Howard Thompson and Mohawk citizen Kenneth Deer at the invitation of Bolivian president Evo Morales to take part in the World People’s Conference on Climate Change and Defense of Life in La Paz. We have long traveled on our own passports, and had no problem passing through Lima heading to Bolivia. But as we sat on the plane waiting to depart La Paz on 13 October, an official boarded and asked us to disembark because the Peruvians decided we could not transit through Lima on our passports. A Bolivian foreign ministry official told us the Canadian government urged the Peruvians not to recognize our passports, saying the Canadians allegedly called them “fantasy documents”. We were forced to remain in La Paz for days while diplomatic channels on two continents tried to work out this problem. At one point, the Canadian government offered us emergency temporary passports, but that was not an option we could accept. Finally, with the greatly appreciated intercession of a senior US official, we were able to fly back through Miami and return home. This is not the first time we have encountered such problems. The best-known  incident  happened in 2010, when Great Britain refused to allow the Iroquois Nationals lacrosse team to travel to the World Lacrosse Championships in Manchester on Haudenosaunee passports. Back then, when the British asked the Americans if they would let us return after the tournament, the Americans were in a bind. Saying yes would officially recognize our passports. And it was absurd to say no, since this issue began when the Europeans arrived five centuries ago and seized our lands in the first place. So the Americans said nothing, leading to a days-long standoff before then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton, a former New York senator,  granted a one-time waiver . That was still not enough for the British, so we were barred from the championship of a game we invented and which is central to our culture. We understand that any inconveniences we face are minuscule compared to centuries of struggle to maintain our standing among nations of the world. We have worked through the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues to ensure that our voices are heard internationally, despite governments’ resistance to respecting our rights to control our land, culture and very survival. We have worked for several years to develop a new passport and identification that will be more secure than that of the United States, Canada as well as any other country. We are confident it will surpass encryption standards to meet security demands of the modern world. Maintaining our sovereignty demands that we use our own passport. This is why we stamped the passports of visiting nations – including US Americans and the British – in September when the World Indoor Lacrosse Championships was held for the first time on Haudenosaunee land: to underscore that this has always been and remains our land. We do not have the option of simply accepting American or Canadian passports. We are citizens of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, as we have been for millennia before the Europeans’ arrival. That is not negotiable.",
    "updatedAt": "2016-06-06T19:34:30Z",
    "tags": [
      "Haudenosaunee",
      "Indigenous-Peoples",
      "Human-Rights",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Front cover of Haudenosaunee passport. Photograph: Sid Hill I'm a citizen of the six nation Haudenosaunee, commonly known as the Iroquois confederacy, one of the original peoples of what is called North and South America. We travel the world on our own passports, embracing the full rights extended by the rules of international law and diplomacy. Too often, our passports are denied by the very countries that took our land. They call them \"fantasy documents\", but they are not. Home is the land of the Six Nations -- the Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, Seneca and Tuscarora -- which straddles the US-Canada border in New York, Quebec and Ontario. We are a sovereign nation recognized by the United States under the 1794 Treaty of Canandaigua signed by George Washington. That is not good enough for some countries, including Canada, the United States and United Kingdom. As Tadodaho, or traditional leader, of the Onondaga Nation, Haudenosaunee Confederacy, I traveled in October with Mohawk Chief Howard Thompson and Mohawk citizen Kenneth Deer at the invitation of Bolivian president Evo Morales to take part in the World People's Conference on Climate Change and Defense of Life in La Paz. We have long traveled on our own passports, and had no problem passing through Lima heading to Bolivia. But as we sat on the plane waiting to depart La Paz on 13 October, an official boarded and asked us to disembark because the Peruvians decided we could not transit through Lima on our passports. A Bolivian foreign ministry official told us the Canadian government urged the Peruvians not to recognize our passports, saying the Canadians allegedly called them \"fantasy documents\". We were forced to remain in La Paz for days while diplomatic channels on two continents tried to work out this problem. At one point, the Canadian government offered us emergency temporary passports, but that was not an option we could accept. Finally, with the greatly appreciated intercession of a senior US official, we were able to fly back through Miami and return home. This is not the first time we have encountered such problems. The best-known incident happened in 2010, when Great Britain refused to allow the Iroquois Nationals lacrosse team to travel to the World Lacrosse Championships in Manchester on Haudenosaunee passports. Back then, when the British asked the Americans if they would let us return after the tournament, the Americans were in a bind. Saying yes would officially recognize our passports. And it was absurd to say no, since this issue began when the Europeans arrived five centuries ago and seized our lands in the first place. So the Americans said nothing, leading to a days-long standoff before then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton, a former New York senator, granted a one-time waiver. That was still not enough for the British, so we were barred from the championship of a game we invented and which is central to our culture. We understand that any inconveniences we face are minuscule compared to centuries of struggle to maintain our standing among nations of the world. We have worked through the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues to ensure that our voices are heard internationally, despite governments' resistance to respecting our rights to control our land, culture and very survival. We have worked for several years to develop a new passport and identification that will be more secure than that of the United States, Canada as well as any other country. We are confident it will surpass encryption standards to meet security demands of the modern world. Maintaining our sovereignty demands that we use our own passport. This is why we stamped the passports of visiting nations -- including US Americans and the British -- in September when the World Indoor Lacrosse Championships was held for the first time on Haudenosaunee land: to underscore that this has always been and remains our land. We do not have the option of simply accepting American or Canadian passports. We are citizens of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, as we have been for millennia before the Europeans' arrival. That is not negotiable.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/30/my-six-nation-haudenosaunee-passport-not-fantasy-document-indigenous-nations"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/spotlights-5.2-philip-arnold-urgency-indigenous-values/",
    "title": "Spotlights, 5.2, Philip Arnold and the Urgency of Indigenous Values",
    "publishedAt": "2024-09-26T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "I’m grateful to my friend and colleague John Grim and the Yale Forum on Religion and Ecology for the podcast on Spotlights about my book The Urgency of Indigenous Values. Our conversation was deeply engaging around issues of environmental ethics and the devastating legacy of the Doctrine of Discovery. I hope you will enjoy listening as much as we had talking.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "video",
      "featured",
      "doctrineofdiscovery",
      "podcast",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "I'm grateful to my friend and colleague John Grim and the Yale Forum on Religion and Ecology for the podcast on Spotlights about my book The Urgency of Indigenous Values. Our conversation was deeply engaging around issues of environmental ethics and the devastating legacy of the Doctrine of Discovery. I hope you will enjoy listening as much as we had talking.",
    "externalUrl": "https://youtu.be/cR0eniEjLzk?si=K1VdwqiLHl3Wd3jL"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/talking-with-christians-docd/",
    "title": "New Resources: Talking to Christians about the Doctrine of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2024-07-06T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Remember, if it’s starting to get heated, step out and take a breather, you can always have the kōrero again another day. TLDR: It’s ok to be Christian, it’s not ok to be Christian-supremacist. follow the link to the download",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "colonialism",
      "doctrine-of-discovery",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Remember, if it’s starting to get heated, step out and take a breather, you can always have the kōrero again another day. TLDR: It’s ok to be Christian, it’s not ok to be Christian-supremacist. follow the link to the download",
    "externalUrl": "https://tinangata.substack.com/p/new-resources-talking-to-christians"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/teaching-native-religions/",
    "title": "Teaching “Native American Religions” in Central New York",
    "publishedAt": "2006-10-01T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "When I began teaching at the University of Missouri in Columbia in 1990, the prevailing wisdom in the academy was to avoid teaching “Native American Religions.” It was regarded as professional suicide for a nonnative, white male to commit their research and teaching to this contentious and controversial area of religious studies. So far as I can tell, this attitude still prevails. But, even then, I understood the contentiousness of Native American religions to be an indication of its importance. My “Native American Religions” brings an awareness to students of the traumatic and turbulent nature of American culture like no other class of mine. In 1996 my family and I moved to Syracuse University, which is in the heart of Haudenosaunee country. This move changed everything; my “Native American Religions” class, by virtue of our physical location, makes the subject matter immediately relevant and urgent. Syracuse University is located five miles north of the Onondaga Nation. Onondaga is symbolically the Central Fire of the Haudenosaunee. The Haudenosaunee are the “People of the Longhouse,” more generally known as the “Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy,” consisting of the Seneca, Cayuga, Onondaga, Oneida, Mohawk, and Tuscarora Nations. The shore of Onondaga Lake is the site where the Confederacy was founded; three men joined together there and convinced the Haudenosaunee to dedicate themselves to the Great Law of Peace by throwing their weapons of war into the roots of the Great Tree of Peace. Of the 563 tribal entities recognized by the U.S. federal government today, only three are still governed by their ancient ceremonial systems. All three are Haudenosaunee, and one of these is the Onondaga Nation. Onondaga territory is still controlled by the Longhouse system of government. All Longhouse people at the Onondaga Nation hold their clan through their mother. Male chiefs are “raised” through their matrilineal clans by Clan-mothers. The Haudenosaunee system of governance impressed and influenced the “Founding Fathers” of the United States Constitution, as well as the women in the 1840s at Seneca Falls who contributed to the Women’s Movement. Most Haudenosaunee nations have filed “land-claims” throughout upstate New York, including the Mohawk, Seneca, Cayuga, and Oneida. Since the mid–1970s “Indian land-claims” have come to dominate local media attention, if not the attention of national and international media. There has been an intensely negative reaction among nonnative residents of New York to these actions — nothing in American culture raises controversy faster than contestation of land title. But the Onondaga historic “Land Rights” action on March 11, 2005, was completely unique, for it is based in the traditional values of the Longhouse tradition: peace, justice, and environmental healing of the land, particularly Onondaga Lake, which is simultaneously the site of the indigenous root of democracy AND the most polluted lake in the United States. Although the Onondaga action is based in the same legal history as the actions of other Haudenosaunee nations, rather than a monetary settlement, or one that includes a casino deal with the state, the Onondaga Nation instead seeks to restore the integrity of the environment: it seeks to restore Creation to a pristine state — hence the emphasis on “land rights” as opposed to “land-claims.” As the preamble of its legal action states: The Onondaga people wish to bring about a healing between themselves and all others who live in this region that has been the homeland of the Onondaga Nation since the dawn of time. The Nation and its people have a unique spiritual, cultural, and historic relationship with the land, which is embodied in Gayanashagowa, the Great Law of Peace. This relationship goes far beyond federal and state legal concepts of ownership, possession, or other legal rights. The people are one with the land and consider themselves stewards of it. It is the duty of the Nation’s leaders to work for a healing of this land, to protect it, and to pass it on to future generations. The Onondaga Nation brings this action on behalf of its people in the hope that it may hasten the process of reconciliation and bring lasting justice, peace, and respect among all who inhabit this area.” ( Onondaga Nation v. New York State , Civil Action No. 05-CV-314) Because of the strong values of environmental healing, several non-Haudenosaunee people — including myself — have become motivated to promote the Onondaga Land Rights action. Neighbors of the Onondaga Nation (NOON) has grown to inform local nonnative groups about the positive aspects of this legal action for this region. Various institutions such as the Syracuse Peace Council, SUNY–College of Environmental Science and Forestry, and Syracuse University, with the support of Chancellor Nancy Cantor, have combined forces to hold a year-long educational series titled “Onondaga Land Rights and Our Common Future.” Several other events have been planned for the near future that bring together environmental issues, global politics, social justice, and cultural identity around matters of “religion.” This serves as the backdrop for teaching “Native American Religions” in Central New York. Questions about the meaning of land, American cultural identity, and the contentious understanding of “religion” (which is a persistent question among all of my colleagues in religion at Syracuse University) are necessarily brought into the classroom. The first task of the class, therefore, is to problemitize the category of religion for students. Among the first things one learns is that there is no word, concept, or phenomenon internal to Native American traditions that is “religion.” The Onondagas are adamant on this point. Thus, several moves have to be made to make “religion” comparable with various aspects of Native American traditions. Students have to think of “religion” in a fundamentally different way. Specifically they have to think of religion as habitation and religion as exchange. These moves bring up questions about the nature of the ways in which different people come to inhabit the land differently and how different people perform exchanges between themselves and their deities. But these are existential questions that come up when teaching Native American religions in Onondaga Nation Territory. The result is that students tend to investigate their own lives in the context of learning about others. When students who have not been exposed to Native American traditions learn about them for the first time, it can have a dramatic impact of them and how they understand their place in the world. I bring my collaborations with the Haudenosaunee into the classroom. Living and working in Central New York makes teaching “Native American Religions” more urgent and controversial, as well as more satisfying. Reading materials are supplemented by visits to historical places and visits from the leadership of the Onondaga Nation, including Clan-mothers, Faithkeepers, and Chiefs. I also give students a number of opportunities to attend outside lectures, cultural festivals, and lacrosse games for extra credit. Often I can take a small group to visit the Onondaga Nation School. But students need to be given theoretical tools for interpreting their encounters with the Onondagas. After all, more than 500 years of intimate yet contentious interactions between indigenous and immigrant Americans has yielded little genuine intercultural sharing. Therefore the student experiences have to be guided in order that they can benefit the most from them. Students need conceptual tools in order to explore their own fascinations with respect to Native American religions. This learning takes place before, during, and after contact with the leaders of the Onondaga Nation. At least since Edward Said’s work  Orientalism  decades ago, questions about how the scholar of religion can adequately describe “the other” without interrupting or destroying them are among the most pressing methodological discussions in our field. Students in my classes come to appreciate these issues firsthand. What might start as a casual interest in an exotic topic can, by the end of the semester, come to raise all kinds of vexing questions. The shift from an expert model of knowledge production to a collaborative model goes some way toward solving the methodological quandaries in the classroom. Rather than my asking questions about what the Onondaga believe, or what ceremonies they perform, which will always be regarded suspiciously, instead students learn to ask themselves, What are the issues of most urgent mutual concern? For one thing this requires students to develop an ability to interpret their own urgent questions — What do we want to know? — and then find answers through a collaborative process of discussion and action. No longer are the Haudenosaunee, nor the Aztec, nor the Lakota “informants.” Instead, they are collaborators in generating new ways of communicating solutions to urgent issues. The result of teaching “Native American Religions” in Syracuse has been that I have had to develop new classes over the last ten years to cover an ever-burgeoning conceptual ground. To explore questions of religion as “habitation” and “exchange,” I developed a history of American religions sequence titled “Religion and the Conquest of America” and “Religion of American Consumerism.” These cover the colonial era from 1492 to the 1850s and the modern era from the late nineteenth century to the present. This sequence highlights the cultural differences between indigenous and immigrant values and asks pointed questions about the sustainability of these distinctive worldviews. To explore issues of race and ethnicity in America I have developed the class “Religious Dimensions of Whiteness.” This class has been growing in popularity and attracts a wide diversity of students. Most recently I have developed the class “Religion and Sports,” which is proving to be very popular. Unlike other classes of this sort, however, it is rooted in the indigenous meanings of sports in ceremonial life. The Haudenosaunee are the inventors of lacrosse, which is very popular in our area, and it is still played as a ceremonial game among the Haudenosaunee. It isn’t until the class visits the lacrosse arena at the Onondaga Nation that the whole class comes together for them. In my graduate seminar “Materiality of Religion,” students gain another perspective on the topic and on the history of religions, whether their primary area of interest is in postmodern theology, Buddhism, religion and popular culture, or indigenous religions. Teaching “Native American Religions” at Syracuse University has changed me as a scholar and a teacher. It is a contentious place to teach but, as I had originally thought, this indicates its importance. After taking my classes, students generally understand and appreciate these things more.",
    "tags": [
      "religion",
      "teaching",
      "indigenous",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "When I began teaching at the University of Missouri in Columbia in 1990, the prevailing wisdom in the academy was to avoid teaching \"Native American Religions.\" It was regarded as professional suicide for a nonnative, white male to commit their research and teaching to this contentious and controversial area of religious studies. So far as I can tell, this attitude still prevails. But, even then, I understood the contentiousness of Native American religions to be an indication of its importance. My \"Native American Religions\" brings an awareness to students of the traumatic and turbulent nature of American culture like no other class of mine. In 1996 my family and I moved to Syracuse University, which is in the heart of Haudenosaunee country. This move changed everything; my \"Native American Religions\" class, by virtue of our physical location, makes the subject matter immediately relevant and urgent. Syracuse University is located five miles north of the Onondaga Nation. Onondaga is symbolically the Central Fire of the Haudenosaunee. The Haudenosaunee are the \"People of the Longhouse,\" more generally known as the \"Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy,\" consisting of the Seneca, Cayuga, Onondaga, Oneida, Mohawk, and Tuscarora Nations. The shore of Onondaga Lake is the site where the Confederacy was founded; three men joined together there and convinced the Haudenosaunee to dedicate themselves to the Great Law of Peace by throwing their weapons of war into the roots of the Great Tree of Peace. Of the 563 tribal entities recognized by the U.S. federal government today, only three are still governed by their ancient ceremonial systems. All three are Haudenosaunee, and one of these is the Onondaga Nation. Onondaga territory is still controlled by the Longhouse system of government. All Longhouse people at the Onondaga Nation hold their clan through their mother. Male chiefs are \"raised\" through their matrilineal clans by Clan-mothers. The Haudenosaunee system of governance impressed and influenced the \"Founding Fathers\" of the United States Constitution, as well as the women in the 1840s at Seneca Falls who contributed to the Women's Movement. Most Haudenosaunee nations have filed \"land-claims\" throughout upstate New York, including the Mohawk, Seneca, Cayuga, and Oneida. Since the mid--1970s \"Indian land-claims\" have come to dominate local media attention, if not the attention of national and international media. There has been an intensely negative reaction among nonnative residents of New York to these actions --- nothing in American culture raises controversy faster than contestation of land title. But the Onondaga historic \"Land Rights\" action on March 11, 2005, was completely unique, for it is based in the traditional values of the Longhouse tradition: peace, justice, and environmental healing of the land, particularly Onondaga Lake, which is simultaneously the site of the indigenous root of democracy AND the most polluted lake in the United States. Although the Onondaga action is based in the same legal history as the actions of other Haudenosaunee nations, rather than a monetary settlement, or one that includes a casino deal with the state, the Onondaga Nation instead seeks to restore the integrity of the environment: it seeks to restore Creation to a pristine state --- hence the emphasis on \"land rights\" as opposed to \"land-claims.\" As the preamble of its legal action states: The Onondaga people wish to bring about a healing between themselves and all others who live in this region that has been the homeland of the Onondaga Nation since the dawn of time. The Nation and its people have a unique spiritual, cultural, and historic relationship with the land, which is embodied in Gayanashagowa, the Great Law of Peace. This relationship goes far beyond federal and state legal concepts of ownership, possession, or other legal rights. The people are one with the land and consider themselves stewards of it. It is the duty of the Nation's leaders to work for a healing of this land, to protect it, and to pass it on to future generations. The Onondaga Nation brings this action on behalf of its people in the hope that it may hasten the process of reconciliation and bring lasting justice, peace, and respect among all who inhabit this area.\" (Onondaga Nation v. New York State, Civil Action No. 05-CV-314) Because of the strong values of environmental healing, several non-Haudenosaunee people --- including myself --- have become motivated to promote the Onondaga Land Rights action. Neighbors of the Onondaga Nation (NOON) has grown to inform local nonnative groups about the positive aspects of this legal action for this region. Various institutions such as the Syracuse Peace Council, SUNY--College of Environmental Science and Forestry, and Syracuse University, with the support of Chancellor Nancy Cantor, have combined forces to hold a year-long educational series titled \"Onondaga Land Rights and Our Common Future.\" Several other events have been planned for the near future that bring together environmental issues, global politics, social justice, and cultural identity around matters of \"religion.\" This serves as the backdrop for teaching \"Native American Religions\" in Central New York. Questions about the meaning of land, American cultural identity, and the contentious understanding of \"religion\" (which is a persistent question among all of my colleagues in religion at Syracuse University) are necessarily brought into the classroom. The first task of the class, therefore, is to problemitize the category of religion for students. Among the first things one learns is that there is no word, concept, or phenomenon internal to Native American traditions that is \"religion.\" The Onondagas are adamant on this point. Thus, several moves have to be made to make \"religion\" comparable with various aspects of Native American traditions. Students have to think of \"religion\" in a fundamentally different way. Specifically they have to think of religion as habitation and religion as exchange. These moves bring up questions about the nature of the ways in which different people come to inhabit the land differently and how different people perform exchanges between themselves and their deities. But these are existential questions that come up when teaching Native American religions in Onondaga Nation Territory. The result is that students tend to investigate their own lives in the context of learning about others. When students who have not been exposed to Native American traditions learn about them for the first time, it can have a dramatic impact of them and how they understand their place in the world. I bring my collaborations with the Haudenosaunee into the classroom. Living and working in Central New York makes teaching \"Native American Religions\" more urgent and controversial, as well as more satisfying. Reading materials are supplemented by visits to historical places and visits from the leadership of the Onondaga Nation, including Clan-mothers, Faithkeepers, and Chiefs. I also give students a number of opportunities to attend outside lectures, cultural festivals, and lacrosse games for extra credit. Often I can take a small group to visit the Onondaga Nation School. But students need to be given theoretical tools for interpreting their encounters with the Onondagas. After all, more than 500 years of intimate yet contentious interactions between indigenous and immigrant Americans has yielded little genuine intercultural sharing. Therefore the student experiences have to be guided in order that they can benefit the most from them. Students need conceptual tools in order to explore their own fascinations with respect to Native American religions. This learning takes place before, during, and after contact with the leaders of the Onondaga Nation. At least since Edward Said's work Orientalism decades ago, questions about how the scholar of religion can adequately describe \"the other\" without interrupting or destroying them are among the most pressing methodological discussions in our field. Students in my classes come to appreciate these issues firsthand. What might start as a casual interest in an exotic topic can, by the end of the semester, come to raise all kinds of vexing questions. The shift from an expert model of knowledge production to a collaborative model goes some way toward solving the methodological quandaries in the classroom. Rather than my asking questions about what the Onondaga believe, or what ceremonies they perform, which will always be regarded suspiciously, instead students learn to ask themselves, What are the issues of most urgent mutual concern? For one thing this requires students to develop an ability to interpret their own urgent questions --- What do we want to know? --- and then find answers through a collaborative process of discussion and action. No longer are the Haudenosaunee, nor the Aztec, nor the Lakota \"informants.\" Instead, they are collaborators in generating new ways of communicating solutions to urgent issues. The result of teaching \"Native American Religions\" in Syracuse has been that I have had to develop new classes over the last ten years to cover an ever-burgeoning conceptual ground. To explore questions of religion as \"habitation\" and \"exchange,\" I developed a history of American religions sequence titled \"Religion and the Conquest of America\" and \"Religion of American Consumerism.\" These cover the colonial era from 1492 to the 1850s and the modern era from the late nineteenth century to the present. This sequence highlights the cultural differences between indigenous and immigrant values and asks pointed questions about the sustainability of these distinctive worldviews. To explore issues of race and ethnicity in America I have developed the class \"Religious Dimensions of Whiteness.\" This class has been growing in popularity and attracts a wide diversity of students. Most recently I have developed the class \"Religion and Sports,\" which is proving to be very popular. Unlike other classes of this sort, however, it is rooted in the indigenous meanings of sports in ceremonial life. The Haudenosaunee are the inventors of lacrosse, which is very popular in our area, and it is still played as a ceremonial game among the Haudenosaunee. It isn't until the class visits the lacrosse arena at the Onondaga Nation that the whole class comes together for them. In my graduate seminar \"Materiality of Religion,\" students gain another perspective on the topic and on the history of religions, whether their primary area of interest is in postmodern theology, Buddhism, religion and popular culture, or indigenous religions. Teaching \"Native American Religions\" at Syracuse University has changed me as a scholar and a teacher. It is a contentious place to teach but, as I had originally thought, this indicates its importance. After taking my classes, students generally understand and appreciate these things more."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/ten-commandments/",
    "title": "Louisiana’s Ten Commandment Truthiness",
    "publishedAt": "2024-07-16T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "I watch and wonder if we are witnessing the (re)birth of a distinctly American religion. One that shares a kinship and affinity with prior permutations of American Protestantism but is now more nationalistic, sentimental and generically applicable. One that makes Christian Nationalism and Project 2025 all the more palatable. Louisiana’s Ten Commandment Truthiness - Good Faith Media .",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "colonialism",
      "doctrine-of-discovery",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "I watch and wonder if we are witnessing the (re)birth of a distinctly American religion. One that shares a kinship and affinity with prior permutations of American Protestantism but is now more nationalistic, sentimental and generically applicable. One that makes Christian Nationalism and Project 2025 all the more palatable. Louisiana’s Ten Commandment Truthiness - Good Faith Media.",
    "externalUrl": "https://goodfaithmedia.org/louisianas-ten-commandment-truthiness/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/theft-commons/",
    "title": "The theft of the commons",
    "publishedAt": "2024-06-26T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "In North America, it’s often assumed that private land ownership not only existed in colonizing cultures but was also universally accepted. Yet English commoners fought against privatization for centuries, dying by the tens of thousands to defend the rights of the commons. Even as English colonists were arriving on the Atlantic shores of North America, commoners violently resisted enclosure. The Midland Revolt, involving rebellions in several English counties in 1607, was a direct consequence of the government’s admitted failure to enforce its own laws against enclosure’s theft of the commons. “Between 1725 and 1825” alone, commons scholar Peter Linebaugh wrote in Stop, Thief!: The Commons, Enclosures, and Resistance, “nearly four thousand enclosure acts appropriated more than six million acres of land, about a quarter of cultivated acreage, to the politically dominant landowners.” In The Book of Trespass, which details the injustices of private landownership in Britain, Nick Hayes noted that 150,000 people in 18 villages were evicted in a single instance.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "colonialism",
      "doctrine-of-discovery",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "In North America, it’s often assumed that private land ownership not only existed in colonizing cultures but was also universally accepted. Yet English commoners fought against privatization for centuries, dying by the tens of thousands to defend the rights of the commons. Even as English colonists were arriving on the Atlantic shores of North America, commoners violently resisted enclosure. The Midland Revolt, involving rebellions in several English counties in 1607, was a direct consequence of the government’s admitted failure to enforce its own laws against enclosure’s theft of the commons. “Between 1725 and 1825” alone, commons scholar Peter Linebaugh wrote in Stop, Thief!: The Commons, Enclosures, and Resistance, “nearly four thousand enclosure acts appropriated more than six million acres of land, about a quarter of cultivated acreage, to the politically dominant landowners.” In The Book of Trespass, which details the injustices of private landownership in Britain, Nick Hayes noted that 150,000 people in 18 villages were evicted in a single instance.",
    "externalUrl": "https://www.hcn.org/articles/the-theft-of-the-commons/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/trump-dangerous-rhetoric-dehumanization/",
    "title": "Trump’s Dangerous Rhetoric of Dehumanization",
    "publishedAt": "2024-04-02T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Civilization and personhood are the intellectual bulwarks for the justification of colonization. The colonizer assumes they are made in the image of their God while spreading the message of conquest, civilization and Christianity. The  Doctrine of Discovery , a set of 15th-century papal bulls, provides the theological and legal framework for Christian domination. It communicates that “explorers” who “discover” lands not occupied by Christians can view them as “ terra nullis ”–a territory without a master–and claim them for their sovereign.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "Trump",
      "immigration",
      "dehumanization",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Civilization and personhood are the intellectual bulwarks for the justification of colonization. The colonizer assumes they are made in the image of their God while spreading the message of conquest, civilization and Christianity. The Doctrine of Discovery, a set of 15th-century papal bulls, provides the theological and legal framework for Christian domination. It communicates that \"explorers\" who \"discover\" lands not occupied by Christians can view them as \"terra nullis\"--a territory without a master--and claim them for their sovereign.",
    "externalUrl": "https://goodfaithmedia.org/432273-2/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/two-kinds-being-doctrine-discovery/",
    "title": "Two Kinds of Beings: The Doctrine of Discovery And Its Implications for Yesterday and Today",
    "publishedAt": "2021-05-27T14:54:46Z",
    "description": "'What is the United States position with respect to its 1863 treaty with the Western Shoshone Indians?'",
    "tags": [
      "Law",
      "Indigenous-Peoples",
      "Education",
      "Resources",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Overview Two Kinds of Beings: The Doctrine of Discovery And Its Implications for Yesterday and Today by Robert Francis First published online by Manataka American Indian Council 13 December 2003. Archived from the Manataka American Indian Council site. Our son John is 14 years old and in his eighth-grade year. He's been home educated for the past five years, as have all four of our children.... or offspring. (Three of the four hardly qualify as children anymore.) Eight years ago, John was in kindergarten, Sarah was in third grade, Peter was in fourth. Luke was still enjoying Barney and Friends and Sesame Street. At the beginning of the public school year, I spoke to the children's teachers, \"If you'd like me to come in and talk to the class about American Indian history, cultures or contemporary life, just let me know,\" I said. \"I'll be glad to do it.\" John's kindergarten teacher invited me to come to her class on Tuesday before Thanksgiving. As I entered the room, I looked around to see paper cutouts of red leaves, orange pumpkins and brown turkeys taped to the walls along with modestly clad Pilgrims and nearly naked Indians. Before I arrived, the children had been busy preparing their costumes for the next day's Thanksgiving parade. Half the class was making Pilgrim hats, bonnets and aprons. The other half was making paper-sack Indian vests along with construction-paper headbands and feathers. Quietly, I wondered what the celebration of Martin Luther King's Birthday might be. Would half the class be in black-face and half in Ku Klux Klan robes? Among other things, I shared the story of Tisquantum (called \"Squanto\" in the history books). Kidnapped by the English and taken as a slave to Europe not once but twice, upon his second return to his homeland, Tisquantum still had enough charity or naiveté to help the starving Pilgrims get a foothold in this land. After the story, I asked if anyone had a question. A hand belonging to a little red-headed girl with a freckled face and blue eyes was first to shoot up. \"Are you a person, or are you an Indian?\" was the question she asked. This spring (April 2003) I was asked by the Colorado Baptist Convention to travel to Denver and speak to the ethnic Baptist ministers and their families from all over the state.\"Ethnic\" here is used to mean all who are outside the dominant Anglo-Saxon ethnicity. I went to the event dressed in full Cherokee regalia of the 1830s period, in order to illustrate the point of my talk, that being, \"Whoever you are, your story is sacred, and the story of your people is sacred.\" Before the program got underway that evening, everyone was milling around, meeting one another and looking at the various displays from the different ethnic groups involved. I was standing there, looking at one of the displays, when I noticed a little boy, about five years old, intently looking at me. This little boy had short straight black hair, coppery brown skin and dark brown eyes. He was standing there with his father. I found out shortly that their family had moved to Colorado from Mexico. But the first words this little boy said to me were, \"Are you a person or are you an Indian?\" From the mouths of children, the truth is revealed. According to the prevailing wisdom of five-year-olds, there are two kinds of beings inhabiting this country. The majority are non-Indians. The remainder are non-persons. Now, before you laugh or pass this this off as childish foolishness rather than a statement of how things really are, please consider a few things. On August 6, 2001, Ralph Boyd, Jr., U.S. Assistant Attorney for Civil Rights and Lorne Craner, Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, testified before the United Nations Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Among many other questions concerning race relations in the United States, the two high-level U.S. officials were asked, \"What is the United States position with respect to its 1863 treaty with the Western Shoshone Indians?\" The treaty in question was the Ruby Valley Treaty, which, in 1863, clearly recognized the sovereignty and the territorial boundaries of the Western Shoshone Nation. But now, there seemed to be an issue of 24 million acres of that land that the U.S. wanted to buy from the Shoshones. When the Shoshones refused to sell the land and refused to accept the money, the U.S. government paid the Secretary of Interior's office $26 million. The government claimed that paying itself a little over a dollar an acre for the land in question extinguished the Western Shoshone's title. How did Boyd and Craner answer the U.N. committee's question concerning the U.S. treaty with the Western Shoshones? They referred to the 1823 United States Supreme Court decision of Johnson v. McIntosh. Boyd and Craner said the Johnson decision held that, \"as a result of European discovery, the Native Americans had a right to occupancy and possession.\" But \"tribal rights to complete sovereignty were necessarily diminished by the principle that discovery gave exclusive title to those who made it.\" Well, whatever this Johnson decision was, it must be pretty important, if the United States Government can rely on it as legal grounds for arbitrarily taking possession of another 24 million acres of Indian land pretty much anytime they want. What is this thing? And what's behind it? In 1823, writing for the Court who had unanimously sided with Johnson, Chief Justice John Marshall observed that European nations had assumed \"ultimate dominion\" over the lands of America during the Age of Discovery, and that upon \"discovery\" the Indians lost \"their rights to complete sovereignty, as independent nations,\" and retained only a right of \"occupancy\" in their lands. Marshall went on to write that the United States, upon winning independence, became successor nation to the right of \"discovery\" acquiring the power of \"dominion\" from Great Britain. \"As early as 1496,\" Marshall continued, \"her (England's) monarch granted a commission to the Cabots, to discover countries then unknown to Christian people, and to take possession of them in the name of the king of England.\" Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote, \"As infidels, heathens, and savages, they (the Indians) were not allowed to possess the prerogatives belonging to absolute, sovereign and independent nations.\" Christian versus heathen. That sort of language did not begin in 1823\\. In 1452, Pope Nicholas V became aware that Portugal had begun a slave trade along the west coast of Africa. Pope Nicholas really liked this. To make it look as though he had come up with the idea himself, Pope Nicholas V issued to King Alfonso V of Portugal, the bull Romanus Pontifex. ... [W]e bestow suitable favors and special graces on those Catholic kings and princes, ... athletes and intrepid champions of the Christian faith ... to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and ... to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate ... possessions, and goods, and to convert them to ... their use and profit ... This was a basic declaration of war against all non-Christians throughout the earth, specifically sanctioning and promoting the conquest, colonization, and exploitation of non-Christian nations and their territories. In today's rhetoric, this papal bull would be called a mandate for terrorism. Non-Christians were considered enemies of the Catholic faith. As such, they were considered less than human, in effect, non-persons. When Columbus sailed toward this hemisphere in 1492, it was with the understanding that he was to \"take possession\" of any lands he \"discovered\" so long as they were \"not under the dominion of any Christian rulers.\" As soon as he set foot on the beach of Guanahani Island, Columbus performed a ceremony to \"take possession\" of the land for the king and queen of Spain, in accordance with the bull Romanus Potifex. The Taino people discovered Christopher Columbus on their shores in the Caribbean Islands in October of 1492\\. At that time, the Taino were a nation of more than 15 million human beings. The largest population was on the island of Bohi'o (around eight million). Bohi'o is known today as Espanola. The countries of Haiti and the Dominican Republic are on this island. On Christmas Eve, 1492, Columbus wrecked the Santa Maria near the shore of Bohi'o. The people helped Columbus get all the goods of the ship to dry land before it sank. Afterward, of the people and the country, Columbus had this to say.... .... They are an affectionate people, free from avarice and agreeable to everything. I certify to Your Highnesses that in all the world I do not believe there is a better people or a better country. They love their neighbors as themselves, and they have the softest and gentlest voices and are always smiling.... - Columbus' Log.  When Columbus returned to Europe, Pope Alexander VI issued a new papal document, at the request of Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, granting Spain the right to conquer the lands Columbus had already \"discovered\" as well as any that might be \"discovered\" in the future. This document was the bull Inter Caetera of May 3, 1493\\. (Read Papal Bull of 1493) In his absence, the Spanish seamen left behind took advantage of the Taino hospitality on Bohi'o by attempting to take control of the island. After seeing the true intent of the invaders, the Taino fought back, but were overcome when Columbus came the second time with 17 ships, loaded with canon, war dogs, armed soldiers and horses. Bohi'o was turned into a giant concentration camp where two objectives were met: the mining of gold through forced labor and the extermination of the people. By the time Columbus was relieved of his duties as governor of the Island in 1500, only 100 thousand Taino were left alive there. This is a population reduction of 7.9 million people within a period of less than eight years! After he left the Caribbean, Columbus' policies remained in effect. Within 50 years the entire area was depopulated. By then slaves were being brought from Africa as well as from the main lands of North and South America. Of course, Ferdinand and Isabella decreed that a statement be read to any \"discovered\" people before the advent of hostilities. The \"Requirement\" was read in Latin or Spanish, witnessed by a notary. That the people could neither speak nor understand Latin or Spanish was of little note. On the part of the king, Don Fernando, and of Doña Juana, his daughter, queen of Castile and Leon, subduers of the barbarous nations, we their servants notify and make known to you, as best we can, that the Lord our God, living and eternal, created the heaven and the earth, and one man and one woman, of whom you and we, and all the men of the world, were and are descendants, and all those who come after us. ...  Of all these nations God our Lord gave charge to one man, called St. Peter, that he should be lord and superior of all the men in the world, that all should obey him, and that he should be the head of the whole human race, wherever men should live, and under whatever law, sect, or belief they should be; and he gave him the world for his kingdom and jurisdiction.  ...One of these pontiffs, who succeeded that St. Peter as lord of the world in the dignity and seat which I have before mentioned, made donation of these isles and Terra-firma to the aforesaid king and queen and to their successors, our lords, with all that there are in these territories,.... ... Wherefore, as best we can, we ask and require you that you consider what we have said to you, and that you take the time that shall be necessary to understand and deliberate upon it, and that you acknowledge the Church as the ruler and superior of the whole world, .... ...But if you do not do this, and maliciously make delay in it, I certify to you that, with the help of God, we shall powerfully enter into your country, and shall make war against you in all ways and manners that we can, and shall subject you to the yoke and obedience of the Church and of their highnesses; we shall take you, and your wives, and your children, and shall make slaves of them, and as such shall sell and dispose of them as their highnesses may command; and we shall take away your goods, and shall do you all the mischief and damage that we can, as to vassals who do not obey, and refuse to receive their lord, and resist and contradict him: and we protest that the deaths and losses which shall accrue from this are your fault, and not that of their highnesses, or ours, nor of these cavaliers who come with us. .... Some of the hostilities which, according to the \"Requirement\" the people brought upon themselves, were described in some detail by the Spanish Priest Las Casas. \"And the Christians, with their horses and swords and pikes began to carry out massacres and strange cruelties against them. They attacked the towns and spared neither the children nor the aged nor pregnant women nor women in childbed, not only stabbing them and dismembering them but cutting them to pieces as if dealing with sheep in the slaughter house. They laid bets as to who, with one stroke of the sword, could split a man in two or could cut off his head or spill out his entrails with a single stroke of the pike. They took infants from their mothers' breasts, snatching them by the legs and pitching them headfirst against the crags or snatched them by the arms and threw them into the rivers, roaring with laughter and saying as the babies fell into the water, 'Boil there, you offspring of the devil!' ... They made some low wide gallows on which the hanged victim's feet almost touched the ground, stringing up their victims in lots of thirteen, in memory of Our Redeemer and His twelve Apostles, then set burning wood at their feet and thus burned them alive. To others they attached straw or wrapped their whole bodies in straw and set them afire. With still others, all those they wanted to capture alive, they cut off their hands and hung them round the victim's neck, saying, 'Go now, carry the message,' meaning, Take the news to the Indians who have fled to the mountains. They usually dealt with the chieftains and nobles in the following way: they made a grid of rods which they placed on forked sticks, then lashed the victims to the grid and lighted a smoldering fire underneath, so that little by little, as those captives screamed in despair and torment, their souls would leave them.\" All these behaviors were understood by the Conquistadores to be justified by the papal bulls, which, in turn, were understood to be based on the Bible, such Old Testament passages as these from the Psalms: \"Ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession. You will rule them with a an iron scepter; you will dash them to pieces like pottery.\" - Psalm 2:8-9 N.I.V. May the praise of God be in their mouths and a double-edged sword in their hands, to inflict vengeance on the peoples, to bind their kings with fetters, their nobles with shackled of iron, to carry out the sentence written against them. This is the glory of all his saints. Praise the Lord. - Psalm 149:6-9 N.I.V. Add to this the Old Testament Book of Joshua which tells the story of the \"chosen\" people of Israel entering the \"promised land\" of Canaan, destroying whole cities of people: men, women, children, even livestock. Captain John Smith was an admirer of Columbus and the Conquistadores, as were the Puritans of Massachusetts and the Founding Fathers of the United States. Just as the Spanish before them, these English immigrants to North America imagined themselves as the \"chosen\" people of Israel and the Indian inhabitants of the land as the Canaanites, doomed to destruction or subjection. In this country, a pre-contact population of from 12 to 20 million indigenous human beings was reduced to 200 thousand by 1920\\. The present American Indian population of the United States is around four million, most of which are of mixed ancestry. According to recent U.S. Government statistics, 110 of every 1,000 American Indians in the U.S. were victims of violent crime within a given period of five years (1993-1998). This compares to 43 per 1,000 for blacks and 38 per 1,000 for whites. It is also noted that while most violent crimes committed against blacks were committed by blacks, and most violent crimes committed against whites were committed by whites, most violent crimes committed against Indians were committed by non-Indians. Another government study found that one-in-ten hate crimes in the U.S. are committed against American Indians. American Indians comprise less than 2% of the U.S. population! In the United States, Children are taught in school that while it is wrong to kill human beings, a person may kill thousands, millions, even entire nations of Indians and be celebrated, even worshipped as a hero. When attempts are made at teaching about American Indians, it's often done by teaching children to play Indian, promoting stereotypical thinking or mocking the complex cultures of Indian peoples. In church, children often learn a hateful theology that says God left Indian people in spiritual darkness for thousands of years, until Europeans arrived and brought God to this land. As a follower of Jesus, this theology of racism that gives legitimacy to conquest and genocide, is most offensive to me. I understand Jesus to be Eternal Creator-Son, not bound by time or distance or oceans or anything. According to John 1:9, Jesus is \"The true light that gives light to every [person]....\" The good news Jesus came to bring, the news of Creator's awesome love is not foreign to any people. Jesus himself said his followers are not identified simply by words professed, i.e. \"Lord, Lord,\" but by love shown to neighbors and even to enemies (Matthew 7:21; John 13:35; Matthew 5:44-45). Columbus himself testified to Creator's presence with the people of the Caribbean, saying they were \"In-Dio\" (With God). Those who say Columbus or even the missionaries brought God to America are making Columbus and the missionaries out to be greater than God. This theology justifies the theft, the rape, the murder, anything and everything, for all is done in the name of Christ. Even our Indian people believe these lies. American Indians are five-times more likely to commit suicide than are people of any other ethnicity in this country. Most of these are our young people, our teenagers, who are taught in school and even in church, that our ancestors were worthless savages, standing in the way of progress, and so had to be wiped out. If it was all in the past, maybe we could forget it. But it's not all in the past. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision for Johnson in 1823 has been used by the United States to justify the breaking of hundreds of treaties the U.S. entered into with Indian nations, despite the fact that the United States Constitution says all such treaties are \"the supreme Law of the Land.\" This ruling has been used to justify the stealing of the homelands of Indian peoples living east of the Mississippi through the Indian Removal Act of 1835\\. It was used to justify the General Allotment Act of 1887, robbing Indian people of an additional 90 million acres of their lands. It was used to steal the Black Hills from the Sioux in violation of the 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie. It was used to justify the U.S. Government paying itself for 24 million acres of Western Shoshone land, extinguishing the title granted in the 1863 Ruby Valley Treaty. These are just a few examples. In the case of Standing Bear vs. Crook (April 1879), Judge Elmer S. Dundy ruled that an Indian is a person. As a result of this case, the United States government did allow Chief Standing Bear and a small group of Poncas to remain on a fragment of their ancestral homeland in Nebraska, rather than being forcibly sent back to Indian Territory. However, within a short time, General William T. Sherman arbitrarily decreed that Judge Dundy's ruling \"does not apply to any other than that specific case.\" In 1973, a federal judge told the Blackfeet Tribe, \"The blunt fact.... is that an Indian tribe is sovereign to the extent that the United States permits it to be sovereign - neither more nor less.\" All this is based on the decision of 1823, which in turn is based solely on the Doctrine of Christian European Discovery. This doctrine, in turn, is based on the papal bulls of the 1400s, which are themselves based on an ethnocentric and racist reading of the Christian scriptures.... a theology of conquest, a holdover of the Dark Ages, which, indeed, has brought an age of darkness to us. James Madison wrote, \"Religion is not in the purview of human government. Religion is essentially distinct from civil government, and exempt from its cognizance; a connection between them is injurious to both.\" Thomas Jefferson said that when the state uses church doctrine as a coercive tool, the result is \"hypocrisy and meanness.\" This is the understatement of the past millennium! You may have thought there was a healthy separation of church and state in this country. However, the U.S. Indian policies of today are based on the assumption that since our American Indian ancestors did not possess the Christian Bible and had no connection with any European church at the time of first European contact, our ancestors were simply brute animals occupying the land. Furthermore, because of our ancestral connections and regardless of any present religious connections, Indians of today are ourselves, non-persons, with no true sovereign rights within our own ancestral homelands. In 1993, 500 years after its issuance, the Indigenous Law Institute petitioned Pope John Paul II to renounce the Inter Caetera bull. Seven years later, in March 2000, the Pope openly begged God to forgive the sins of the \"sons and daughters\" of the Church. His stated goal was to purify the memory of the Church by expressing sorrow for misdeeds committed by Christians over the past 2,000 years. The Pope failed to mention particular historical cases and made only an extremely obscure reference to American Indians. In response to the petition to renounce the Inter Caetera bull, there has been nothing but stony silence. In conclusion, I will say again: There are two kinds of beings inhabiting this country: non-Indians and non-persons. If you agree with this conclusion, do nothing. If you disagree with this conclusion. If you actually believe that American Indians are, in fact, persons and that American Indian tribes and nations are, in fact, peoples, then I challenge you to do something to prove your belief. Educate yourself on these issues. A good place to start is with the Indigenous Law Institute website. Discuss these issues in your home, in your church and within any other groups to which you belong. Write your congressman. Ask him why in the world current U.S. Indian policy is based on archaic church doctrine. While you're at it, ask your congressman why our tax dollars (including the tax dollars of non-persons like me) are used to fund a national holiday that celebrates a mass murderer. Finally, talk to a Roman Catholic clergyman in your hometown. Ask him why the church has not renounced these papal bulls that continue their damage to this very day. Discuss this also with non-Catholic clergy. Most Christian denominations in the United States have roots in the Roman Catholic Church of the 15th Century, and non-Catholic church leaders and governments have taken the Doctrine of Christian European Discovery as their own in these past centuries. If churches and denominations openly renounce (even ceremonially burn ) the bull Romanus Pontifex and the bull Inter Caetera, the evil of the Doctrine of Discovery will be revealed. This could start a stir that could ultimately lead to a complete change in U.S. Indian policy and in government policy toward indigenous peoples throughout the earth. \"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' (You worthless thing!) is answerable to the Sanhedrin (Council or Court). But anyone who says, 'You fool!' (You who have no relationship with Creator!) will be in danger of the fire of hell. \"Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift. \"Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still with him on the way, or he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. I tell you the truth, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.\" - Mathew 5:21-26 N.I.V. Sources: \"Five Hundred Years of Injustice: The Legacy of Fifteenth Century Religious Prejudice\" by Steve Newcomb, Indigenous Law Institute - http//ili.nativeweb.org \"Pagans in the Promised Land: A Primer on Religious Freedom\" by Steven T. Newcomb \"Pope Asks Forgiveness - Will the Vatican Repeal the Inter Caetera?\" By Steven T. Newcomb, Indigenous Law Institute - http//ili.nativeweb.org \"The Legacy of Religious Racism in U.S. Indian Law\" by Steven Newcomb, Indigenous Law Institute - http//ili.nativeweb.org \"American Indian Sovereignty: Now You See It, Now You Don't\" by Peter d'Errico, Legal Studies Dept., University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Books: Lies My Teacher Told Me by James Loewen A Violent Evangelism by Luis N. Rivera Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee by Dee Brown Cite this item Robert Franics, \"Two Kinds of Beings: The Doctrine of Discovery And Its Implications for Yesterday and Today,\" Archived from Manataka American Indian Council, first posted 13 December 2003. Archived 27 May 2021."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/two-row-wampum-doctrine-discovery/",
    "title": "The Two Row Wampum: a Repudiation of the Doctrine of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2022-08-01T18:54:46Z",
    "description": "In the Two Row Wampum, an agreement between two peoples, the Dutch were the first Europeans to sit down and negotiate with the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, doing so in 1613. The English followed suit in 1645, and then the French in 1701. All three of these European powers had colonies in North America at the time, and all three were signatories to the Two Row Wampum. The concept and agreement of the Two Row “Wampum law” repudiated the Doctrine of Discovery, an agreement that gave Christian explorers the right to claim lands they discovered and convert the inhabitants to Christianity under the threat of war.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "doctrine-discovery",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "In the Two Row Wampum, an agreement between two peoples, the Dutch were the first Europeans to sit down and negotiate with the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, doing so in 1613. The English followed suit in 1645, and then the French in 1701. All three of these European powers had colonies in North America at the time, and all three were signatories to the Two Row Wampum. The concept and agreement of the Two Row \"Wampum law\" repudiated the Doctrine of Discovery, an agreement that gave Christian explorers the right to claim lands they discovered and convert the inhabitants to Christianity under the threat of war.",
    "externalUrl": "https://web.archive.org/web/20221202233920/https://grandback.org/journal.php?id=the_two_row_wampum_a_repudiation_of_the_doctrine_of_discovery"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/uncovering-invisible-en/",
    "title": "Uncovering the Invisible: The Doctrine of Discovery, its Impact on the Brazilian Indigenous Peoples, on the environment and how it continues to shape the Brazilian landscape today: English",
    "publishedAt": "2023-04-03T07:54:46Z",
    "description": "English Portugese Spanish Abstract Despite being a tool of colonization and imperialism worldwide, the Doctrine of Discovery’s importance and influence has been overlooked in Brazilian literature and studies. This article examines the Doctrine’s impact on the Brazilian Indigenous people and environment, highlighting the need to acknowledge and understand the effects and manifestations of the Doctrine of Discovery in Brazil. It explores intersections of the Doctrine with Indigenous rights and sovereignty. It argues that understanding the Doctrine is essential to move forward respectfully and sustainably with Indigenous people and the environment.",
    "tags": [
      "law",
      "religion",
      "Christianity",
      "Brazil",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "English{: .btn .btn--primary .btn--x-large} Portugese{: .btn .btn--success .btn--x-large} Spanish{: .btn .btn--info .btn--x-large} Abstract Despite being a tool of colonization and imperialism worldwide, the Doctrine of Discovery's importance and influence has been overlooked in Brazilian literature and studies. This article examines the Doctrine's impact on the Brazilian Indigenous people and environment, highlighting the need to acknowledge and understand the effects and manifestations of the Doctrine of Discovery in Brazil. It explores intersections of the Doctrine with Indigenous rights and sovereignty. It argues that understanding the Doctrine is essential to move forward respectfully and sustainably with Indigenous people and the environment. Keywords: Doctrine of Discovery, Brazilian Literature, Indigenous Peoples, Amazon Forest, Yanomami, Environment, Colonization, Imperialism, Rainforest, Indigenous Rights, Sovereignty, Tordesillas Treaty Introduction The Doctrine of Discovery has long been used for colonization and imperialism worldwide, yet its importance and influence have been largely overlooked in Brazilian studies. European nations used this international Law during the Age of Exploration to justify their colonization of lands outside of Europe. Based on the idea that Christian nations had the right to claim lands that Christians did not inhabit, the Doctrine justifies the displacement of Indigenous peoples from their traditional lands and the seizing their resources. (Miller, 2011) Information about the Doctrine in Brazilian History books, pedagogical and academic publications, articles, and research is close to none, and the case is the same for information available in Portuguese. Studies by John Hemmings, anthropologist, historian and one of the world's experts on Brazilian Indians and the Amazon environment, are available in Portuguese and accessible to Brazilians. He wrote extensively about Brazilian Indigenous people and their domination and oppression since their first encounters with Europeans. Except for his discussions about the Treaty of Tordesillas, Hemmings does not refer to the influence of the Doctrine. It is as if the Doctrine of Discovery never existed below the Equator, and the Tordesillas Treaty, one of its leading technologies, was merely about land demarcation with no further manifestations. Some of the most comprehensive works directly referring to the Doctrine of Discovery manifestations in Brazil are publications by Robert Miller. His work with Micheline D'Angelis, \"Brazil, Indigenous Peoples, and the International Law of Discovery\" (Miller & D'Angelis, 2011), is available in English. In this article, I include recent and concrete cases that reflect the Doctrine's power of epistemological colonialism manifesting itself in Brazilian life as it seeks to impose a particular set of values, beliefs, and knowledge systems on a colonized population. A Eurocentric, white supremacist concept, the Doctrine is frequently used to justify the colonization of Indigenous lands and the exploitation of Indigenous peoples. In a country colonized by the Portuguese, Brazil, discussions about the Doctrine remain inexistent. This silence has allowed the Doctrine's manifestations and effects to remain present, unquestioned, untouched, and ignored. This article explores such invisibility and aims to identify connections between the principles of the Doctrine of Discovery and the ongoing violence against indigenous people in Brazil, together with the devastation of the Amazon Forest and its catastrophic environmental effects. Manifestations and effects of the Doctrine must be included in the Indigenous debate; otherwise, misinformation and dismissal of crucial factors will contribute to epistemic violence resulting from reductionist approaches and interpretations of Brazil's decades-long ongoing violence against Indigenous people. An example is attempting to link the Canadian Truth and Reconciliation Commission to a  2012 Brazilian National Truth Commission (CNV) as if the Brazilian Commission represented any attempt to deal with the violence against Indigenous in Brazil. It is not the case. This is one of the situations when misinformation results from a lack of dealing with the reality that has devastated Indigenous populations in Brazil for decades, if not centuries. Besides, there is no discussion of the Doctrine's manifestations and effects in each country and context. In this case, comparisons between the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Canada and the National Truth Commission in Brazil reduce the century-old historical factors present in the ongoing violence against Indigenous people to an event that hides the truth behind time and space constraints, reinforcing the epistemic violence (Fricker, 2011) that victimizes them. In addition to the fact that the Brazilian Commission (CNV) was not created to address Brazil's ongoing violence against Indigenous people, it is essential to understand that a truth commission is focused on the past rather than ongoing events (Hayner, 2010). In the case of Brazilian Indigenous peoples, violence never ended, and it is an ongoing fact. Recognizing Indigenous people's unique experiences and context in different countries is crucial. Reductionist comparisons reflect the continuity of epistemological colonialism, which creates misconceptions and hides and silences the connections of the Doctrine of the Discovery to current events. This article is not about current events in the Amazon rainforest, denouncing the current precarious conditions of the Yanomami as their land is invaded and exploited. However, it refers to such events as a way of shedding light on the manifestations of this International Law's principles still present today in the justifications for removing indigenous peoples from their land, their subjugation and attempts to eliminate them. The Doctrine principles are at the roots of the tragedy that unfolds in the Amazon today, as the Yanomami people struggle to survive while facing what is seen by many organizations as genocide (Philips, 2023)(Reuters, 2023) (Sassin, 2023)(Miller, 2015). Recognized as the world's richest biological reservoir, containing several million species of all life forms, many not even recorded by science yet, the Amazon Rainforest comprises 40 percent of Brazil's total area. On January 20, 2023, five hundred and twenty-three years after the arrival of the Portuguese in the land to the east of the Treaty of Tordesillas, today Brazil,  the world witnesses the miserable conditions under which the Yanomami people try to survive in the Amazon Forest. The tragedy unfolding in the Yanomami territory shows adults and children in severe malnutrition, starving as fishing, farming, and hunting became impossible due to river contamination with mercury used for mineral extraction. They are perishing from all kinds of diseases brought by illegal mining. Rape and murder of Yanomami children by invaders, the advance of drug traffic and violence against those who challenge the status quo is rampant in their land. Powerful machinery and automatic weapons are used to dislocate, intimidate and kill Yanomami indigenous people and their defenders. The murder of British journalist Don Phillips and Brazilian indigenous expert Bruno Pereira in June 2022 under the orders of a fish trader leading an illegal fishing scheme in the Amazon followed the murder of many indigenous people in the Yanomami territory. The Yanomami reserve is home to around 28,000 Yanomami. Approximately 10 million hectares are home to 371 hard-to-reach communities in the dense Amazon rainforest. According to research by the Instituto Socio Ambiental (ISA) (ISA, 2022), they descend from an Indigenous group that remained relatively isolated for at least a thousand years. This ancient group would have occupied the area of the headwaters of the Orinoco and Parima rivers (which are currently in Roraima, Brazil). Their relationship with the Amazon rainforest and environmental preservation is directly linked to their concern for protecting the forest as part of the Yanomami's relationship with nature. The Yanomami people's decimation has intensified since 2017, during the government of Jair Bolsonaro. After his defeat in the 2022 elections, the new government elected Sônia Guajajara as Brazil's First Minister of Indigenous Peoples. She immediately started rebuilding the systems of protection unmounted by the previous president. Guajajara, a member of Guajajara/Tentehar, graduated in Literature, Nursing and Special Education. She has a history of struggle for the rights of the original peoples and the environment. The 2023 Ministry of Indigenous Peoples creation constitutes a milestone in the changes needed to address relations with Indigenous Peoples, from the Judiciary to Legislative and Executive Powers. It also addresses the lack of representation of Indigenous people at the roots of what some identify as friction (Lisboa, 2022)(Folha, 2023) between the systems of power and Indigenous Peoples in Brazil. The Ministry of Indigenous Peoples includes Indigenous lawyers, Indigenous social workers, Indigenous anthropologists and many Indigenous professionals that have been actively involved with their causes for a long time. Lack of representation has now been significantly reduced as more Indigenous people have access to education and positions that give them the long-needed participation in the debate about their lives. Four indigenous women were elected to the Chamber of Deputies in 2022: Sônia Guajajara, Célia Xakriabá, Silvia Waiãpi, and Juliana Cardoso. They took over as federal deputies on February 1, 2023, on the day of the start of the new Legislature of the National Congress. Xakriabá has a Master's in Sustainable Development and is post-graduated in Anthropology. Célia is one of the founders of the National Articulation of Indigenous Women Warriors of Ancestry. As a Minas Gerais Department of Education member, she collaborated to open indigenous schools and quilombolas and reopen country schools throughout the state. The active participation of Indigenous people in the Legislative, Executive, Judiciary Powers and Academia is crucial for changes to happen and will most certainly be constantly challenged. Governmental organizations, working with representatives of the Minister,   reported the death of more than five hundred and seventy (570) Yanomami children in the last four years after Jair Bolsonaro authorized miners to enter indigenous land. Thirty Yanomami girls under sixteen are pregnant by miners and other invaders. (Business & Human Rights Centre, 2023). On January 20, 2023, the federal government declared a public health emergency in Brazil's largest Indigenous Reserve. (Gozzi, 2023). On January 31, 2023, the Brazilian Army, Navy, and Air Force were sent to expel land invaders, protect the Yanomami people from their attacks and rescue thousands of sick and dying Yanomami people who were the object of continuous violence in their land. (Philips, 2023) In the country with the highest Catholic population, colonized by the Portuguese, the Doctrine of Discovery, its manifestations and effects remain ignored by the majority. Papal Bull Dum Diversas (1452) was issued eight years before the arrival of the Portuguese on the coast of Brazil. It called for non-Christian peoples to be invaded, captured, vanquished, subdued and reduced to perpetual slavery. As a follow-up, in 1455, the papal bull Romanus Pontifex was issued to protect the King of Portugal's ascendancy over new lands discovered, forbidding other Christian kings from infringing Portugal's King's practice of trade and incursions of colonization in specific regions. (Slaterry, 2005). Even as the Yanomami tragedy is in the news everywhere, references to the existence of the Doctrine, its Impact on Indigenous people, the environment, or any respect to how it shapes the Brazilian landscape today are nonexistent. There is, nevertheless, a piece of Art that deserves special attention as it has been telling the History of the Doctrine in Brazil since 1860. The 1860 oil on canvas by famous artist Victor Meirelles, currently on display at Museu Nacional de Belas Artes in São Paulo, Brazil, tells a chapter of the Doctrine that is hidden at first glance. 'First Mass in Brazil' by Victor Meirelles (1860) - Museu Nacional de Belas Artes, SP, Brazil. By Victor Meirelles, Public Domain, commons.wikimedia.org/ The painting 'The First Mass in Brazil' gives an accurate visual account of the rituals of the Doctrine, constituting a well-documented starting point to shed light on the Doctrine's principles and its powerful presence since the initial colonial days when the Portuguese arrived in the coast of what is now Brazil. Historian studies are not free from ideology. While setting forth the past, putting together bits and pieces, they cannot guarantee that what remains is the most important, the most representative part of the event, concluded Gottschalk (Gottschalk, 1979). The same applies when artists use the powers of Art to represent Historical events. Beginning with the painting's title, \"The First Mass in Brazil\", we meet the incomplete, if not deceiving, \"bit of History\" that demands attention.  Painted by Victor Meirelles in Paris in 1859-1861, the almost 14.9 square inches (9,6 square meters)  piece became one of Brazil's most well-known canvases. Its presence is a must in any pedagogical publication. Meirelles was influenced by Horace Vernet's painting 'First Mass in Kabylie'. Vernet was an eyewitness to the Catholic Mass celebrating French colonization in North Africa, and his legitimacy as a historical painter inspired the Brazilian painter (Castro, 2009). In April 1500, Pedro Álvares Cabral's fleet landed in what is now known as Brazil. In the fleet was Pero Vaz de Caminha, a Portuguese civil servant. Caminha officially described the ceremony of the two Catholic masses celebrated in the new land. He wrote a detailed letter to the Portuguese King, as expected from a knight in his position. The original letter is in the National Archive of The Tower of Tombo, Lisbon (Arquivo Nacional da Torre do Tombo, Lisboa, in Portuguese). It is frequently mentioned in Brazilian History books as a testimony of the Portuguese's benevolent encounter with the land's inhabitants. Due to the secrecy with which the Kingdom of Portugal has always involved reports of its discoveries, the entire content of Caminha's letter was made public only in the nineteenth century by Father Manuel Aires de Casal in his 'Corografia Brasílica' in 1817. (Lencione, 2009)(de Casal, 1817).   Only then could the context of the elements of the painting be fully understood. The painting, Meirelles said, followed the description contained in Caminha's letter. In reality, the painting gives an accurate image of the Portuguese adopted ritual of possession, with all the Doctrine's required steps and components. The Portuguese used to record their navigation discoveries by planting tall stone pillars topped by a square stone where they carved the year of the expedition, the name of the leader of the expedition and the name of the Portuguese King. On top of the carved square stone was a cross. (Seed, 1995, p.132). The ritual of possession and enacting authority over discoveries also required detailed written documentation. Caminha's letter to the King fulfilled this requirement (Seed, 1995, p.180). Like Horace Vernet's painting, Meirelles' painting documents the colonization ritual. Like Vernet, Meirelles named the possession ceremony \"The First Mass in Brazil\".  As we observe the oil on canvas, the image focuses on the left, where a central religious man performs the ritual while other religious men witness it. These figures occupy a higher level except for two men in armour on the left. Some indigenous people observe or find protection on top of a tree on the right.  In a distant circle, observing the events, are indigenous people depicted with a wide range of expressions: fear, anger, astonishment, and incredulity. A baby being breastfed, scared children, warriors, and young and old indigenous populate the left side of the painting. Many indigenous are distant, some with brawling arms, some pointing at the ships in the sea. There is a subtle sense of chaos among them. In the background, the landscape is made of trees with large canopies, mountains, and a blue sky. The ocean and glances of ships of the Portuguese fleet are represented in the right corner, and all constitute a detailed visual representation of what was described in Caminha's letter to the King. After the Doctrine's rituals or acts of possession were executed, Portugal's legal claim was established. (Seed, 1995) Consequently, these Indigenous people portrayed in the painting, inhabitants of that land for more than two thousand years, became Portuguese possessions. After Cabral's discovery in 1500, the focus of the Portuguese Crown in its colony was the extraction of resources from the land, such as brazilwood, precious minerals and whatever could be found. Signed between Spain and Portugal, Tordesillas Treaty created a line of demarcation, allocating the land to the east of the line to Portugal and the land to the left of the line to Spain. The effects of the 1494 Treaty remain embedded in the Brazilian system of laws and treaties that reinforce the Yanomami's exploitation as their land is repetitively invaded, and they are victimized by the same kind of violence that existed upon the arrival of the Portuguese. In 1530, soon after the \"discovery\" and following the demarcation by the Tordesillas Treaty, the territory of what became known as Brazil was divided into fourteen strips of land and granted to nobles of trust of King D. João III (1502-1557). The land, called hereditary captaincies, could then be passed from father to son. The legacy of hereditary captaincies is present today through the concentration of land ownership and perpetuation of Brazilian 'colonelism' that maintains power in many areas as the same families control states and create difficulties in demarcating indigenous land.  Meirelles' painting gives a sense of the Portuguese arrival in indigenous land. Papal bulls issued by Pope Nicholas in 1452 and 1455 provided the right to take possession of indigenous peoples' land and goods \"to convert them to you, and your use, and your successors the Kings of Portugal\" (Slattery, 2005). Meirelles' painting is present in most Brazilian schoolbooks. On the other hand, absent in Brazilian education, the Doctrine of Discovery is part of History that is still \"hidden in plain site\". Informed knowledge of the origins of today's catastrophic events passes through awareness and information about the principles and methods included in the Doctrine of Discovery. Racist elements of the Doctrine are frequently part of the discourse of some Brazilian politicians and authorities. Recently, while defending his policy of opening indigenous land to miners, loggers and agribusiness, Jair Bolsonaro, president of Brazil until January 1, 2023, declared: \"The Indian has changed; it is evolving. Increasingly, the Indian is becoming a human being equal to us\".                                                             (Jair Bolsonaro, Presidential live, January 24, 2020) On August 16, 1998, the same Jair Bolsonaro declared, in a speech in the Brazilian House of Commons: \"The Brazilian cavalry was very incompetent. Competent, yes, was the North American cavalry, and it decimated the Indians in the past and nowadays have no such problems in their country.\" As agribusiness pushed for limitations in the demarcation of indigenous land, presidential support by Jair Bolsonaro was necessary to approve the so-called 'Time Frame' (\"Marco Temporal\", in Portuguese). \"Marco Temporal\" is a legal thesis constructed jurisprudentially in which the Doctrine's principles are present in all its colours. The case of the land known as 'Raposa Serra do Sol' was discussed in Brazil's Supreme Federal Court (STF) in 2009. In it, the Supreme Court decided that the article of the Constitution that guarantees the enjoyment of the lands traditionally occupied by the Brazilian indigenous should be interpreted by counting only the lands in possession on October 5, 1988, the date of the promulgation of the 1988 Brazilian Constitution. Such an interpretation would validate the acts of the Brazilian military dictatorship when indigenous people were frequently murdered and expelled from their land. As the Yanomami's catastrophe unfolds, Brazil is still debating on two fronts whether it is legal or not to determine a time frame for the demarcation of indigenous lands. The discussion takes place on two legal fronts: it is to be voted on by the Supreme Court (STF), and there is an attempt to approve Bill 490/2007. Such Bill 490/2007 includes extremely problematic provisions, impeding Indigenous people from claiming additional land to expand already demarcated territories. It also allows the government to eliminate Indigenous reserves threatening Indigenous people's livelihood and cultural survival. Bill 490/2007, if approved, embeds overbroad terms that could lead to forced removals of indigenous peoples from their land, as stated by Human Rights Watch. The principles evoked are not by coincidence similar, if not equal, to those included in the Doctrine of Discovery. It expands government powers allowing it to invade the land and contact even Indigenous peoples living in voluntary isolation. Furthermore, as the papal bulls, the bill gives the government the power to explore, at its own will, energy resources, set up military bases, and expand strategic roads in Indigenous lands without any consultation with Indigenous peoples. The principles of the Doctrine and its manifestations, although hidden under layers of misinformation and omission, are, hidden in plain sight, embedded in Bills like Bill 490/2007. Regardless of the Catholic Church's discourse about protecting the environment and calling for the preservation of the forest, there are no words about its role in enacting those bulls, let alone about refusing to reject the Doctrine. Amid the scandalous news, modest donations by the Catholic Church have been offered, and neither compensation nor emancipation is provided to the original people victimized by their papal bulls. In 2007, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) was ratified by all its participants except for four countries: Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States. Information about the Doctrine is continuously being spread in those countries. Moreover, regardless of the inefficacy of the Canadian Senate passed Bill C-15, which seeks to align Canadian Law with UNDRIP but does not directly implement many of the declaration's articles into Canadian Law, only partially rescinding the effects of the Doctrine of Discovery in Canadian Law, the Brazilian case, signatory of the 2007 UNDRIP, is even more oblivious to the damage caused by such Doctrine. Regardless of Brazil's ratification of the 2007 UNDRIP, it produced no practical effects, and the Brazilian government still needs to account for its lack of compliance. Robert Miller's work, \"The Doctrine of Discovery: The international law of colonialism\",  highlights the need to recognize and address the legacy of colonialism to ensure Indigenous sovereignty.  While Brazilian school books include themes such as occupation, consolidation of the Portuguese in America, discovery, colonization, and indigenous peoples, there is no reference to the Doctrine of Discovery in Brazilian publications in Portuguese, the country's primary language. In January 2023, the recently elected Brazilian Minister for Human Rights and Citizenship, a jurist and scholar, demanded the presence of federal policy in the Yanomami land to rid the land of criminals and to protect the lives of all that are under the gun of the miners and their bosses operating the economic mining cycle started by the Portuguese. In invaded land where 28,000 Yanomami live, there are 20,000 miners, and behind them, a powerful and wealthy network of mining companies and organized crime enriching and expanding with no accountability. Hate crimes and genocide are never isolated events but result from hatred and violence incitement. The current extreme right-wing government has targeted the indigenous people and many other groups in Brazil in a dehumanizing discourse that seemed like a preparation for annihilating indigenous people without a reaction from the population. Indigenous people in Brazil, among them the Yanomami, have been on the brink of genocide.      While Canadian Indigenous people asked the pope to repel the Doctrine of discovery, Brazilian indigenous people remained oblivious to the role of the Doctrine of Discovery in their fate. The invasion of the Yanomami's land and the allegedly deliberate destruction of their ability to feed themselves, the contamination of the waters and the spread of disease are a repetition of manifestations of the Doctrine of Discovery, a topic totally out of sight in most of this prominent Catholic country. Conclusion The Doctrine of Discovery has had a long and devastating history in Brazil. From enslavement,  exploitation and the denial of Indigenous sovereignty to the genocide of the Yanomami in the Amazon, this legacy continues today with the ongoing struggle for Indigenous rights. Indigenous people have traditionally played the role of \"guardians\" of the Amazon, an immense natural territory vital in the fight against climate change. Indigenous Brazilian legislators, Indigenous Organizations, lawyers, judges and attorneys of justice are fighting back. However, a piece of the puzzle is still missing: the recognition that The Doctrine of Discovery has caused immense suffering and injustice to Indigenous peoples. To create a more positive and equal future for all Brazilians, it is essential to recognize the truth of the country's History and to eradicate the vestiges of the Doctrine of Discovery from Brazilian Law and society. It is time to bring down the veil of ignorance that hides the origins of ongoing violence against Indigenous people - papal bulls constituting the Doctrine of Discovery. It is time to make common knowledge the fact that behind the Yanomami oppression and appropriation of land are the principles of the Doctrine. It is as if they always retained power over the region's first inhabitants, even when the Doctrine remains hidden from common knowledge. REFERENCES Bell, J., Sterett, S., & Young, M. (2018). Editors' Note. Law & Society Review, 52(3), 559. Business & Human Rights Centre. (2023). \"Complaints Indicate That 30 Yanomami Girls Are Pregnant, Victims of Abuses Committed by miners in Roraima\"(in Portuguese: Denuncias Apontam Que 30 Meninas Yanomami Estão Grávidas, Vítimas de abusos Cometidos por garimpeiros em Roraima). Retrieved February 26, 2023, from Castro, P. (2009). História da Historiografia. 0 (2): 29--49 Charny, I. W. (2000). Encyclopedia of genocide. ABC-CLIO. COIAB, (2010).\"Brazilian indigenous federation is key Conservancy ally in the Amazon rainforest\". Coordenação das Organizações Indígenas da Amazônia Brasileira. Retrieved February 26, 2023, from Fricker, M. (2011). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Folha de São Paulo (2023). \"No Government Has Ever Properly Addressed Land Issues in the Amazon\". Retrieved February 27, 2023, from https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/internacional/en/scienceandhealth/2023/02/no-government-has-ever-properly-addressed-land-issues-in-the-amazon.shtml Hayner, P. (2010). \"Unspeakable Truths: Transitional Justice and the Challenge of Truth Commissions.\" (\"Unspeakable Truths: Transitional Justice and the Challenge of Truth ...\") Routledge. ISBN 978-0415806350. Hemming, J. (1978). Red Gold: The conquest of the Brazilian Indians. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. House of Representatives, Brazil. (2022). \"House of Representatives will have four Indigenous Deputies.\" (in Portuguese: Câmara dos Deputados Terá quatro Deputadas Indígenas).) Retrieved February 26, 2023, from ISA, I. (2022, April 11). Instituto Socioambiental - Yanomami Indigenous Land. Retrieved January 31, 2023, from https://www.yanomami30anos.org/en Gottschalk, L. R. (1969). Understanding history: A primer of historical method. Gozzi, L. (2023, January 24). Brazil airlifts starving Yanomami tribal people from the jungle. Retrieved January 30, 2023, from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-64381922 Indigenous Title and the Doctrine of Discovery - ictinc.ca. Lencioni, S. (2009). Região e Geografia. São Paulo: EdUSP. ISBN 978-85-314-0515-0 de Casal, M. A. (1817). Corografia Brazilica ou Relação historico-geografica do Reino do Brazil. Régia Oficina Tipográfica. Lisboa, J. (2022). Indigenous peoples and the judiciary in Brazil: an appeal for a legal anthropology approach. Vibrant: Virtual Brazilian Anthropology. 19. 10.1590/1809-43412022v19a803. MENA Report, (2023). Brazil will take a resolution on the health of Indigenous peoples to the WHO. Miller, R. (2015). The Doctrine of Discovery, manifest destiny, and American Indians. Retrieved February 19, 2023, from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstractid=2689279 Miller, R. (2019). \"The doctrine of discovery: The international law of colonialism.\" Indigenous Peoples' JL Culture & Resistance. Miller, R., & D'Angelis, M. (2011). Brazil, Indigenous Peoples, and the International Law of Discovery. Retrieved February 26, 2023, from https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/bjil/vol37/iss1/1/ Philips, T. (2023). Jair Bolsonaro accused of acts of genocide against Amazonian Group. Retrieved March 11, 2023, from Philips, T. (2023). 'A War Society Doesn't See': The Brazilian force driving out mining gangs from Indigenous Lands. Retrieved March 11, 2023, from Permanent forum for Indigenous peoples. (n.d.). Retrieved February 19, 2023, from Reuters. (2023, January 23). Evidence of 'genocide' among Brazil's indigenous Yanomami, says Minister. Retrieved January 30, 2023, from: Sassin, (2023, January 26). Yanomami genocide: Prospectors and authorities are investigated. Retrieved January 30, 2023, from Seed, P. (1995). Ceremonies of possession in Europe's conquest of the New World: 1492-1640.Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Livermore, H. V. (1976). A New History of Portugal (pp. 127--139). Cambridge University Press. Thorpe, A. (2018). Pop-up property: Enacting ownership from San Francisco to Sydney. Retrieved February 19, 2023, from http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNSWLRS/2019/94.pdf Walker, R.S., Kesler, D.C., & Hill, K.R. (2016). Are Isolated Indigenous Populations Headed toward Extinction? PLoS ONE, 11."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/uncovering-invisible-es/",
    "title": "Descubrir lo invisible: la doctrina del descubrimiento, su impacto en los pueblos indígenas de Brasil, el medio ambiente y cómo sigue configurando el paisaje brasileño actual: Spanish",
    "publishedAt": "2023-04-03T07:54:46Z",
    "description": "English Portugese Spanish Resumen A pesar de ser un instrumento de la colonización global y del imperialismo, la importancia y la influencia de la Doctrina del Descubrimiento han sido descuidadas en la literatura y los estudios brasileños. Este artículo examina el impacto de la Doctrina sobre los pueblos indígenas brasileños y el medio ambiente, destacando la necesidad de reconocer y comprender los efectos y manifestaciones de la Doctrina del Descubrimiento en Brasil. También explora las intersecciones de la Doctrina con los derechos y la soberanía indígenas. Sostiene que comprender la Doctrina es esencial para avanzar de forma respetuosa y sostenible con los pueblos indígenas y el medio ambiente.",
    "tags": [
      "law",
      "religion",
      "Christianity",
      "Brazil",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "English{: .btn .btn--primary .btn--x-large} Portugese{: .btn .btn--success .btn--x-large} Spanish{: .btn .btn--info .btn--x-large} Resumen A pesar de ser un instrumento de la colonización global y del imperialismo, la importancia y la influencia de la Doctrina del Descubrimiento han sido descuidadas en la literatura y los estudios brasileños. Este artículo examina el impacto de la Doctrina sobre los pueblos indígenas brasileños y el medio ambiente, destacando la necesidad de reconocer y comprender los efectos y manifestaciones de la Doctrina del Descubrimiento en Brasil. También explora las intersecciones de la Doctrina con los derechos y la soberanía indígenas. Sostiene que comprender la Doctrina es esencial para avanzar de forma respetuosa y sostenible con los pueblos indígenas y el medio ambiente. Palabras clave: Doctrina del Descubrimiento, literatura brasileña, pueblos indígenas, selva amazónica, Yanomami, medio ambiente, colonización, imperialismo, selva tropical, derechos indígenas, soberanía, Tratado de Tordesillas. La Doctrina del Descubrimiento se ha utilizado durante mucho tiempo para la colonización y el imperialismo en todo el mundo, pero su importancia e influencia se han pasado por alto en gran medida en los estudios brasileños. Las naciones europeas utilizaron este Derecho Internacional durante la Era de las Exploraciones para justificar la colonización de tierras fuera de Europa. Basada en la idea de que las naciones cristianas tenían derecho a reclamar tierras habitadas por non cristianos, la Doctrina justificó la expulsión de los pueblos indígenas de sus tierras y la confiscación y apropiación de los recursos de las mismas.(Miller, 2011) La información sobre la Doctrina en libros de historia brasileña, publicaciones pedagógicas y académicas, artículos e investigaciones brasileñas es casi inexistente, y lo mismo ocurre con la información disponible en portugués. Los estudios de John Hemmings, antropólogo, historiador y uno de los mayores expertos mundiales sobre los indios brasileños y el medio ambiente amazónico, están disponibles en portugués y son accesibles para los brasileños. Hemmings ha escrito extensamente sobre la dominación y opresión de los pueblos indígenas brasileños desde sus primeros encuentros con los europeos todavia, salvo breves menciones al Tratado de Tordesillas, Hemmings no hace referencia alguna a la influencia de la Doctrina en la historia brasileña. Es como si la Doctrina del Descubrimiento nunca hubiera existido por debajo del Ecuador, y el Tratado de Tordesillas, una de sus principales manifestaciones, fuera una mera demarcación de tierras sin mayores consecuencias. Algunos de los pocos trabajos que se refieren a las manifestaciones de la Doctrina del Descubrimiento en Brasil son publicaciones de Robert Miller. Su trabajo con Micheline D'Angelis, \"Brazil, Indigenous Peoples, and the International Law of Discovery\" (Miller & D'Angelis, 2011), está disponible en inglés, pero no en portugués. En el presente artículo se incluyen casos recientes y concretos que reflejan el colonialismo epistemológico originado en la Doctrina y que se manifiesta en la vida brasileña como una forma de imposición de un conjunto particular de valores, creencias y sistemas de conocimiento a una población colonizada. Concepto eurocéntrico y basado en la creencia en la supremacía europea blanca, la Doctrina ha sido utilizada para justificar la colonización de tierras indígenas y la explotación de los pueblos. En un país colonizado por los portugueses, Brasil, los debates sobre la Doctrina siguen siendo inexistentes. Este silencio ha permitido que las manifestaciones y los efectos de la Doctrina sigan presentes, incuestionados, intactos e ignorados. Este artículo explora esta invisibilidad y pretende identificar las conexiones entre los principios de la Doctrina del Descubrimiento y la violencia contra los pueblos indígenas en Brasil, que tiene como resultado la devastación de la selva Amazónica y los consiguientes efectos medioambientales catastróficos. Las manifestaciones y efectos de la Doctrina deben incluirse en el debate sobre los hechos que rodean a los pueblos indígenas. De lo contrario, la desinformación y el rechazo de factores cruciales contribuirán a la continuidad de la violencia epistémica resultante de enfoques e interpretaciones reduccionistas de la actual victimización de los pueblos indígenas en Brasil. Un caso que refleja tal reduccionismo sería el de buscar formas de establecer conexiones inexistentes entre la Comisión de la Verdad y Reconciliación de Canadá de 2008 (2008 Canadian Truth and Reconciliation Commission ) y la Comisión Nacional de la Verdad (CNV) celebrada en Brasil en 2012 (2112 Comissão Nacional da Verdade). Tal intento de establecer conexiones entre ad dos situaciones buscaría crear la falsa idea de que la Comisión brasileña representó un intento de lidiar con la violencia contra los pueblos indígenas de Brasil. Este no es el caso. Esta es una de las situaciones en las que la desinformación resulta de la incapacidad de hacer frente a la realidad que ha devastado a las poblaciones indígenas de Brasil durante décadas, si no siglos. En este caso, las comparaciones entre la Comisión de la Verdad y Reconciliación en Canadá (2008 Canadian Truth and Reconciliation Commission) y la Comisión Nacional de la Verdad en Brasil reducen los factores históricos centenarios presentes en la violencia permanente contra los pueblos indígenas en Brasil a un hecho vinculado a la dictadura en ese país (1964-1985), ocultando la verdad con restricciones de tiempo y espacio, reforzando la violencia epistémica (Fricker, 2011) que los victimiza. Además del hecho de que la Comisión Brasileña (CNV) no fue creada para abordar la violencia contra los pueblos indígenas en Brasil, es esencial señalar que una \"Comisión de la Verdad\" se centra conceptualmente en el pasado y no en los acontecimientos en curso (Hayner, 2010). En el caso de los pueblos indígenas brasileños, la violencia es un hecho en curso que no puede ocultarse como un acontecimiento del pasado. El reconocimiento de las diferentes experiencias y del contexto único de los pueblos indígenas en cada país es crucial. Las comparaciones reduccionistas reflejan la continuidad del colonialismo epistemológico, que crea conceptos erróneos y silencia y oculta las conexiones de la Doctrina del Descubrimiento con los acontecimientos actuales. Este artículo no trata de la actualidad de la selva amazónica y no pretende, como objetivo principal, denunciar las precarias condiciones actuales del pueblo Yanomami, que sufre la invasión y la explotación desenfrenada de su tierra. La prensa mundial en este momento, en 2023, se ha encargado afortunadamente de hacerlo. Sin embargo, este artículo hace mención de tales acontecimientos como una forma de arrojar luz sobre las manifestaciones de los principios de este Derecho Internacional que aún hoy están presentes en las justificaciones reiteradamente utilizadas para la expulsión de los pueblos indígenas de sus tierras, su sometimiento y los intentos de eliminarlos. Los principios de la Doctrina están en la raíz de la tragedia que se desarrolla hoy en la Amazonia, cuando el pueblo Yanomami lucha por sobrevivir mientras se enfrenta a lo que muchas organizaciones consideran un genocidio (Philips, 2023) (Reuters, 2023) (Sassin, 2023) (Miller, 2015). Reconocida como la reserva biológica más rica del mundo, con varios millones de especies de todas las formas de vida, muchas de ellas aún no registradas por la ciencia, la selva amazónica comprende el 40% de la superficie total de Brasil. El 20 de enero de 2023, quinientos veintitrés años después de la llegada de los portugueses a las tierras situadas al este del Tratado de Tordesillas, actual Brasil, el mundo es testigo de las miserables condiciones en las que el pueblo Yanomami intenta sobrevivir en la selva amazónica. La tragedia que se desarrolla en el territorio Yanomami muestra a adultos y niños que padecen desnutrición severa, muriendo de hambre porque la pesca, la agricultura y la caza se hicieron imposibles tras la invasión de sus tierras por mineros y empresas mineras que provocaron la contaminación de los ríos con el mercurio utilizado para la extracción de minerales. Actualmente, el pueblo Yanomami perece a causa de todo tipo de enfermedades provocadas por la minería ilegal. La violencia física y sexual, el asesinato de niños Yanomami a manos de invasores, el avance del narcotráfico y la violencia contra quienes desafían el statu quo están continuamente presentes en sus tierras. Se utilizan potentes máquinas y armas automáticas para desplazar, intimidar y asesinar a los indígenas Yanomami y a sus defensores. El asesinato del periodista británico Don Phillips y del experto indígena brasileño Bruno Pereira en junio de 2022 por orden de un comerciante de pescado que dirigía un plan de pesca ilegal en el Amazonas se produjo tras el asesinato de muchos indígenas en territorio Yanomami. En la reserva Yanomami viven unos 28.000 Yanomami. Aproximadamente 10 millones de hectáreas albergan a 371 comunidades de difícil acceso en la densa selva amazónica. Según las investigaciones del Instituto Socio Ambiental - ISA (ISA, 2022), el pueblo Yanomami desciende de un grupo indígena que permaneció relativamente aislado durante al menos mil años. Este antiguo grupo habría ocupado las cabeceras de los ríos Orinoco y Parima (que actualmente se encuentran en Roraima, Brasil). Su relación con la selva amazónica y la preservación del medio ambiente está directamente vinculada a su preocupación por la protección de los bosques como parte de la relación de los Yanomami con la naturaleza. La diezma del pueblo Yanomami se ha intensificado desde 2017, durante el gobierno de Jair Bolsonaro. Tras su derrota en las elecciones de 2022, el nuevo gobierno eligió a Sônia Guajajara como Primera Ministra de Pueblos Indígenas de Brasil. Ella se puso inmediatamente a reconstruir los sistemas de protección destruidos por el anterior presidente. Guajajara, miembro del pueblo indígena Guajajara/Tentehar y licenciada en Literatura, Enfermería y Educación Especial, tiene un historial de lucha por los derechos de los pueblos originarios y el medio ambiente. La creación del Ministerio de Pueblos Indígenas en 2023 es un hito en los cambios necesarios para mejorar las relaciones desde el Poder Judicial hasta el Legislativo y Ejecutivo con los Pueblos Indígenas. También aborda la falta de representación de los Pueblos Indígenas, denunciada por muchos como un elemento en la base de las fricciones (Lisboa, 2022) (Folha, 2023) entre los sistemas de poder y los Pueblos Indígenas en Brasil. El Ministerio de los Pueblos Indígenas incluye abogados indígenas, trabajadores sociales indígenas, antropólogos indígenas y muchos profesionales indígenas que desde hace tiempo participan activamente en sus causas. La falta de representación se ha reducido significativamente a medida que más indígenas tienen acceso a la educación y a puestos que les dan la tan necesaria participación en el debate sobre sus vidas. Cuatro mujeres indígenas han sido elegidas para la Cámara de Diputados en 2022: Sônia Guajajara, Célia Xakriabá, Silvia Waiãpi y Juliana Cardoso. Tomarán posesión como diputadas federales el 1 de febrero de 2023, día en que comienza la nueva Legislatura del Congreso. Xakriabá tiene un Máster en Desarrollo Sostenible y un Posgrado en Antropología. Célia es una de las fundadoras de la Articulación Nacional de Mujeres Indígenas Guerreras de la Antigüedad. Como miembro de la Secretaría de Educación de Minas Gerais, colaboró en la apertura de escuelas indígenas y quilombolas y en la reapertura de escuelas rurales en todo el estado. La participación activa de los pueblos indígenas en los poderes Legislativo, Ejecutivo, Judicial y Académico es crucial para que se produzcan cambios y, sin duda, será un reto constante. Organizaciones gubernamentales, en colaboración con representantes del ministro, han denunciado la muerte de más de quinientos setenta (570) niños Yanomami en los últimos cuatro años, después de que Jair Bolsonaro autorizara a los mineros a entrar en tierras indígenas. Treinta niñas Yanomami menores de dieciséis años están embarazadas de mineros y otros invasores (Business & Human Rights Centre, 2023). El 20 de enero de 2023, el gobierno federal declaró una emergencia de salud pública en la mayor reserva indígena de Brasil (Gozzi, 2023). El 31 de enero de 2023, el Ejército, la Marina y la Fuerza Aérea brasileños fueron enviados para expulsar a los invasores de tierras, proteger al pueblo Yanomami de sus ataques y rescatar a miles de Yanomami enfermos y moribundos sometidos a una violencia continua en sus tierras (Philips, 2023). En el país con mayor población católica, colonizado por los portugueses, la Doctrina del Descubrimiento, sus manifestaciones y efectos siguen siendo ignorados por la mayoría. La bula papal Dum Diversas (1452) se publicó ocho años antes de la llegada de los portugueses a la costa de Brasil. En ella se pedía que los pueblos no cristianos fueran invadidos, capturados, derrotados, subyugados y reducidos a esclavitud perpetua. A continuación, en 1455, se emitió la bula papal Romanus Pontifex para proteger el ascendiente del rey de Portugal sobre las tierras recién descubiertas, prohibiendo a otros reyes cristianos infringir las prácticas comerciales y las incursiones colonizadoras del rey de Portugal en regiones específicas (Slaterry, 2005). Aunque la tragedia de los Yanomami es noticia en todas partes, las referencias a la existencia de la Doctrina, su impacto en los pueblos indígenas, el medio ambiente o cualquier respeto a cómo configura el paisaje brasileño actual son inexistentes. Sin embargo, hay una obra de arte que merece especial atención, ya que cuenta la historia de la Doctrina en Brasil desde 1860. El óleo sobre lienzo de 1860 del famoso artista Victor Meirelles, actualmente expuesto en el Museo Nacional de Bellas Artes de São Paulo, Brasil, cuenta un capítulo de la Doctrina que queda oculto a primera vista. Primera Misa en Brasil\", de Victor Meirelles (1860) - Museo Nacional de Bellas Artes, São Paulo, Brasil. By Victor Meirelles, Public Domain, commons.wikimedia.org/ El cuadro \"La Primera Misa en Brasil\" da cuenta visual precisa de los rituales de la Doctrina, constituyendo un punto de partida bien documentado para esclarecer los principios de la Doctrina y su poderosa presencia desde los primeros tiempos coloniales, cuando los portugueses llegaron a la costa de lo que hoy es Brasil. Los estudios históricos no están exentos de ideología. Aunque expongan el pasado, juntando trozos, no pueden garantizar que lo que queda sea lo más importante, lo más representativo del acontecimiento, concluyó Gottschalk (Gottschalk, 1979). Lo mismo ocurre cuando los artistas utilizan los poderes del Arte para representar acontecimientos históricos. Empezando por el título del cuadro, \"La primera misa en Brasil\", encontramos el \"pedazo de historia\" incompleto, si no engañoso, que exige atención.  Pintada por Victor Meirelles en París en 1859-1861, la obra de casi 9,6 metros cuadrados se ha convertido en uno de los lienzos más conocidos de Brasil. Su presencia es imprescindible en cualquier publicación educativa. Meirelles se vio influido por el cuadro de Horace Vernet \"Primera misa en Cabilia\". Vernet fue testigo presencial de la misa católica que celebraba la colonización francesa en el norte de África, y su legitimidad como pintor histórico inspiró al pintor brasileño (Castro, 2009). En abril de 1500, la flota de Pedro Álvares Cabral desembarcó en lo que hoy se conoce como Brasil. En la flota iba Pero Vaz de Caminha, funcionario portugués. Caminha describió oficialmente la ceremonia de las dos misas católicas celebradas en la nueva tierra. Escribió una carta detallada al rey portugués, como era de esperar de un caballero de su posición. La carta original se conserva en el Archivo Nacional de la Torre do Tombo, en Lisboa. Se menciona a menudo en los libros de historia brasileños como testimonio del benévolo encuentro de los portugueses con los habitantes de la tierra. Debido al secretismo con el que el Reino de Portugal siempre envolvió los relatos de sus descubrimientos, el contenido íntegro de la carta de Caminha sólo se hizo público en el siglo XIX por el padre Manuel Aires de Casal en su \"Corografia Brasílica\" en 1817 (Lencione, 2009)(de Casal, 1817). Sólo entonces pudo comprenderse plenamente el contexto de los elementos del cuadro. El cuadro, según Meirelles, seguía la descripción contenida en la carta de Caminha. De hecho, la pintura da una imagen exacta del ritual de posesión adoptado por los portugueses, con todos los pasos y componentes necesarios de la Doctrina. Los portugueses solían dejar constancia de sus descubrimientos de navegación plantando altos pilares de piedra rematados por una piedra cuadrada donde grababan el año de la expedición, el nombre del jefe de la expedición y el nombre del rey portugués. Encima de la piedra cuadrada tallada había una cruz (Seed, 1995, p.132). La posesión ritual y la oficialización de los descubrimientos también exigían una detallada documentación escrita. La carta de Pero Vaz de Caminha al rey cumplía este requisito (Seed, 1995, p.180). Al igual que el cuadro de Horace Vernet, el de Meirelles documenta el ritual que oficializó el proceso de colonización, de acuerdo con las normas descritas en las bulas papales que constituyen la documentación de la Doctrina de los Descubrimientos. Al igual que hizo Vernet al documentar el ritual de posesión de los colonos franceses, Meirelles bautizó la ceremonia de posesión con el nombre de \"Primera Misa en Brasil\". Al observar el óleo sobre lienzo, vemos que la imagen se concentra a la izquierda, donde , en el centro, un religioso realiza el ritual de la misa mientras otros religiosos presencian el acontecimiento. Estas figuras ocupan un plano superior, excepto dos hombres con armadura a la izquierda. Algunos indígenas observan o encuentran protección en la copa de un árbol a la derecha. En un círculo distante, observando los acontecimientos, se representa a los indígenas con una amplia gama de expresiones: miedo, ira, asombro e incredulidad. Un bebé siendo amamantado, niños asustados, guerreros e indios jóvenes y viejos pueblan la parte izquierda del cuadro. Muchos indios están distantes, algunos con los brazos estirados hacia arriba, otros señalando a los barcos en el mar. Hay entre ellos una sensación de caos o asombro. Al fondo, el paisaje se compone de árboles con grandes copas, montañas y un cielo azul. En la esquina derecha se representa el océano y miradas en dirección a los barcos de la flota portuguesa. Todo constituye una detallada representación visual de lo descrito en la carta de Caminha al Rey. En cuanto se realizaban los rituales o actos de posesión definidos en la documentación de la Doctrina, se establecía inmediatamente la reclamación legal de Portugal (Seed, 1995). En consecuencia, todos los indígenas retratados en el cuadro de Meireles, habitantes de aquella tierra desde hacía más de dos mil años, pasaron inmediatamente a ser posesión portuguesa. Tras el descubrimiento de Cabral en 1500, la atención de la Corona portuguesa en su colonia se centró en extraer recursos de la tierra, como madera de Brasil, minerales preciosos y cualquier otra cosa que pudiera encontrarse. Firmado entre España y Portugal, el Tratado de Tordesillas creó una línea imaginaria de demarcación, asignando la tierra al este de la línea a Portugal y la tierra a la izquierda de la línea a España. Los efectos del Tratado de 1494 permanecen ocultos en el sistema brasileño de leyes y tratados que niegan los derechos y refuerzan la explotación de los Yanomami, que ven sus tierras invadidas repetidamente mientras adultos y niños son víctimas de la misma violencia que comenzó con la llegada de los portugueses. En 1530, poco después del \"descubrimiento\" y tras la demarcación por el Tratado de Tordesillas, el territorio de lo que más tarde se conocería como Brasil se dividió en catorce franjas de tierra que luego se concedieron a nobles de confianza del rey Juan III (1502-1557). Cada franja de tierra, llamada \"Capitanía Hereditaria\", se transmitía de padres a hijos. El legado de las Capitanías Hereditarias está presente hoy en día a través de la concentración de la propiedad de la tierra y la perpetuación del \"coronelismo\" brasileño, que mantiene el poder en muchas zonas, ya que las mismas familias controlan incluso estados de la Federación, lo que crea dificultades en la demarcación de las tierras indígenas. El cuadro de Meirelles da una idea de la llegada de los portugueses a tierras indígenas. Las bulas papales emitidas por el Papa Nicolás en 1452 y 1455 concedían a los portugueses el derecho a tomar posesión de las tierras y propiedades de los pueblos indígenas \"para convertirlos a vosotros, y a vuestro uso, y a vuestros sucesores, los Reyes de Portugal\" (Slattery, 2005). El cuadro de Meirelles está presente en la mayoría de los libros de texto brasileños. En cambio, ausente en la educación brasileña, la Doctrina del Descubrimiento forma parte de la Historia que sigue \"oculta a plena vista\". El conocimiento de los hechos que constituyen los orígenes de los catastróficos acontecimientos actuales pasa por la concienciación y la información sobre los principios y métodos incluidos en la Doctrina del Descubrimiento. Los elementos racistas de la Doctrina están frecuentemente presentes en el discurso de políticos y autoridades brasileñas. Recientemente, al defender su política de apertura de las tierras indígenas a la explotación minera, maderera y ganadera, Jair Bolsonaro, presidente de Brasil hasta el 1 de enero de 2023, declaró: \"El indio ha cambiado; está evolucionando. Cada vez más, el indio se está convirtiendo en un ser humano como nosotros\". (Jair Bolsonaro, directo presidencial, 24 de enero de 2020) El 16 de agosto de 1998, el mismo Jair Bolsonaro afirmó en un discurso en la Cámara de Diputados de Brasil: \"La caballería brasileña era muy incompetente. Competente, sí, fue la caballería norteamericana que diezmó a los indios en el pasado y hoy no tienen esos problemas en su país.\" Las presiones del agronegocio para la imposición de limitaciones en la demarcación de las tierras indígenas, contaron como el apoyo presidencial de Jair Bolsonaro para aprobar el llamado ''Marco temporal'' (\"Marco Temporal\", en portugués). \"Marco Temporal\" es una tesis jurídica construida jurisprudencialmente en la que los principios de la Doctrina están presentes en todos sus matices. El caso de la tierra conocida como \"Raposa Serra do Sol\" fue discutido en el Tribunal Supremo (STF) de Brasil en 2009. En él, el Supremo dictaminó que el artículo de la Constitución que garantiza el disfrute de las tierras tradicionalmente ocupadas por los pueblos indígenas brasileños debe interpretarse en el sentido de que sólo incluye las tierras en posesión de los indígenas el 5 de octubre de 1988, fecha de promulgación de la Constitución brasileña de 1988. Tal interpretación validaría los actos de la dictadura militar brasileña, cuando los indígenas fueron frecuentemente asesinados y expulsados de sus tierras. Mientras se desarrolla la catástrofe Yanomami, Brasil sigue debatiendo en dos frentes si es legal o no determinar una fecha, en este caso el 5 de octubre de 1988, más de cuatrocientos ochenta años después de la llegada de los portugueses, como límite inicial para la demarcación de las tierras indígenas. La discusión que tiene lugar en dos frentes jurídicos será votada por el Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF), y se intenta aprobar el Proyecto de Ley 490/2007. Dicho Proyecto de Ley 490/2007 incluye disposiciones extremadamente problemáticas, que impiden a los pueblos indígenas reclamar tierras como propias para ampliar territorios ya demarcados. El mismo proyecto de ley permite al gobierno eliminar reservas indígenas que amenazan el sustento y la supervivencia cultural de los pueblos indígenas. El proyecto de ley 490/2007, si se aprueba, incorpora términos que podrían conducir a la expulsión forzosa de los pueblos indígenas de sus tierras, según ha declarado Human Rights Watch. Los principios evocados, no por casualidad, son similares, si no idénticos, a los incluidos en la Doctrina del Descubrimiento, ampliando los poderes del gobierno y permitiendo la invasión de tierras indígenas, incluso invadiendo arbitrariamente y estableciendo contacto incluso con pueblos indígenas que viven en aislamiento voluntario. Además, al igual que las bulas papales, el proyecto de ley otorga al gobierno el poder de explotar, a su antojo, recursos energéticos, establecer bases militares y crear y ampliar carreteras en tierras indígenas sin ningún tipo de consulta con los pueblos indígenas. Los principios de la Doctrina y sus manifestaciones, aunque ocultos bajo capas de desinformación y omisión, están, escondidos a plena vista, incrustados en actos como el proyecto de ley 490/2007. Independientemente del discurso de la Iglesia Católica sobre la protección del medio ambiente y el llamamiento a la preservación de los bosques, no se sabe nada de su papel en la promulgación de estas bulas papales, y mucho menos de su negativa a rechazar la Doctrina, como ocurrió cuando el Papa Francisco visitó Canadá en julio de 2022. En medio de las devastadoras noticias sobre las condiciones del pueblo Yanomami, se ofrecieron modestas donaciones por parte de la Iglesia Católica, sin que se hiciera referencia a ninguna compensación que se concediera a los pueblos originarios víctimas de sus bulas papales. En 2007, la Declaración de las Naciones Unidas sobre los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas (DNUDPI) fue ratificada por todos sus participantes excepto cuatro países: Canadá, Australia, Nueva Zelanda y Estados Unidos. Actualmente, la información sobre la Doctrina se difunde intensamente de forma continua en estos países. Además, a pesar de su ineficacia, el Senado canadiense aprobó el proyecto de ley C-15, que pretende, aunque sólo sea parcialmente, adecuar la legislación canadiense a la DNUDPI. El proyecto de ley no implementa directamente muchos de los artículos de la declaración en la legislación canadiense, rescindiendo sólo parcialmente los efectos de la Doctrina del Descubrimiento en la legislación canadiense. En el caso de Brasil, signatario de la DNUDPI 2007, el país permanece totalmente ajeno a los perjuicios causados por dicha Doctrina. A pesar de que Brasil ratificó la DNUDPI de 2007, ésta no ha producido ningún efecto práctico, y el gobierno brasileño aún no ha dado cuenta de su inacción en la materia. La obra de Robert Miller, \"The Doctrine of Discovery: The International Law of Colonialism\", destaca la necesidad de reconocer y abordar el legado del colonialismo para garantizar la soberanía indígena.  Aunque los libros de texto brasileños incluyen temas como la ocupación, el descubrimiento, la colonización y los pueblos indígenas, no hay ninguna referencia a la Doctrina del Descubrimiento en las publicaciones brasileñas en portugués. En enero de 2023, el recién elegido Ministro de Derechos Humanos y Ciudadanía de Brasil, un jurista e intelectual, exigió la presencia de la política federal en la tierra Yanomami para librar la tierra de criminales y proteger las vidas de todos aquellos que están bajo las armas de los mineros y sus mandantes que operan el ciclo económico minero iniciado por los portugueses. En la tierra invadida donde viven 28.000 Yanomami, hay 20.000 mineros y detrás de ellos, una poderosa y rica red de empresas mineras y crimen organizado que se enriquecen y expanden impunemente. Los crímenes de odio y el genocidio nunca ocurren como hechos aislados, sino que son el resultado de la incitación al odio y a la violencia. El ex presidente de extrema derecha de Jair Bolsonaro, aun derrotado en las urnas, sigue contando con representantes en la actual legislatura, en campaña continúa con el objetivo de defender la minería y la explotación de las tierras indígenas en todo Brasil, afectando a muchos otros grupos en Brasil. Mantienen un discurso deshumanizador que utilizan como en una constante preparación para aniquilar a los pueblos indígenas sin ninguna reacción de la población. Los pueblos indígenas de Brasil, entre ellos los Yanomami, sobreviven y sucumben en su lucha al borde del genocidio. Mientras los pueblos indígenas de Canadá piden continuamente al Papa católico que repudie la Doctrina del Descubrimiento, los indios brasileños permanecen ajenos al importante papel de la Doctrina en su destino. La invasión de las tierras de los Yanomami y la destrucción deliberada de su capacidad para alimentarse, la contaminación de sus aguas y la propagación de enfermedades son una repetición de las manifestaciones de la Doctrina del Descubrimiento, un tema totalmente fuera de lugar en este enorme país predominantemente católico. Conclusión La Doctrina del Descubrimiento ha tenido una larga y devastadora historia en Brasil. Desde la esclavitud, la explotación y la negación de la soberanía indígena hasta el genocidio de los Yanomami en la Amazonia, este legado continúa hoy en día con la lucha permanente por los derechos indígenas. Los pueblos indígenas han desempeñado tradicionalmente el papel de \"guardianes\" de la Amazonia, un vasto territorio natural vital en la lucha contra la destrucción del medio ambiente y el cambio climático. Representantes indígenas brasileños, organizaciones indígenas, jueces y abogados se unen a la lucha, pero sigue faltando una pieza del rompecabezas: el reconocimiento de que la Doctrina del Descubrimiento ha causado inmensos sufrimientos e injusticias a los pueblos indígenas. Para crear un futuro positivo e igualitario para todos los brasileños, es esencial reconocer la verdad de la historia del país y erradicar los vestigios de la Doctrina del Descubrimiento de la legislación y la sociedad brasileñas. Es hora de descorrer el velo de ignorancia que oculta los orígenes de la violencia continua contra los pueblos indígenas: las bulas papales que constituyen la Doctrina del Descubrimiento. Ya es hora de que se sepa que detrás de la opresión de los Yanomami y de la apropiación de las tierras de los pueblos indígenas, están los principios racistas de la Doctrina. Es como si tales principios aún conservaran poder sobre los primeros habitantes de la región, aunque la Doctrina permanezca oculta y aparentemente silenciada. REFERENCIAS Bell, J., Sterett, S., & Young, M. (2018). Editors' Note. Law & Society Review, 52(3), 559. Business & Human Rights Centre. (2023). \"Complaints Indicate That 30 Yanomami Girls Are Pregnant, Victims of Abuses Committed by miners in Roraima\"(in Portuguese: Denuncias Apontam Que 30 Meninas Yanomami Estão Grávidas, Vítimas de abusos Cometidos por garimpeiros em Roraima). Retrieved February 26, 2023, from Castro, P. (2009). História da Historiografia. 0 (2): 29--49 Charny, I. W. (2000). Encyclopedia of genocide. ABC-CLIO. COIAB, (2010).\"Brazilian indigenous federation is key Conservancy ally in the Amazon rainforest\". Coordenação das Organizações Indígenas da Amazônia Brasileira. Retrieved February 26, 2023, from Fricker, M. (2011). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Folha de São Paulo (2023). \"No Government Has Ever Properly Addressed Land Issues in the Amazon\". Retrieved February 27, 2023, from https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/internacional/en/scienceandhealth/2023/02/no-government-has-ever-properly-addressed-land-issues-in-the-amazon.shtml Hayner, P. (2010). \"Unspeakable Truths: Transitional Justice and the Challenge of Truth Commissions.\" (\"Unspeakable Truths: Transitional Justice and the Challenge of Truth ...\") Routledge. ISBN 978-0415806350. Hemming, J. (1978). Red Gold: The conquest of the Brazilian Indians. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. House of Representatives, Brazil. (2022). \"House of Representatives will have four Indigenous Deputies.\" (in Portuguese: Câmara dos Deputados Terá quatro Deputadas Indígenas).) Retrieved February 26, 2023, from ISA, I. (2022, April 11). Instituto Socioambiental - Yanomami Indigenous Land. Retrieved January 31, 2023, from https://www.yanomami30anos.org/en Gottschalk, L. R. (1969). Understanding history: A primer of historical method. Gozzi, L. (2023, January 24). Brazil airlifts starving Yanomami tribal people from the jungle. Retrieved January 30, 2023, from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-64381922 Indigenous Title and the Doctrine of Discovery - ictinc.ca. Lencioni, S. (2009). Região e Geografia. São Paulo: EdUSP. ISBN 978-85-314-0515-0 de Casal, M. A. (1817). Corografia Brazilica ou Relação historico-geografica do Reino do Brazil. Régia Oficina Tipográfica. Lisboa, J. (2022). Indigenous peoples and the judiciary in Brazil: an appeal for a legal anthropology approach. Vibrant: Virtual Brazilian Anthropology. 19. 10.1590/1809-43412022v19a803. MENA Report, (2023). Brazil will take a resolution on the health of Indigenous peoples to the WHO. Miller, R. (2015). The Doctrine of Discovery, manifest destiny, and American Indians. Retrieved February 19, 2023, from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstractid=2689279 Miller, R. (2019). \"The doctrine of discovery: The international law of colonialism.\" Indigenous Peoples' JL Culture & Resistance. Miller, R., & D'Angelis, M. (2011). Brazil, Indigenous Peoples, and the International Law of Discovery. Retrieved February 26, 2023, from https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/bjil/vol37/iss1/1/ Philips, T. (2023). Jair Bolsonaro accused of acts of genocide against Amazonian Group. Retrieved March 11, 2023, from Philips, T. (2023). 'A War Society Doesn't See': The Brazilian force driving out mining gangs from Indigenous Lands. Retrieved March 11, 2023, from Permanent forum for Indigenous peoples. (n.d.). Retrieved February 19, 2023, from Reuters. (2023, January 23). Evidence of 'genocide' among Brazil's indigenous Yanomami, says Minister. Retrieved January 30, 2023, from: Sassin, (2023, January 26). Yanomami genocide: Prospectors and authorities are investigated. Retrieved January 30, 2023, from Seed, P. (1995). Ceremonies of possession in Europe's conquest of the New World: 1492-1640.Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Livermore, H. V. (1976). A New History of Portugal (pp. 127--139). Cambridge University Press. Thorpe, A. (2018). Pop-up property: Enacting ownership from San Francisco to Sydney. Retrieved February 19, 2023, from http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNSWLRS/2019/94.pdf Walker, R.S., Kesler, D.C., & Hill, K.R. (2016). Are Isolated Indigenous Populations Headed toward Extinction? PLoS ONE, 11."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/uncovering-invisible-pt/",
    "title": "Descobrindo o Invisível: A Doutrina do Descobrimento, seu Impacto sobre os Povos Indígenas Brasileiros, sobre o meio ambiente e como ela continua a moldar a paisagem brasileira nos dias de hoje: Portugese",
    "publishedAt": "2023-04-03T07:54:46Z",
    "description": "English Portugese Spanish Resumo Apesar de ser um instrumento de colonização e imperialismo mundial, a importância e influência da Doutrina da Descoberta tem sido negligenciada na literatura e estudos brasileiros. Este artigo examina o impacto da Doutrina no povo Indígena brasileiro e no meio ambiente, destacando a necessidade de reconhecer e compreender os efeitos e manifestações da Doutrina dos Descobrimentos no Brasil. Explora também as interseções da Doutrina com os direitos e a soberania indígena. Argumenta que a compreensão da Doutrina é essencial para avançar de forma respeitosa e sustentável com os povos indígenas e o meio ambiente.",
    "tags": [
      "law",
      "religion",
      "Christianity",
      "Brazil",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "English{: .btn .btn--primary .btn--x-large} Portugese{: .btn .btn--success .btn--x-large} Spanish{: .btn .btn--info .btn--x-large} Resumo Apesar de ser um instrumento de colonização e imperialismo mundial, a importância e influência da Doutrina da Descoberta tem sido negligenciada na literatura e estudos brasileiros. Este artigo examina o impacto da Doutrina no povo Indígena brasileiro e no meio ambiente, destacando a necessidade de reconhecer e compreender os efeitos e manifestações da Doutrina dos Descobrimentos no Brasil. Explora também as interseções da Doutrina com os direitos e a soberania indígena. Argumenta que a compreensão da Doutrina é essencial para avançar de forma respeitosa e sustentável com os povos indígenas e o meio ambiente. Palavras-chave: Doutrina da Descoberta, Literatura Brasileira, Povos Indígenas, Floresta Amazônica, Yanomami, Meio Ambiente, Colonização, Imperialismo, Floresta Tropical, Direitos Indígenas, Soberania, Tratado de Tordesilhas A Doutrina da Descoberta tem sido usada desde longa data conforme a colonização de povos e o imperialismo se espalham pelo planeta. Todavia, mas sua importância e influência têm sido largamente negligenciadas nos estudos brasileiros. As nações européias utilizaram esta Lei Internacional durante a Era da Exploração para justificar a colonização de terras fora da Europa. Baseada na idéia de que as nações cristãs tinham o direito de reivindicar terras não habitadas por cristãos, a Doutrina justifica a expulsão dos povos indígenas de suas terras e o confisco e apropriação de recursos nelas existentes. (Miller, 2011) Informações sobre a Doutrina em livros de História do Brasil, publicações pedagógicas e acadêmicas, artigos e pesquisas são quase inexistentes, e o caso é o mesmo para informações disponíveis em português. Estudos de John Hemmings, antropólogo, historiador e um dos especialistas mundiais em índios brasileiros e no ambiente amazônico, estão disponíveis em português e acessíveis aos brasileiros. Hemmings escreveu extensivamente sobre a dominação e opressão dos povos indígenas brasileiros, desde seus primeiros encontros com os europeus. Exceto por curtas menções ao Tratado de Tordesilhas, Hemmings não se faz referência à influência da Doutrina na história do Brasil. E como se a Doutrina da Descoberta nunca houvesse existido abaixo da linha do Equador, e o Tratado de Tordesilhas, uma de suas principais manifestações, se tratasse apenas da mera demarcação de terras sem maiores consequências. Alguns dos poucos trabalhos que fazem referência às manifestações da Doutrina da Descoberta no Brasil são publicações de Robert Miller. Seu trabalho com Micheline D'Angelis, \"Brazil, Indigenous Peoples, and the International Law of Discovery\" (Miller & D'Angelis, 2011), está disponível em inglês mas não em Português. Neste artigo, estão inclusos casos recentes e concretos que refletem o colonialismo epistemológico oriundo da Doutrina e que se manifesta na vida brasileira como uma forma de imposição de um conjunto particular de valores, crenças e sistemas de conhecimento à uma população colonizada. Um conceito eurocêntrico e baseado na crença de supremacista do europeu branco, a Doutrina é frequentemente utilizada para justificar a colonização de terras indígenas e a exploração dos povos indígenas. Em um país colonizado pelos portugueses, o Brasil, as discussões sobre a Doutrina continuam inexistentes. Este silêncio tem permitido que as manifestações e efeitos da Doutrina permaneçam presentes, inquestionáveis, intocadas e ignoradas. Este artigo explora essa invisibilidade e visa identificar conexões entre os princípios da Doutrina do Descobrimento e a violência contínua contra os povos indígenas no Brasil, resultando na devastação da Floresta Amazônica e consequentes efeitos ambientais catastróficos. Manifestações e efeitos da Doutrina devem ser incluídos no debate sobre os fatos que cercam os povos indígenas. Caso contrário, a desinformação e a rejeição de fatores cruciais contribuirão para a continuidade da violência epistêmica resultante de abordagens e interpretações reducionistas da vitimizacao contínua dos povos indígenas no Brasil. Um caso que reflete tal reducionismo seria o de buscar meios de estabelecer conexões inexistentes entre a Comissão de Verdade e Reconciliação Canadense (2008 Canadian Truth and Reconciliation Commission) e a Comissão Nacional da Verdade (CNV) realizada no Brasil em 2012. Tal tentativa de estabelecer conexões entre ad duas situações, buscaria criar a falsa ideia de que a Comissão Brasileira tenha representado uma tentativa de lidar com a violência contra os povos indígenas do Brasil. Não é este o caso. Esta é uma das situações em que a desinformação resulta de uma falta de tratamento da realidade que tem devastado as populações indígenas no Brasil por décadas, se não séculos. Neste caso, as comparações entre a Comissão de Verdade e Reconciliação no Canadá (2008 Canadian Truth and Reconciliation Commission) e a Comissão Nacional da Verdade no Brasil reduzem os fatores históricos centenários presentes na violência contínua contra os povos indígenas no Brasil, a um evento ligado a ditadura naquele país, escondendo a verdade com restrições de tempo e espaço, reforçando a violência epistêmica (Fricker, 2011) que os vitimiza. Além do fato de que a Comissão Brasileira (CNV) não haver sido criada para abordar a violência contra os povos indígenas no Brasil, é essencial salientar que uma \"Comissão da Verdade\" está conceitualmente focada no passado e não nos eventos em curso (Hayner, 2010). No caso dos povos indígenas brasileiros, a violência nunca é um fato contínuo que não pode ser escondida como evento do passado. O reconhecimento das diferentes experiências e do contexto único dos povos indígenas em cada países é crucial. As comparações reducionistas refletem a continuidade do colonialismo epistemológico, que cria conceitos erroneos enquanro silencia e esconde as conexões da Doutrina da Descoberta com os acontecimentos atuais. Este artigo não é sobre os eventos atuais na floresta Amazônica, e não visa, como objetivo principal, denunciar as atuais condições precárias do povo Yanomami, que sofre com a invasão e exploração desenfreada de suas terras. A imprensa mundial neste momento, em 2023, felizmente tem se encarregado em fazê-lo. Entretanto, este artigo faz menção a tais eventos como uma forma de lançar luz sobre as manifestações dos princípios desta Lei Internacional que ainda hoje está presente nas justificativas repetidamente utilizadas para a expulsão dos povos indígenas de suas terras, sua subjugação e tentativas de eliminá-los. Os princípios da Doutrina estão na raiz da tragédia que se desenrola hoje na Amazônia, enquanto o povo Yanomami luta para sobreviver enquanto enfrenta o que é visto por muitas organizações como genocídio (Philips, 2023) (Reuters, 2023) (Sassin, 2023) (Miller, 2015). Reconhecida como o reservatório biológico mais rico do mundo, contendo vários milhões de espécies de todas as formas de vida, muitas ainda não registradas pela ciência, a Floresta Amazônica compreende 40 por cento da área total do Brasil. Em 20 de janeiro de 2023, quinhentos e vinte e três anos após a chegada dos portugueses à terra ao leste do Tratado de Tordesilhas, hoje o Brasil, o mundo testemunha as condições miseráveis em que o povo Yanomami tenta sobreviver na Floresta Amazônica. O desdobramento da tragédia no território Yanomami mostra adultos e crianças em grave desnutrição, famintos devido ao fato da pesca, a agricultura e a caça haverem se tornado impossíveis depois que a invasão de suas terras por garimpeiros e empresas de garimpo resultou na contaminação dos rios com mercúrio utilizado para extração mineral. O povo Yanomami, neste momento, perece de todos os tipos de doenças trazidas pela mineração ilegal. Violência física e sexual, assassinato de crianças Yanomami por invasores, avanço do tráfico de drogas e a violência contra aqueles que desafiam o status quo são fatores continuamente presentes em suas terras. Máquinas poderosas e armas automáticas são usadas para deslocar, intimidar e matar os indígenas Yanomami e seus defensores. O assassinato do jornalista britânico Don Phillips e do especialista indígena brasileiro Bruno Pereira em junho de 2022 sob as ordens de um comerciante de pescado que liderava um esquema de pesca ilegal na Amazônia seguiu o assassinato de muitos povos indígenas no território Yanomami. A reserva Yanomami é o lar de cerca de 28.000 Yanomami. Aproximadamente 10 milhões de hectares abrigam 371 comunidades de difícil acesso na densa floresta tropical amazônica. Segundo pesquisa do Instituto Socio Ambiental- ISA (ISA, 2022), o povo Yanomami descende de um grupo indígena que permaneceu relativamente isolado por pelo menos mil anos. Tal grupo anciente, teria ocupado a área das cabeceiras dos rios Orinoco e Parima (que atualmente se encontram em Roraima, Brasil). Sua relação com a floresta amazônica e a preservação ambiental está diretamente ligada à sua preocupação com a proteção da floresta como parte da relação dos Yanomami com a natureza. A dizimação do povo Yanomami se intensificou desde 2017, durante o governo de Jair Bolsonaro. Após sua derrota nas eleições de 2022, o novo governo elegeu Sônia Guajajara como a Primeira Ministra dos Povos Indígenas do Brasil. Ela começou imediatamente a reconstruir os sistemas de proteção destruidos pelo presidente anterior. Guajajara, membro do povo indígena Guajajara/Tentehar, e graduada em Literatura, Enfermagem e Educação Especial , tendo uma história de luta pelos direitos dos povos originais e pelo meio ambiente. A criação do Ministério dos Povos Indígenas em 2023 constitui um marco nas mudanças necessárias para aprimorar as relações do Judiciário até os Poderes Legislativo e Executivo com os Povos Indígenas. Aborda também a falta de representação dos povos indígenas, denunciada por muitos como elemento na base das fricções (Lisboa, 2022) (Folha, 2023) entre os sistemas de poder e os Povos Indígenas no Brasil. O Ministério dos Povos Indígenas inclui advogados indígenas, assistentes sociais indígenas, antropólogos indígenas e muitos profissionais indígenas que estão há longa data ativamente envolvidos com suas causas. A falta de representação foi agora significativamente reduzida à medida que mais povos indígenas têm acesso à educação e à posições que lhes dão a tão necessária participação no debate sobre suas vidas. Quatro mulheres indígenas foram eleitas para a Câmara dos Deputados em 2022: Sônia Guajajara, Célia Xakriabá, Silvia Waiãpi, e Juliana Cardoso. Elas assumiram o cargo de deputadas federais em 1º de fevereiro de 2023, no dia do início da nova Legislatura do Congresso Nacional. Xakriabá tem mestrado em Desenvolvimento Sustentável e é pós-graduado em Antropologia. Célia é uma das fundadoras da Articulação Nacional das Mulheres Indígenas Guerreiras da Antigüidade. Como membro da Secretaria de Educação de Minas Gerais, ela colaborou na abertura de escolas indígenas e quilombolas e na reabertura de escolas rurais em todo o estado. A participação ativa dos povos indígenas nos Poderes Legislativo, Executivo, Judiciário e Acadêmico é crucial para que as mudanças aconteçam e certamente será constantemente desafiada. Organizações governamentais, trabalhando com representantes do Ministro, relataram a morte de mais de quinhentas e setenta (570) crianças Yanomami nos últimos quatro anos após Jair Bolsonaro ter autorizado os mineiros a entrar em terras indígenas. Trinta meninas Yanomami menores de dezesseis anos estão grávidas de mineiros e outros invasores. (Business & Human Rights Centre, 2023). Em 20 de janeiro de 2023, o governo federal declarou uma emergência de saúde pública na maior Reserva Indígena do Brasil. (Gozzi, 2023). Em 31 de janeiro de 2023, o Exército Brasileiro, a Marinha e a Força Aérea foram enviados para expulsar invasores de terra, proteger o povo Yanomami de seus ataques e resgatar milhares de Yanomami doentes e moribundos que foram objeto de violência contínua em suas terras. (Philips, 2023) No país com a maior população católica, colonizado pelos portugueses, a Doutrina da Descoberta, suas manifestações e efeitos permanecem ignorados pela maioria. O Papal Bull Dum Diversas (1452) foi emitido oito anos antes da chegada dos portugueses à costa do Brasil. Ela exigia que os povos não cristãos fossem invadidos, capturados, vencidos, subjugados e reduzidos à escravidão perpétua. Como seguimento, em 1455, a bula papal Romanus Pontifex foi emitida para proteger a ascendência do Rei de Portugal sobre novas terras descobertas, proibindo outros reis cristãos de infringir a prática de comércio e incursões de colonização do Rei de Portugal em regiões específicas. (Slaterry, 2005). Mesmo como a tragédia Yanomami está nas notícias por toda parte, referências à existência da Doutrina, seu Impacto sobre os povos indígenas, o meio ambiente ou qualquer respeito a como ela molda a paisagem brasileira hoje são inexistentes. Há, no entanto, uma obra de arte que merece atenção especial, pois conta a História da Doutrina no Brasil desde 1860. O óleo sobre tela de 1860 do famoso artista Victor Meirelles, atualmente em exposição no Museu Nacional de Belas Artes em São Paulo, Brasil, conta um capítulo da Doutrina que está escondido à primeira vista. Primeira missa no Brasil\" de Victor Meirelles (1860) - Museu Nacional de Belas Artes, SP, Brasil. By Victor Meirelles, Public Domain, commons.wikimedia.org/ O quadro \"A Primeira Missa no Brasil\" dá um relato visual preciso dos rituais da Doutrina, constituindo um ponto de partida bem documentado para esclarecer os princípios da Doutrina e sua poderosa presença desde os primeiros tempos coloniais, quando os portugueses chegaram ao litoral do que é hoje o Brasil. Os estudos históricos não são isentos de ideologia. Enquanto expõem o passado, juntando pedaços e peças, eles não podem garantir que o que resta é o mais importante, a parte mais representativa do evento, concluiu Gottschalk (Gottschalk, 1979). O mesmo se aplica quando os artistas usam os poderes da Arte para representar eventos históricos. Começando pelo título do quadro, \"A Primeira Missa no Brasil\", encontramos o incompleto, se não enganador, \"pedaço de história\" que exige atenção.  Pintada por Victor Meirelles em Paris em 1859-1861, a peça de quase 14,9 polegadas quadradas (9,6 metros quadrados) tornou-se uma das telas mais conhecidas do Brasil. Sua presença é uma obrigação em qualquer publicação pedagógica. Meirelles foi influenciada pela pintura de Horace Vernet \"Primeira Missa em Kabylie\". Vernet foi testemunha ocular da missa católica celebrando a colonização francesa no norte da África, e sua legitimidade como pintor histórico inspirou o pintor brasileiro (Castro, 2009). Em abril de 1500, a frota de Pedro Álvares Cabral desembarcou no que hoje é conhecido como Brasil. Na frota estava Pero Vaz de Caminha, um funcionário público português. Caminha descreveu oficialmente a cerimônia das duas missas católicas celebradas na nova terra. Ele escreveu uma carta detalhada ao rei português, como se esperava de um cavaleiro em sua posição. A carta original está no Arquivo Nacional da Torre do Tombo, em Lisboa. Ela é frequentemente mencionada nos livros de História do Brasil como testemunho do encontro benevolente dos portugueses com os habitantes da terra. Devido ao sigilo com que o Reino de Portugal sempre envolveu relatos de suas descobertas, todo o conteúdo da carta de Caminha só foi tornado público no século XIX pelo Padre Manuel Aires de Casal em sua \"Corografia Brasílica\" em 1817. (Lencione, 2009)(de Casal, 1817). Somente então o contexto dos elementos da pintura pôde ser plenamente compreendido. O quadro, disse Meirelles, seguiu a descrição contida na carta de Caminha. Na realidade, a pintura dá uma imagem precisa do ritual de posse adotado pelos portugueses, com todas as etapas e componentes necessárias da Doutrina. Os portugueses costumavam registrar suas descobertas de navegação plantando pilares de pedra alta encimados por uma pedra quadrada onde esculpiam o ano da expedição, o nome do líder da expedição e o nome do rei português. Em cima da pedra quadrada esculpida havia uma cruz. (Seed, 1995, p.132). O ritual de posse e a oficialização das descobertas exigia também a documentação escrita e detalhada. A carta de Pero Vaz de Caminha ao Rei cumpriu tal requisito (Seed, 1995, p.180). Como a pintura de Horace Vernet, a pintura de Meirelles documenta o ritual que oficializa o processo de colonização, de acordo com as regras descritas nas Bulas Papais que constituem a documentação da Doutrina de Descoberta. Assim como fez Vernet ao documentar o ritual de posse dos colonizadores franceses, Meirelles nomeou a cerimônia de posse \"A Primeira Missa no Brasil\". Ao observarmos o óleo sobre tela, vemos que a imagem se concentra à esquerda, onde , ao centro, um religioso realiza o ritual da Missa enquanto outros homens religiosos testemunham o evento. Estas figuras ocupam um nível mais alto, exceto por dois homens de armadura à esquerda. Alguns indígenas observam ou encontram proteção no topo de uma árvore à direita.  Em um círculo distante, observando os eventos, são representados os povos indígenas com uma ampla gama de expressões: medo, raiva, espanto e incredulidade. Um bebê sendo amamentado, crianças assustadas, guerreiros e indígenas jovens e velhos povoam o lado esquerdo do quadro. Muitos indígenas estão distantes, alguns com braços estendidos em direção ao alto, alguns apontando para os navios no mar. Há uma sensação de caos ou espanto entre eles. No fundo, a paisagem é feita de árvores com grandes copas, montanhas e um céu azul. O oceano e olhares na direção dos navios da frota portuguesa estão representados no canto direito. Tudo constituo a representação visual detalhada do que foi descrito na carta de Caminha ao Rei. Tão logo os rituais ou atos de posse definidos na documentação da Doutrina eram executados, a reivindicação legal de Portugal ficava imediatamente estabelecida. (Seed, 1995) Consequentemente, todos os indígenas retratados na pintura de Meireles, habitantes daquela terra por mais de dois mil anos, tornaram-se imediatamente possessão portuguesa. Após a descoberta de Cabral em 1500, o foco da Coroa Portuguesa em sua colônia foi a extração de recursos da terra, tais como pau-brasil, minerais preciosos e o que quer que pudesse ser encontrado. Assinado entre Espanha e Portugal, o Tratado de Tordesilhas criou uma linha de imaginaria de demarcação, atribuindo o terreno ao leste da linha à Portugal e o terreno à esquerda da linha à Espanha. Os efeitos do Tratado 1494 permanecem escondidos no sistema brasileiro de leis e tratados que negam os direitos e reforçam a exploração dos Yanomami, que veem suas terras repetidamente invadidas enquanto adultos e crianças são vítimas da mesma violência iniciada com a chegada dos portugueses. Em 1530, logo após a \"descoberta\" e após a demarcação pelo Tratado de Tordesilhas, o território do que posteriormente ficou conhecido como Brasil, oi dividido em quatorze faixas de terra que foram então concedidas aos nobres de confiança do rei D. João III (1502-1557). Cada faixa de terra, denominada como \"Capitania Hereditária\", era então repassada de pai para filho. O legado das Capitanias Hereditárias está presente hoje através da concentração da propriedade da terra e da perpetuação do \"coronelismo\" brasileiro que mantém o poder em muitas áreas, uma vez que as mesmas famílias controlam ate mesmo Estados da Federação, criando dificuldades na demarcação de terras indígenas. A pintura de Meirelles dá uma idéia da chegada dos portugueses à terra indígena. Bulas Papais emitidas pelo Papa Nicolau em 1452 e 1455 concederam aos portuguese o direito de tomar posse das terras e dos bens dos povos indígenas \"para convertê-los a você, e seu uso, e seus sucessores, os Reis de Portugal\" (Slattery, 2005). A pintura de Meirelles está presente na maioria dos livros escolares brasileiros. Por outro lado, ausente na educação brasileira, a Doutrina da Descoberta é parte da História que ainda está \"escondida em plena vista\". O conhecimento dos fatos que constituem as origens dos atuais eventos catastróficos passa pela conscientização e informação sobre os princípios e métodos incluídos na Doutrina da Descoberta. Os elementos racistas da Doutrina estão freqüentemente presentes em discurso de políticos e autoridades brasileiras. Recentemente, enquanto defendia sua política de abertura de terras indígenas a exploração por mineração, madeireiros e criadores de gado, Jair Bolsonaro, presidente do Brasil até 1º de janeiro de 2023, declarou: \"O índio mudou; ele está evoluindo. Cada vez mais, o índio está se tornando um ser humano igual a nós\". (Jair Bolsonaro, Presidencial ao vivo, 24 de janeiro de 2020) Em 16 de agosto de 1998, o mesmo Jair Bolsonaro declarou, em um discurso na Câmara dos Deputados do Brasil: \"A cavalaria brasileira era muito incompetente. Competente, sim, era a cavalaria norte-americana que dizimou os índios no passado e hoje em dia não têm tais problemas em seu país\". As pressões do agronegócio pela imposição de limitações na demarcação de terras indígenas, contou como o apoio presidencial de Jair Bolsonaro para aprovar o chamado ''time Frame'' (\"Marco Temporal\", em português). \"Marco Temporal\" é uma tese jurídica construída jurisprudencialmente na qual os princípios da Doutrina estão presentes em todas as suas nuances. O caso da terra conhecida como \"Raposa Serra do Sol\" foi discutido no Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) do Brasil em 2009. Nele, a Suprema Corte decidiu que o artigo da Constituição que garante o gozo das terras tradicionalmente ocupadas pelos povos indígenas brasileiros deveria ser interpretado incluindo apenas as terras em posse dos indígenas em 5 de outubro de 1988, data da promulgação da Constituição Brasileira de 1988. Tal interpretação validaria os atos da ditadura militar brasileira quando os indígenas foram frequentemente assassinados e expulsos de suas terras. À medida que a catástrofe dos Yanomami se desenrola, o Brasil ainda debate em duas frentes se é legal ou não determinar uma data, no caso 5 de outubro de 1988, mais de quatrocentos e oitenta anos depois da chegada dos portugueses, como sendo o limite inicial para a demarcação de terras indígenas. A discussão que ocorre em duas frentes jurídicas será votada pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF), e há uma tentativa de aprovar o Projeto de Lei 490/2007. Tal Projeto de Lei 490/2007 inclui disposições extremamente problemáticas, que impedem que povos indígenas reinvidiquem terras como suas terras para expandir territórios já demarcados. O mesmo Projeto de Lei permite ao governo eliminar reservas indígenas que ameaçam a subsistência e a sobrevivência cultural dos povos indígenas. O Projeto de Lei 490/2007, se aprovado, incorpora termos que poderiam levar à remoção forçada dos povos indígenas de suas terras, como declarado pela Human Rights Watch. Os princípios evocados não por coincidência , são similares, se não iguais, aos incluídos na Doutrina da Descoberta, expandindo os poderes do governo e permitindo a invasão de terras indígenas incluindo ate mesmo arbitrariamente invadir e fazer contato mesmo os povos indígenas que vivem em isolamento voluntário. Além disso, como as Bulas Papais, o projeto de lei dá ao governo o poder de explorar, por sua própria vontade, recursos energéticos, estabelecer bases militares e criar e expandir estradas em terras indígenas sem qualquer consulta aos povos indígenas. Os princípios da Doutrina e suas manifestações, embora ocultos sob camadas de desinformação e omissão, estão, escondidos à vista de todos, embutidos em atos como o Projeto de Lei 490/2007. Independentemente do discurso da Igreja Católica sobre a proteção do meio ambiente e o apelo à preservação da floresta, não há palavras sobre seu papel na promulgação dessas bulas papais, muito menos sobre a recusa em rejeitar a Doutrina, como ocorreu quando da visita do Papa Francisco ao Canadá em julho de 2022. Em meio às notícias devastadoras das condições do povo Yanomami, foram oferecidas modestas doações pela Igreja Católica, nenhuma referência foi feita a qualquer compensação a ser conferida ao povo original vitimado por suas Bulas Papais. Em 2007, a Declaração das Nações Unidas sobre os Direitos dos Povos Indígenas (UNDRIP) foi ratificada por todos os seus participantes, exceto por quatro países: Canadá, Austrália, Nova Zelândia e Estados Unidos. Atualmente, informações sobre a Doutrina são intensamente difundidas continuamente nesses países. Além disso, independentemente da ineficácia, o Senado canadense aprovou o Projeto de Lei C-15, procurando mesmo que apenas parcialmente, alinhar a legislação canadense com a UNDRIP. O projeto não implementa diretamente muitos dos artigos da declaração na legislação canadense, rescindindo apenas parcialmente os efeitos da Doutrina da Descoberta na legislação canadense. No caso brasileiro, signatário da UNDRIP 2007, o país permanece totalmente alheio aos danos causados por tal Doutrina. Independentemente da ratificação pelo Brasil da UNDRIP 2007, ela não produziu efeitos práticos, e o governo brasileiro ainda precisa prestar contas de sua inação com relação ao assunto. O trabalho de Robert Miller, \"A Doutrina da Descoberta\": A Lei Internacional do Colonialismo\", (título original em Inglês: 'The Doctrine of Discovery: The International Law of Colonialism.\"), destaca a necessidade de reconhecer e abordar o legado do colonialismo para garantir a soberania indígena.  Enquanto os livros escolares brasileiros incluem temas como ocupação, descoberta, colonização e povos indígenas, não há referência à Doutrina da Descoberta nas publicações brasileiras em português. Em janeiro de 2023, o recém-eleito Ministro dos Direitos Humanos e Cidadania do Brasil, jurista e intelectual, exigiu a presença da política federal na terra Yanomami para livrar a terra dos criminosos e proteger a vida de todos os que estão sob a arma dos mineradores e seus mandantes que operam o ciclo econômico de mineração iniciado pelos portugueses. Na terra invadida onde vivem 28.000 Yanomami, há 20.000 garimpeiros e por trás deles, uma rede poderosa e rica de empresas mineradoras além do crime organizado enriquecendo e se expandindo impunemente. Crimes de ódio e genocídio nunca ocorrem como eventos isolados, mas resultam de incitamento ao ódio e à violência. O ex presidente de extrema direita de Jair Bolsonaro, mesmo derrotado nas urnas, tem ainda com representantes na presente legislatura, em campanha continua visando defender o garimpo e a exploração das terras indígenas em todo o Brasil, atingindo muitos outros grupos no Brasil. Mantêm um discurso desumanizador que utilizam como em uma constante preparação para aniquilar os povos indígenas sem uma reação da população. Os povos indígenas no Brasil, entre eles os Yanomami, sobrevivem e sucumbem na luta que travam às beiras do genocídio. Enquanto os povos Indígenas no Canada continuamente pedem ao Papa Catolico que repudie a Doutrina da Descoberta, os indígenas brasileiros permanecem alheios ao importnate papel da Doutrina em seu destino. A invasão da terra dos Yanomami e a destruição deliberada de sua capacidade de se alimentarem, a contaminação das águas e a propagação de doenças são uma repetição das manifestações da Doutrina da Descoberta, um tópico totalmente fora de neste imenso país predominantemente católico. Conclusão A Doutrina da Descoberta tem tido uma longa e devastadora história no Brasil. Da escravidão, exploração e negação da soberania indígena ao genocídio dos Yanomami na Amazônia, este legado continua hoje com a luta contínua pelos direitos indígenas. Os povos indígenas tradicionalmente têm desempenhado o papel de \"guardiões\" da Amazônia, um imenso território natural vital na luta contra a destruição do meio ambiente e contra a mudança climática. Representantes indígenas brasileiros, organizações Indígenas, juízes e advogados se unem a luta mas, uma peça do quebra-cabeça permanece ignorada: o reconhecimento de que A Doutrina da Descoberta tem causado imenso sofrimento e injustiça aos povos indígenas. Para criar um futuro positivo e igualitário para todos os brasileiros, é essencial reconhecer a verdade da História do país e erradicar os vestígios da Doutrina do Descobrimento do Direito e da sociedade brasileira. É hora de derrubar o véu da ignorância que esconde as origens da violência contínua contra os povos indígenas -- as Bulas Papais que constituem a Doutrina do Descobrimento.  É passada a hora de fazer com que seja do conhecimento comum o fato de que por trás da opressão Yanomami e da apropriação das terras dos povos indígenas, estão os princípios racistas da Doutrina. É como se tais princípios ainda retenham poder sobre os primeiros habitantes da região, mesmo quando a Doutrina permanece escondida e aparentemente silenciada. REFERÊNCIAS Bell, J., Sterett, S., & Young, M. (2018). Editors' Note. Law & Society Review, 52(3), 559. Business & Human Rights Centre. (2023). \"Complaints Indicate That 30 Yanomami Girls Are Pregnant, Victims of Abuses Committed by miners in Roraima\"(in Portuguese: Denuncias Apontam Que 30 Meninas Yanomami Estão Grávidas, Vítimas de abusos Cometidos por garimpeiros em Roraima). Retrieved February 26, 2023, from Castro, P. (2009). História da Historiografia. 0 (2): 29--49 Charny, I. W. (2000). Encyclopedia of genocide. ABC-CLIO. COIAB, (2010).\"Brazilian indigenous federation is key Conservancy ally in the Amazon rainforest\". Coordenação das Organizações Indígenas da Amazônia Brasileira. Retrieved February 26, 2023, from Fricker, M. (2011). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Folha de São Paulo (2023). \"No Government Has Ever Properly Addressed Land Issues in the Amazon\". Retrieved February 27, 2023, from https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/internacional/en/scienceandhealth/2023/02/no-government-has-ever-properly-addressed-land-issues-in-the-amazon.shtml Hayner, P. (2010). \"Unspeakable Truths: Transitional Justice and the Challenge of Truth Commissions.\" (\"Unspeakable Truths: Transitional Justice and the Challenge of Truth ...\") Routledge. ISBN 978-0415806350. Hemming, J. (1978). Red Gold: The conquest of the Brazilian Indians. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. House of Representatives, Brazil. (2022). \"House of Representatives will have four Indigenous Deputies.\" (in Portuguese: Câmara dos Deputados Terá quatro Deputadas Indígenas).) Retrieved February 26, 2023, from ISA, I. (2022, April 11). Instituto Socioambiental - Yanomami Indigenous Land. Retrieved January 31, 2023, from https://www.yanomami30anos.org/en Gottschalk, L. R. (1969). Understanding history: A primer of historical method. Gozzi, L. (2023, January 24). Brazil airlifts starving Yanomami tribal people from the jungle. Retrieved January 30, 2023, from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-64381922 Indigenous Title and the Doctrine of Discovery - ictinc.ca. Lencioni, S. (2009). Região e Geografia. São Paulo: EdUSP. ISBN 978-85-314-0515-0 de Casal, M. A. (1817). Corografia Brazilica ou Relação historico-geografica do Reino do Brazil. Régia Oficina Tipográfica. Lisboa, J. (2022). Indigenous peoples and the judiciary in Brazil: an appeal for a legal anthropology approach. Vibrant: Virtual Brazilian Anthropology. 19. 10.1590/1809-43412022v19a803. MENA Report, (2023). Brazil will take a resolution on the health of Indigenous peoples to the WHO. Miller, R. (2015). The Doctrine of Discovery, manifest destiny, and American Indians. Retrieved February 19, 2023, from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstractid=2689279 Miller, R. (2019). \"The doctrine of discovery: The international law of colonialism.\" Indigenous Peoples' JL Culture & Resistance. Miller, R., & D'Angelis, M. (2011). Brazil, Indigenous Peoples, and the International Law of Discovery. Retrieved February 26, 2023, from https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/bjil/vol37/iss1/1/ Philips, T. (2023). Jair Bolsonaro accused of acts of genocide against Amazonian Group. Retrieved March 11, 2023, from Philips, T. (2023). 'A War Society Doesn't See': The Brazilian force driving out mining gangs from Indigenous Lands. Retrieved March 11, 2023, from Permanent forum for Indigenous peoples. (n.d.). Retrieved February 19, 2023, from Reuters. (2023, January 23). Evidence of 'genocide' among Brazil's indigenous Yanomami, says Minister. Retrieved January 30, 2023, from: Sassin, (2023, January 26). Yanomami genocide: Prospectors and authorities are investigated. Retrieved January 30, 2023, from Seed, P. (1995). Ceremonies of possession in Europe's conquest of the New World: 1492-1640.Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Livermore, H. V. (1976). A New History of Portugal (pp. 127--139). Cambridge University Press. Thorpe, A. (2018). Pop-up property: Enacting ownership from San Francisco to Sydney. Retrieved February 19, 2023, from http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNSWLRS/2019/94.pdf Walker, R.S., Kesler, D.C., & Hill, K.R. (2016). Are Isolated Indigenous Populations Headed toward Extinction? PLoS ONE, 11."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/union-Indigenous-values/",
    "title": "Forming a “More Perfect Union” Through Indigenous Values",
    "publishedAt": "2020-09-30T14:54:46Z",
    "description": "What better time than now to consider the ancient wisdom of our ancestors who, for thousands of years, sustained a more equitable way of living in proper relationship with the natural world?",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "values",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "As we are now confronted with environmental devastation, global pandemics, an economic system that fosters chaos in the world, and an inability to think clearly or collectively toward a viable way to the future, perhaps it is time to pick up where the Founding Fathers left off and continue to learn from the Haudenosaunee. What better time than now to consider the ancient wisdom of our ancestors who, for thousands of years, sustained a more equitable way of living in proper relationship with the natural world? Who better to model a world where women reside at the center of deliberations and nature exists as our relative—not just a resource? Forming a “More Perfect Union” Through Indigenous Values by Sandra Bigtree and Philip P. Arnold:",
    "externalUrl": "https://orionmagazine.org/2020/09/forming-a-more-perfect-union-through-indigenous-values/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/unspoken-conspiracy/",
    "title": "'Unspoken Conspiracy' - Living within the Resonance of the Doctrine of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2024-05-23T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "this thesis analyze the perceptions of the Doctrine of Discovery, a religious principle incorporated into law during the Age of Discovery among people within religious organizations and traditional indigenous peoples in, what is today known, as the United States of America. The Doctrine of Discovery originated from 15th century papal bulls, and the directive from the Vatican in the papal bull Dum Diversas was that the Christian duty of explorers (sent out by their Christian Monarchs) was to invade, search out, capture, vanquish and subdue all non-Christians wherever placed. While the Doctrine of Discovery´s presence in courts has been documented by research there has not been much investigation on what the perceptions of the effects of this doctrine is in todays world. The thesis begins with a summary of the worldview behind and the principles set forth in the papal bulls known as Dum Diversas (18 June, 1452), Romanus Pontifex (January 8, 1455) and Inter Caetera (May 4, 1493) as well as the historic background for these papal bulls. It thereafter continues to investigate how the doctrine is perceived among people working with the theme within religious organizations and among traditional indigenous peoples in, what is today known as, the United States. The different perceptions of the effects of the doctrine rests in different worldviews, especially the different ways traditional indigenous and peoples within religious organizations conceive of land. The effect is that people within religious organizations tends to view the Doctrine of Discovery as a doctrine diminishing indigenous peoples human rights, and rights of sovereignty and self determination while the effects seen by traditional indigenous peoples also see the doctrine as diminishing the rights of the environment itself, which is perceived as a living entity with intrinsic value. This difference in perception of the consequences of the Doctrine of Discovery therefore highlights the way religious worldviews have confronted each other in the meeting between the old world and the new world , and how these differences is still present today. by May-Lisabeth Brew",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "thesis",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "this thesis analyze the perceptions of the Doctrine of Discovery, a religious principle incorporated into law during the Age of Discovery among people within religious organizations and traditional indigenous peoples in, what is today known, as the United States of America. The Doctrine of Discovery originated from 15th century papal bulls, and the directive from the Vatican in the papal bull Dum Diversas was that the Christian duty of explorers (sent out by their Christian Monarchs) was to invade, search out, capture, vanquish and subdue all non-Christians wherever placed. While the Doctrine of Discovery´s presence in courts has been documented by research there has not been much investigation on what the perceptions of the effects of this doctrine is in todays world. The thesis begins with a summary of the worldview behind and the principles set forth in the papal bulls known as Dum Diversas (18 June, 1452), Romanus Pontifex (January 8, 1455) and Inter Caetera (May 4, 1493) as well as the historic background for these papal bulls. It thereafter continues to investigate how the doctrine is perceived among people working with the theme within religious organizations and among traditional indigenous peoples in, what is today known as, the United States. The different perceptions of the effects of the doctrine rests in different worldviews, especially the different ways traditional indigenous and peoples within religious organizations conceive of land. The effect is that people within religious organizations tends to view the Doctrine of Discovery as a doctrine diminishing indigenous peoples human rights, and rights of sovereignty and self determination while the effects seen by traditional indigenous peoples also see the doctrine as diminishing the rights of the environment itself, which is perceived as a living entity with intrinsic value. This difference in perception of the consequences of the Doctrine of Discovery therefore highlights the way religious worldviews have confronted each other in the meeting between the old world and the new world , and how these differences is still present today. by May-Lisabeth Brew",
    "externalUrl": "http://urn.nb.no/URN:NBN:no-46317"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/urgency-indigenous-values/",
    "title": "The Urgency of Indigenous Values",
    "publishedAt": "2023-10-07T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Philip P. Arnold, The Urgency of Indigenous Values, (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2023), ISBN: 9780815638087.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "book",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Philip P. Arnold, The Urgency of Indigenous Values, (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2023), ISBN: 9780815638087.",
    "externalUrl": "https://press.syr.edu/supressbooks/5835/urgency-of-indigenous-values-the/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/us-government-claim-domination/",
    "title": "The U.S. Government’s Claim of a Right of Domination",
    "publishedAt": "2023-01-16T14:54:46Z",
    "description": "Joseph Story is regarded as a genius and a giant in the legal profession. His continuing influence on American law was demonstrated for me some years ago when I attended a talk that Justice Antonin Scalia (1936-2016) delivered at the University of San Diego (USD) School of Law.",
    "tags": [
      "Indigenous-Knowledges",
      "law",
      "US-Indian-Law",
      "US-Law",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "The U.S. Government's Claim of a Right of Domination Justice Joseph Story (1779-1845) Justice Joseph Story was born in Marblehead, Massachusetts on September 18, 1779, and died on September 10, 1845, at the age of sixty-four. On February 3, 1812, during the presidency of James Madison, Story was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court at the age of thirty-two. He is the youngest person in history to be appointed to that position. He served for thirty-three years and six months as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Story's father-in-law was a major investor in the massive 1795 Yazoo land fraud in Georgia, in which nearly the entire Georgia legislature was bribed to sell most of the land that now makes up large portions of the states of Alabama and Mississippi to four land speculation companies for $500,000. Outrage over the entire affair resulted in the legislature being overturned and new legislators being elected. The new legislature rescinded the Yazoo Act that authorized the sale, and returned the money. The dispute between the state of Georgia and the land speculation companies continued into the 1800s and resulted in a legal case, Fletcher v. Peck, which went all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. When one of the lawyers working for the land speculation companies became ill, Story was hired to replace him on the case. He was only thirty years old at the time. It was during the Fletcher case that Story and Chief Justice John Marshall became friends, and not long thereafter Marshall recommended that Story be seated on the Court. Story and Justice Antonin Scalia Story is regarded as a genius and a giant in the legal profession. His continuing influence on American law was demonstrated for me some years ago when I attended a talk that Justice Antonin Scalia (1936-2016) delivered at the University of San Diego (USD) School of Law. It was August 30, 2006, and the evening's theme was \"Constitutional Interpretation.\" The occasion was the opening of the Center for the Study of Constitutional Originalism at the USD law school. Scalia made Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States(1833) an important part of his presentation. During his address, however, Scalia did not focus on Story's discussion of the origin of the U.S. claim of title to land in North America. He also did not mention the connection that Story made between the language of domination in a Vatican papal bull from 1493 and the language of domination found in the 1823 U.S. Supreme Court ruling Johnson v. McIntosh, a case that Story as an Associate Justice of the Court helped to decide. Despite Scalia's omission, the Johnson case is an important part of the story of \"Constitutional Interpretation.\" The Johnson ruling was issued three hundred and thirty years after Pope Alexander VI issued the Inter Caetera papal bull. The connection that Story made in his Commentaries between the papal bull and the Johnson ruling enables us to see that he and other members of the government were fully aware of the historical, legal, and political continuity between the property law of their era and the patterns of domination called \"property\" found in those ancient Vatican documents. The connection provides a little-understood context for the Supreme Court's interpretation of the U.S. Constitution with regard to the U.S. government's treatment of Native nations. My Brief Conversation with Justice Scalia After Justice Scalia's talk, the law school's director of communications walked with me to a reception at the Camino Shiley Courtyard. She told me I should feel free to go over and speak with Scalia. I got in line, waited patiently, and before long was standing in front of him. He was holding a beer, though I don't recall what brand. Our conversation revealed to me the lack of knowledge at least some members of the court have about the significance of the Johnson ruling, the papal bulls, and the legal history of federal anti-Indian law. Knowing he was fascinated with the topic of religion, I asked him a question I thought he might find intriguing:  \"Good evening Justice Scalia. My name is Steve Newcomb, and I was wondering whether you've ever come across my law review article, 'The Evidence of Christian Nationalism in Federal Indian Law: Johnson v. McIntosh, Plenary Power, and the Doctrine of Discovery.' It was published in 1993 by New York University Law School.\" \"No,\" he replied, \"what's it about?\" \"It's about the Doctrine of Discovery, the Supreme Court ruling in Johnson & Graham's Lessee v. McIntosh,\" I replied, \"and the Court's use of a categorical distinction between 'Christian people' and 'natives, who were heathens'. The Court said that the first Christian people to locate lands inhabited by 'natives, who were heathens' had a right of 'ultimate dominion' over those lands, and that the heathen Indians only had a right or title of 'occupancy'.\" Scalia told me he'd never heard of the Johnson ruling, or the doctrine of discovery. I was perplexed. After all, he'd been on the Supreme Court for nearly twenty years by that time and had participated in many decisions involving Indigenous peoples. \"I don't understand,\" I said. \"Just last Spring [2005], in City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York, the Court cited the doctrine of discovery in footnote number 1.\" Instead of responding to what I'd said, he began talking about the difference between the policies of the United States, Australia, and New Zealand, with regard to Indigenous peoples. He said the United States had \"eventually decided on a policy of conquest.\" \"That's quite interesting,\" I replied matter-of-factly, \"Can you point me to any decisions that actually said that?\" \"No,\" he replied. At that point I could tell the conversation was over. I thanked him for taking the time to speak with me and walked away. I was amazed at what I had just experienced. Scalia had been on the Supreme Court for nearly two decades, and yet he claimed to have never heard of the landmark decision Johnson v. McIntosh, which property law scholars cite as the cornerstone of U.S. property law in the United States. I found it bizarre. Either he was oblivious to one of the most important legal decisions in U.S. legal history or he was blatantly lying to me, which was quite possible if he didn't want to disclose any of his views to me. My Letter to Justice Scalia The day after my conversation with him, I wrote Scalia a one-page thank you letter, starting with Story's discussion of the \"right of discovery\" and Johnson v. McIntosh in his Commentaries. I included citations throughout the letter. I briefly explained the connections that I had mentioned during our conversation. I emailed my letter and a copy of my 1993 law review article to the communications director of the law school. She forwarded it to Justice Scalia's staff at the court. Several months later, in 2007, I had a phone conversation with Professor Lindsay Robertson, author of Conquest by Law, which provides a unique and detailed history of the Johnson ruling based on the original papers of the land speculation companies that brought the case. When I told Robertson about my conversation with Justice Scalia, he found it very interesting. It turns out that not long after my interaction with Scalia, Professor Robertson had received an invitation from the Supreme Court, asking him to give members of the Court a presentation on the significance of the Johnson v. McIntosh ruling. He said not every member of the Court attended his presentation, but quite a few did. Given the timing, I thought it was entirely possible that my communication with Justice Scalia might have caused the Court to send their invitation to Professor Robertson. If not, it was a most striking coincidence. My conversation with Justice Scalia demonstrates an important point. Whenever possible, we as Native people ought to attend public events or lectures that would give us the opportunity to have conversations with members of the U.S. Supreme Court or other members of the U.S. government, so that we can discuss the role that the Johnson ruling and the doctrine of Christian domination play in the anti-Indian area of U.S. law typically called \"federal Indian law.\" Our conversations may ripple far beyond the moment. Property: Another Word for Domination As mentioned above, Justice Scalia claimed he'd never heard of the Johnson ruling or the doctrine of Christian discovery. I found this odd particularly because of his references to Story's Commentaries during his talk. The opening chapter of Story's Commentaries includes a at lengthy analysis of Chief Justice Marshall's language in the Johnson ruling, and also reproduces nearly the entire ruling. Had Scalia actually not bothered to read Story's opening chapter, which sets a wide historical context for an \"originalist\" interpretation of the U.S. Constitution? The opening chapter of Story's Commentaries is titled, \"Origin and Title to the Territory of the Colonies.\" The word \"origin\" obviously means \"source or beginning.\" The word \"title\" means, \"The legal estate in fee, clear of all claims, liens, and encumbrances whatsoever, or expressed differently, the ownership of land without any rightful participation by any other person in any part of it.\" (Ballentine's Law Dictionary, 1969) Yet another definition of \"title\" is, \"The union of all the elements which constitute ownership, at common law divided into possession, right of possession and right of property, the last two, however, being considered essentially the same.\" (Ibid.) \"Ownership,\" in turn, leads us to, \"Title to property. Dominion over property.\" [and] \"the rights of an owner.\" \"Owner\" is \"One who has complete dominion over particular property.\" (Ibid.) In short, Story begins his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States with a thoroughgoing exploration of the fundamental concepts of the fundamental field of property law. There could hardly be a clearer indication of the significance of the field and of the basis of the U.S. claim of ownership of Indigenous lands. Moreover, Story's analysis conforms to the views of other scholars. My 1993 law review article, \"The Evidence of Christian Nationalism in Federal Indian Law,\" cites William Brandon's New Worlds for Old (1986), where he explains as follows the connection between property and domination: The Old-World idea of property was well expressed by the Latin \"dominium\": from 'dominus' which derived from the Sanskrit 'domanus'---'he who subdues'. 'Dominus' in the Latin carried the same principal meaning, 'one who has subdued,' extending naturally to signify 'master, possessor, lord, proprietor, owner'. 'Dominium' takes from 'dominus' the sense of 'absolute ownership' with a special legal meaning of property right of ownership (So says Lewis and Short, A Latin Dictionary (1969 ed.)). 'Dominatio' extends the word into 'rule, dominium,' and . . . 'with an odius secondary meaning, unrestricted power, absolute dominium, lordship, tyranny, despotis.' Political power grown from property---dominium---was, in effect, domination. (William Brandon, New Worlds For Old, p. 121, (1986)). [emphasis added] In short, the concept of \"property\" is rooted in the Latin word \"dominio,\" a verb meaning \"to dominate.\" The term dominio is derived from \"domo,\" meaning \"to subjugate, to subdue, to force into subservience, to tame, to domesticate, to cultivate, and to till.\" The meanings of these terms enable us to transcode the word \"owner\" as, \"one who has complete domination over particular property\" or, simply, \"a dominator.\" This matches the definition of property provided by Charles Monroe Haar and Lance Liebman in their law textbook Property and Law(Little, Brown and Company, 1985, p. 2), \"the first establishment of socially approved physical domination over some part of the natural world.\" I spoke with Professor Liebman, who told me that they had based that definition on William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Law of England (1765-1769). Blackstone defines property as the \"sole despotic dominion\" over \"external things,\" \"to the exclusion of anyone else in the universe.\" Blackstone wrote that he based his definition on the Biblical book of Genesis directive in 1:28, to \"subdue\" and \"dominate\" the earth and all living things. Blackstone's definition of property enables us to accurately interpret the title of the opening chapter of Story's Commentaries as follows: \"The Origin of the Claim of a Right of British Domination Over the Territory of the British Colonies in North America.\" This wording corresponds with the conclusions of a 1939 book, Creation of Rights of Sovereignty Through Symbolic Acts, written by three Columbia University graduate students of international law, under the guidance of Charles Cheney Hyde, who served for a time as the Solicitor to the U.S. Department of State. Johnathon Havercroft's Captives of Sovereignty (2014) points to the arguments of Hannah Arendt, Michel Foucault, and Georgio Agamben that \"sovereignty\" is \"an unjust form of political domination that limits human freedom.\" Havercroft devotes his book to developing a critique of sovereign domination. The next section will use Story's words to explain how ancient Christian thinking about \"heathens\" and \"infidels\" serves as a key part of the context for the U.S. Constitution. More Evidence of the Claim of a Right of Christian Domination Story's Commentaries provides the following explanation of what he calls the \"right of discovery\": The ambition of Henry the Seventh was roused by the communications of Columbus, and in 1495 [sic], he granted a commission to John Cabot, an enterprising Venetian, then settled in England, to proceed on a voyage of discovery, and to subdue and take possession of any lands unoccupied by any Christian Power, in the name and for the benefit of the British Crown. King Henry's commission, issued in 1496 by royal prerogative, authorized Cabot to embark upon a voyage to locate, subjugate (the text of the charter uses two Latin terms: \"subjugari\" and \"subjugare\") the lands of non-Christians (Story: \"unoccupied by any Christian Power\"), (English text of the charter: \"unknown to all Christians\"). The intention of the monarch was to establish \"dominion\"---domination---(Latin text of the charter: \"titulum dominium\") over distant lands. The intention to subjugate and claim a right of dominion over whatever areas of land are identified, contains the tacit claim that the Christian empire, the king, the Cabots, and the entire Christian world have \"the right\" to formulate those ideas and to engage in symbolic acts consistent with those ideas. In Section 5 of Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, he explains the Christian world's attitude of bigotry toward non-Christians: \"The Indians were a savage race, sunk in the depths of ignorance and heathenism.\" He continues: If they might not be extirpated [physically eliminated] for their want [lack] of religion and just morals, they might be reclaimed from their errors. They were bound to yield to the superior genius of Europe, and in exchanging their wild and debasing habits for civilization and Christianity they were deemed to gain more than an equivalent for every sacrifice and suffering. Story's above wording paraphrases two sentences from Chief Justice Marshall's writing in Johnson v. McIntosh. The first sentence from Johnson reads: \"The character and religion of its [the continent's] inhabitants afforded an apology for considering them as a people over whom the superior genius of Europe might claim an ascendancy.\" The second sentence states: \"The potentates of the old world found no difficulty in convincing themselves that they made ample compensation to the inhabitants of the new [world] by bestowing on them civilization and Christianity in exchange for unlimited independence.\" To gain an insightful understanding of the above language, we have to take the time necessary to reflect upon the meanings of the words and phrases. What does \"the superior genius of Europe\" mean, for instance? We can think of it as \"a form of intelligence\" that is regarded as operating on a level \"higher\" than that of the Native peoples' intelligence. Metaphorically, the idea of the Christian Europeans having a superior genius compared to Native nations and peoples imaginatively structures the discourse in such a manner that the Christian Europeans are deemed to always be \"up,\" \"over,\" and \"above\" the Native peoples, who are deemed to always be existing on a level that is \"down,\" \"under,\" \"below\" and \"beneath\" the Christian Europeans. This is how the language and system of ideas is structured in U.S. anti-Indian law. Story's aforementioned statement about the Indians being, in his view, \"sunk in the depths\" demonstrates his skill at using this over-under structuring. \"Sunk\" leads us to \"sunken,\" one meaning of which is, \"settled below the normal level,\" in our context means the Christian European level. And the word \"depths\" takes us to, \"a deep place,\" and \"abyss,\" \"the worst part,\" and \"the quality of being deep.\" We can use a Capitol Dome as a symbol of what we are examining. It symbolizes the dominators who imaginatively (mentally) position themselves \"on top\" of and \"over\" everyone else. And this is related to \"the superior genius of Europe\" claiming a position of \"ascendancy\" \"up\" and \"over\" the Indians. One meaning of ascendancy is \"controlling influence, governing power, DOMINATION,\" Thus, Marshall, on behalf of the U.S. Supreme Court, expressed the view that \"the superior genius of Europe\" was able to claim and assume a right of domination over the Indians.  And given that one meaning of \"civilization\" is \"the forcing of a cultural pattern on a population to which it is foreign,\" that forcible process of cultural imposition, including, Christianity, was deemed to be the form of \"compensation\" the Indians would receive from the Christian Europeans. Why were the Indians in need of \"compensation\"? They deserved to be compensated for the loss of their liberty, meaning their free way of life. And the Christian Europeans would give themselves \"unlimited independence\" on the continent by forcibly \"bestowing\" a system of domination called \"civilization\" on the Indians. The people who were claiming the right to forcibly impose a Christian European cultural pattern and Christianity on the Indians were of the view that what they were imposing on the Indians was of greater value than the free way of life the Indians had been traditionally living. Stripping the Native nations of their unlimited independence opened a space into which the Christian Europeans were able to insert their own unlimited independence on the continent. Story continues as follows: The papal authority, too, was brought in aid of these great designs; and for the purpose of overthrowing heathenism and propagating the Catholic religion, Alexander the Sixth, by a Bull issued in 1493, granted to the crown of Castile the whole of the immense territory then discovered, or to be discovered. . .so far as it was not then possessed by any Christian prince. If any Christian nation, monarch, or potentate had already claimed a right of domination over some geographical area and put up markers to communicate their intention to establish themselves there, then, from the religious, legalistic viewpoint of Christendom, that area was considered \"off limits\" to any other Christian monarch or nation. More specifically, if non-Christian nations and peoples were the only peoples existing in the \"discovered\" area and no prior claim of Christian domination had been asserted, then it was the policy of the Christian powers separately and of Christendom as a whole to agree that the Christian \"discoverer\" could claim a right of domination over that place. Story's narrative shows that the Johnson v. McIntosh ruling followed this pattern, claiming that the United States became the successor to the British claim of a Christian right of domination over lands labeled \"heathen\" and \"infidel.\" The Johnson v. McIntosh ruling uses the phrase \"ultimate dominion\" as a euphemistic way of expressing the theme of domination. The Hidden Dimension of \"Christian\" and \"Heathen, Pagan, and Infidel\" By differentiating between \"Christian people\" and \"heathens, pagans, and infidels,\" Story and Marshall were following a reasoning process from the Bible. The word \"heathen,\" for example, is a word \"of Christian origin,\" so says the Oxford English Dictionary. And the phrase \"Christian people\" is a category that includes all the main features of domination in relation to non-Christians. The Idealized Mental Model of a \"Christian\" monarch from the Age of Discovery includes the features listed below: A right of domination over non-Christians and their lands. Full sovereignty Perfect title Ultimate dominion The right to exclude all others from claiming a right of domination in those places where a right of domination has already been claimed By contrast, the Idealized Mental Model associated with the words \"heathen,\" \"pagan,\" \"infidel,\" and \"savage\" is missing all the above features ascribed to the category \"Christian.\" From a Christian European perspective, non-Christian Native peoples are: Automatically assumed to be subject to the ideas and arguments of the Christians Subject to the Christians' claim of a right of domination Possessing no right of domination or authority over Christians Possessing an incomplete sovereignty Possessing an imperfect title of occupancy People possessing no right to exclude Christians from claiming a right of domination over them and their lands Joseph Story was using, for example, the above features of the categories \"Christian\" and \"non-Christian\" when he wrote of Native peoples, \"as infidels, heathens, and savages, they were not allowed to possess the prerogatives belonging to absolute, sovereign, and independent nations.\" The Christian world would not mentally \"allow\" the non-Christians to be conceptualized as possessing such prerogatives. And notice the presumption that it was up to the invading foreigners to decide how the original nations and peoples would be mentally conceptualized from a Christian European viewpoint. These above features constitute the hidden dimension of the categorical difference between Christians and non-Christians. As soon as those who call themselves \"Christian\" succeed in metaphorically naming the original peoples \"heathen,\" \"pagan,\" \"infidel,\" and \"savage,\" they have thereby mentally ascribed the above limited properties to the non-Christians, while ascribing the above mentioned properties to the Christians. Non-Christian Native peoples are, in other words, automatically understood to have no right of domination over Christians, only an incomplete 'sovereignty', no title of property to their lands, no right to exclude Christians from their lands and territories, and no ability to prevent the Christian Europeans from claiming a right of domination over them and their lands. The difference between those properties is tacitly (silently) invoked every time the Johnson v. McIntosh ruling is referenced or mentioned. Searching the Historical Record and Challenging the Claim of a Right of Domination As scholars, we need to closely examine the ideas that the most elite non-Native thinkers of the United States have written about Native nations and peoples. We need to avoid accepting the view that we as Native people are obligated in our time to adopt and follow the same ways of thinking about Native issues that the intellectuals of the United States developed generations ago. There is nothing that obligates us as Native people to accept the U.S. government's claim of a right of domination over Native nations. If anything, we are obligated by our original free existence to figure out how to oppose such claims.         People who work for the United States government, judges and attorneys for example, assume they are bound by the ideas that Christian European men such as Joseph Story developed centuries ago. It's as if the people working for the United States are still saying today: \"We are obligated to abide by and not deviate from the ideas that our Christian European ancestors developed centuries ago.\" Here's a key point: We as Native people have a perfect right to oppose a centuries-old idea-system of domination that continues to be used against our nations and peoples. It is our formidable task to develop ideas and arguments that will effectively challenge that system. I offer the following as a tentative step in that direction. First-in-Time, First-in-Right is one potential argument, not First-Invader-in-Time, First-Invader-in-Right. A second potential argument is \"Void When Initiated, You Cannot Grant What You Don't Possess.\" The papal bulls and royal charters were null and void from the moment they were issued because the pope and the monarchs of Europe possessed no land in places they had no knowledge of at the time they wrote their fanciful documents. Any such document became null as soon as one of the colonizing ships arrived to the territory of a coastal Native nation. This is because that coastal Native nation had its own preexisting territorial jurisdiction, which rendered the pretenses of the papal and monarchical documents null and void in the territory of that free and independent Native nation. Lastly, \"Anything Wrong From the Beginning Can Never Be Made Right, Because It Was Wrong From Its Inception.\" The passage of time does not make something wrongful become rightful. The claim of a right of domination can never be made right because it was wrong from the moment it was made and it will forever continue to be wrong. The Mental World of Christian Europe is the Origin of the Claim of a Right of Domination Upon reflection, it is easy to comprehend a key point: Not one Native person alive back when the Vatican papal bulls or royal charters were drafted played any role in the creation of those documents. Likewise, we seem to never notice that only non-Native thinkers developed the ideas that serve today as the foundation of federal anti-Indian law. Not one native person participated in the development of those ideas. What is the significance of this observation? Anyone who examines the overall body of Christian European documents for answers to questions about Native peoples and their rights, documents such as Vatican papal bulls, royal charters, the writings of Joseph Story, the Johnson v. McIntosh ruling, and U.S. Supreme Court rulings generally, is looking at the mental artifacts, so to speak, produced by the mental world of Christian Europe, and then attempting to accurately interpret those artifacts and apply those ideas to Native nations in our time. Native nations that hire domination-system attorneys and turn to them for answers, will only receive answers from the past that are part of the grand repository of non-Indian and anti-Indian ideas about \"Indians.\" Native nations that approach problem solving in this manner will be destined to repeat the same disempowering cycle that those anti-Indian ideas are designed to create, while hoping for a different result. This is because in order to obtain the answers to the questions that are being asked, Native leaders will invariably and automatically turn to the ideas and arguments of domination that the U.S. government developed in the past, and continues to use in the present, without even noticing they have done so. All this is kept hidden from view by means of one simple phrase, \"the law,\" a phrase that makes it seem as if non-Indian ideas about \"Indians\" are something more than ideas by being called \"laws.\" We can imagine a thick book called The Book of the Dominator. Whenever a question arises, the leadership of a particular Native nation can turn to their lawyer and ask, \"What's your take on this course of action?\" And the response comes back: \"We'll have to get out The Book of the Dominator and see what he has to say.\" They have to look for the answer to their question by searching through the book, or else decide how to respond based on what the attorney recalls about the book or about the ideas and arguments found in U.S. government case law. In one scenario the lawyer answers: \"Based on what the Dominator has said about this sort of thing, I'd say you ought to feel confident going in that direction.\" Or the lawyer might say: \"Well, unfortunately based on what it says here in The Book of the Dominator, I'd recommend against taking that course of action.\" Law has been defined as, \"the habit of obedience,\" to which, in our case, we need to add, \"a habit of obedience to the ideas and arguments of 'the Dominator'.\"  One of the most recent versions of The Book of the Dominator is titled, for example, \"Federal Indian Law, 2012 Edition.\" Conclusion It is not possible for us to question or challenge something we know nothing about. This is why an acknowledgment of the claim of a right of domination is so critically important. After all, we cannot question or challenge the U.S. government's claim of a right of domination over Native nations if we don't recognize that this claim is intrinsic to federal anti-Indian law. So long as the United States government's claim remains hidden from view, it will remain unchallenged by the name domination. When we closely re-examine the writings of Chief Justice John Marshall in the Johnson ruling, Joseph Story in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, to cite just two specific examples, it then becomes possible to accurately identify the idea-patterns that have been used and continue to be used against Native nations and peoples. It would seem that Native studies programs have not learned the importance of teaching students how to recognize the U.S. government's claim of a right of domination over Native peoples. With few exceptions, law students in the United States are also not taught about the U.S. government's claim of a right of domination over Native nations, even when they are being taught about \"the doctrine of discovery.\" There is a simple reason for this. Law professors seldom if ever make the word \"domination\" explicit in their course materials in relation to U.S. case. The United States has succeeded in getting Native people to call the U.S. claim of a right of domination over Native nations and peoples \"the trust relationship.\" That's what the anti-Indian area of scholarship called \"Federal Indian Law\" has achieved in my estimation. This is one reason why it is critically important to teach students to recognize the Paradigm of Domination. Then they will have a heightened awareness of its patterns. Ideally, this new awareness will enable them to develop arguments that oppose the claim of a right of domination over Native nations, beginning with First-in-Time, First-in-Right. Until someone has been taught how to unpack and decode specific patterns, it remains impossible to recognize those patterns and understand why they are still being used in the reasoning process regarding Native peoples. But once we have been taught how to see those patterns, they seem ubiquitous and impossible to ignore. An unlimited number of terms and phrases are being used every single day with regard to Native nations and peoples, and most of the time they are never recognized as having anything to do with domination. This one insight is the basis for an entire body of research I like to call domination studies. Steven Newcomb (Shawnee/Lenape) is co-founder and director of the Indigenous Law Institute, and author of Pagans in the Promised Land: Decoding the Doctrine of Discovery (Chicago Review Press), and co-producer of the documentary movie \"The Doctrine of Discovery: Unmasking the Domination Code,\" directed by Sheldon Wolfchild (Dakota).  Many thanks to my dear friend Peter d'Errico, professor emeritus UMass Amherst, and author of Federal Anti-Indian Law The Legal Entrapment of Indigenous Peoples, Praeger, 2022. He provided sage editorial guidance for this article. I also want to thank the Indigenous Values Initiative for the opportunity to publish this essay."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/vatican-colonization-doctrine-discovery/",
    "title": "How the Vatican encouraged the colonization of Indigenous lands – and enabled the Crown to keep them",
    "publishedAt": "2020-08-01T19:55:46Z",
    "description": "Beneath glowering portraits of Balboa, Cortez and other Spanish conquistadors, Mr. Newcomb pored over the familiar Latin phrases, many of which he’d memorized over 40 years of researching the doctrine. The archivist flipped over the document. It was mostly blank, but one phrase gave Mr. Newcomb a jolt: “To Win and Conquer the Indies.” The Vatican’s ambitions were revealed. “There was that domination pattern right from the beginning,” he [Newcomb] said. “The entire world order is still premised on this claim of domination.”",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "doctrine-discovery",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Beneath glowering portraits of Balboa, Cortez and other Spanish conquistadors, Mr. Newcomb pored over the familiar Latin phrases, many of which he’d memorized over 40 years of researching the doctrine. The archivist flipped over the document. It was mostly blank, but one phrase gave Mr. Newcomb a jolt: “To Win and Conquer the Indies.” The Vatican’s ambitions were revealed. “There was that domination pattern right from the beginning,” he [Newcomb] said. “The entire world order is still premised on this claim of domination.”",
    "externalUrl": "https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-pope-visit-doctrine-of-discovery/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/video/",
    "title": "The Goepolitical and International Law Objectives of the Lewis and Clark Expedition",
    "publishedAt": "2023-08-02T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Robert is discussing the ideas of discovery and control of land through the lens of Thomas Jefferson and the Lewis and Clark Expedition.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "Video",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Robert is discussing the ideas of discovery and control of land through the lens of Thomas Jefferson and the Lewis and Clark Expedition.",
    "externalUrl": "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3shXuBMcio"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/what-fifteenth-century-papal-bulls-can-teach-us-about-indigenous-identity/",
    "title": "What Fifteenth-Century Papal Bulls Can Teach Us About Indigenous Identity",
    "publishedAt": "2020-12-13T14:54:46Z",
    "description": "Whether the intent of domination expressed by that language is part of “official Church teachings” is irrelevant in my view. What is relevant is that, throughout the world, the present-day context and conditions experienced by “Indigenous” nations and peoples is an outgrowth of the patterns of domination and dehumanization expressed in those many documents issued centuries ago by the Holy See.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "doctrine-discovery",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Whether the intent of domination expressed by that language is part of “official Church teachings” is irrelevant in my view. What is relevant is that, throughout the world, the present-day context and conditions experienced by “Indigenous” nations and peoples is an outgrowth of the patterns of domination and dehumanization expressed in those many documents issued centuries ago by the Holy See.",
    "externalUrl": "https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/responses/what-fifteenth-century-papal-bulls-can-teach-us-about-indigenous-identity"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/what-repudiations-reveal/",
    "title": "What Doctrine of Discovery Statements of Religious Repudiation Reveal",
    "publishedAt": "2023-01-31T07:54:46Z",
    "description": "Nations formulate doctrines that define and guide their relations toward other nations. The Monroe Doctrine, and the Truman, Carter, and Bush Doctrines are American examples. As nations in Christendom in the 15th century had the wherewithal to explore the world by sea, popes formulated a doctrine to shape their relations with the lands and people the explorers would encounter.",
    "tags": [
      "church",
      "Christianity",
      "Christian",
      "Repudiations",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Nations formulate doctrines that define and guide their relations toward other nations. The Monroe Doctrine, and the Truman, Carter, and Bush Doctrines are American examples. As nations in Christendom in the 15th century had the wherewithal to explore the world by sea, popes formulated a doctrine to shape their relations with the lands and people the explorers would encounter. This came to be called the Doctrine of Discovery. While this is a religiously based doctrine, it has been adopted as legal precedent in Europe and the United States. In this essay I will explore the religious components of the Doctrine through the lens of what official statements of repudiation reveal, avoid, and deny as a type of risk assessment. Just as legal outcomes of the Doctrine remain in effect, so do the religious components, contributing to the ongoing risk of Christians violating human rights. What Statements of Repudiation Reveal Many Christians have moved along the moral learning curve to recognize some errors in its ways, from slavery and the treatment of women, to inequalities of all sorts, and the injustices of Christian conquest, colonization, and domination. Nearly 20 Christian denominations and the World Council of Churches have made official statements of repudiation of the Doctrine. This has occurred in response to the voices of Indigenous activists and scholars, which we acknowledge with appreciation. In the most egregious case of avoidance, no statement of repudiation has yet been made from the source of the Doctrine, the Vatican. Whenever there is repudiation or admission of guilt, it is important to listen carefully for what they acknowledged and what they do not. What they do not acknowledge obviously remains a threat, even with expressions of remorse, the moral equivalent of “mistakes were made.” While a Vatican project, the gist of the Doctrine was carried out by nearly all Christian denominations represented on Turtle Island. This indicates that the popes who formulated it were not unique in their understanding. What they had in common was the Bible that provided the playbook. My report is that while many churches humbly acknowledge their complicity with the Doctrine, they address little of its Biblical roots in their statements of repudiation. An ELCA social policy resolution calls it “European-derived,” not Christianity-derived. The Presbyterian Church USA does name it as having roots in European Christian behavior toward non-Christians as well as papal interpretations of the Bible. (pp.3-7) The Mennonite Church (USA) statement describes it as having been given  \"Biblical justification,\" not being of Biblical origin. And finally, the Presbyterian Church in Canada describes the relationship between Scripture and the Doctrine as “complex.” p.6 of the full report) Several of the statements follow the lead of the World Council of Churches in denying and deflecting while repudiating. These statements (such as the Anglican Church of Canada, Episcopal Church USA, Quaker Indian Committee, United Church of Canada, and the United Church of Sweden) assert that the Doctrine is incompatible with the Gospel (don’t blame the Gospel). They say nothing about the Old Testament role, as if Christianity need not take any moral responsibility for its influence on Christian colonization. The statement from the World Council of Churches is that it: “Denounces the Doctrine of Discovery as fundamentally opposed to the gospel of Jesus Christ and as a violation of the inherent human rights that all individuals and peoples have received from God.” They do not identify specifically which parts of the Gospel are in fundamental opposition or which human rights received by God the Doctrine violates. The vow to do better does not make the non-Christian world safer from Christian domination. The Gospel’s Great Commission The Presbyterian Church in Canada does make direct reference to the role of the key Gospel basis for the Doctrine, the Great Commission. (p. 7 of the full report) The United Methodist Church statement refers to it only obliquely. (p.1) Yet Pope Paul III cites it directly in Sublimus Dei, “On the Enslavement and Evangelization of Indians,” When Christian nations had the technological and financial means to explore and exploit the world, the popes recognized this as an opportunity to expand the fulfillment of Christ’s order to his followers to “go into all the world…,” which was now well beyond the scope of the world that Jesus knew. Followers of Jesus understandably saw this as something they were obligated to do. The purpose of going into all the world was to “make disciples of all nations.” This means to cause it to happen, not simply to invite nations to convert. To not convert, according to Christ, would lead to condemnation. Go and Occupy; Go and Convert The Evangelical Covenant Church statement points to the Old Testament theme of a chosen people with a promised land as being present in the Doctrine and in the belief in manifest destiny. (p.3) While this is true, it is subordinate to the Great Commission. This is clear when Pope Paul III learned that some of the conquerors were no longer fulfilling the requirement to teach and convert. Sublimus Dei, was meant to bring them in line, citing the Great Commission. Go, occupy, and exploit, yes, but only if they also went and attempted to teach and convert. There is no doubt that the Old Testament theme was operative in the Doctrine and in Christian colonization. St. James UCC in Saline, Michigan gives this statement of its founding: Our forefathers heard the call of the Lord “Get out of thy country and from thy kindred & from thy father’s house into a land that I will show thee and bless thee.” They heard this call in far off Germany and came to America, even unto Saline, where they built an altar…. The reference here is to Genesis 12:1-3 (NRSVUE): Now the Lord said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. 2 I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” Christians identify with the stories they read in the Bible. Their leaders encourage them to do so. They consider themselves to be descendants of Abram. In 1819, the influential clergyman and educator, Rev. Heman Humphrey delivered a sermon in Massachusetts entitled “The Promised Land.” It was based on the passage in Jeremiah 1, that there was still much land left to rightly be occupied, meaning the westward expansion of American Christendom. Jesus gave his own twist to the Old Testament command. God told Abram that whoever blessed him, God would bless and whoever cursed him, God would curse. Jesus reversed that. He said to his followers, in effect, whoever you bless, heaven will bless. Whoever you curse, heaven will curse. (Matthew 16:19, NRSVUE) All Power in Heaven and on Earth None of the statements call out this most decisive assertion of domination. After Jesus rose from the dead, he proclaimed that all power in heaven and on earth had been given to him. (Mathew 28:18, NRSVUE) This is quite the turnabout. Earlier, soon after Jesus was baptized and experienced the blessing of God the Father, he went into the “wilderness” and experienced the great temptations of power. In one, (Luke 4:5-7, NRSVUE) he was on a high place and was told by the tempter that he could have power over all that he could see in a Devil’s bargain. All power. He refused the condition of worshipping the Devil. Now, Jesus embraced all power in heaven and on earth. Further, he transferred that power to his followers through his disciple Peter. The popes certainly claimed it, but also ordinary Christian colonizers did and many still do. Go into all the world, dominate and be the judge of those who are there. This judging included, and still includes, not only matters of salvation, but also spiritual/cultural practices, beliefs, relationship to the earth for not extracting all it can reap for humans, and even sexual positions. All were and are regarded as open to judgement by Christians as if the souls of the Indigenous depended upon it. This, despite the fact that in another part of the Gospel, (Matthew 7:1, NRSVUE) Jesus exhorted his followers to not judge. The Bible, including the Gospels, is not known for its consistency. With the belief that Christ had all power in heaven and on earth, and now his followers, we can get doctrines like that of the Doctrine of Discovery. A clear statement of this assumption of all power is Requieremiento, (Requirement: To be Read by Spanish Conquerors to Defeated Indians). Written in 1510 by the Council of Castille, it stated that what the conquerors were doing was ordained by God, and that the Church is “the Ruler and Superior of the Whole World.” The Native peoples were informed that they were invited to voluntarily convert to Christianity. When they did, they would lose their autonomy and become “the subjects and vassals” of the Spanish crown. If they did not convert, as Christ warned in Mark 16:16, (NRSVUE) all hell, in effect, would be visited upon them. “With the help of God, we shall powerfully enter into your country, and shall make war against you in all ways and manners that we can, and shall subject you to the yoke and obedience of the Church and of their Highnesses; we shall take you and your wives and your children, and shall make slaves of them, and as such shall sell and dispose of them as their Highnesses may command; and we shall take away your goods, and shall do you all the mischief and damage that we can, as to vassals who do not obey, and refuse to receive their lord, and resist and contradict him; and we protest that the deaths and losses which shall accrue from this are your fault, and not that of their Highnesses, or ours, nor of these cavaliers who come with us.” Enemies of Christ The Doctrine of Discovery thus contains a declaration of war against non-Christians, a war Christians had by then been waging for some time against Muslims and other non-Christians in Europe they referred to as pagans or heathens. In Dum Diversas, Pope Nicholas V referred to such people as “enemies of Christ” as if there can be no neutrality toward Christ. Though none of our statements acknowledge it, this position is Gospel based. In Matt 12:30 (NRSVUE) and Luke 11:23, (NRSVUE) Jesus uses the polarizing binary that people who are not with him are against him. He may have learned this from his Jewish roots. The God of Israel had declared war against all other Gods. The Canaanites, for example, were routinely characterized as enemies of God. Their very existence was perceived to be a threat. One papal bull related to the Doctrine is called, Unam Sanctam (One God, One Faith, One Spiritual Authority). From the declaration that there is only one God, the very fact that people worship another God would be felt to be a threat that must be stamped out. Otherwise, believers are at risk of being led astray, as the followers of Moses were. The land had to be made empty of non-believers. There could be no spiritual authority from within Indigenous traditions separate from their God-given capacity to accept Christ. Love Your Neighbor How? The Colonization of Consciousness To believe that the Doctrine is fundamentally opposed to the Gospel presumably refers to the Great Commandment to love your neighbor as yourself. Mark Charles and the CRCNA task force (p.18) explicitly state so. Many regard the Great Commandment to be the heart of the Gospel. So why did it not stop more ordinary Christians, teachers, and clergy from engaging in domination? The Anglican Church in Canada statement of repudiation and confession is telling. “We tried to remake you in our own image.” Likewise, the Presbyterian Church in Canada confesses, “we presumed to know better than aboriginal peoples.” (Item #4) “If only they would be like us… they would know God and therefore have abundant life.” Such acknowledgements of colonization of consciousness reveal the structural flaw that Jesus’ command to love your neighbor as yourself is, tragically, self-centered. It presumes our neighbor is or should be like us. So, missionaries could and did reason that if their souls were lost, they would want someone to do whatever it took to save them, even destroying their way of life or separating them from their parents at a young age. In 1892, Captain R.H. Pratt infamously coined the expression in support of forced boarding schools, “to kill the Indian in him and save the man.” (p.2) He also argued that to forcibly remove people from Africa saved them from a terrible way of life. A related notion in the New Testament and elsewhere is the Golden Rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This also has me at the center. This weakness is now understood, and a new alternative is being used, do unto others as they would have you do unto them. This would more reliably put the brakes on committing injustice. Love your neighbor as they wish to be loved. Many Indigenous peoples wished to be free to worship as their ancestors did. Parents and children wished to live together without the presence of colonizers or missionaries. If Not the Gospel, what is the Doctrine at Odds With? Far from being at odds with the Gospel, then, the Doctrine is based on identifiable parts of it. It is, however, at odds with innate human rights, as the statements of repudiation recognize. What these statements do not do is connect the dots that the Bible led ordinary Christians to violate those innate human rights and still does so today. Most obvious to our subject is the right to religious freedom. In contrast to the religious intolerance of the Christians, Christians were met with religious tolerance (p. 19, Errand to the World). Several statements now call for respecting Indigenous spirituality, while not directly addressing “enemies of Christ” Biblical passages. The Evangelical Covenant Church asserts the principle of imago Dei, that all are created in the image of God, (Genesis 1:27, NRSVUE) from which it would follow that non-believers deserve respect. Let’s be careful, though. In the mindset of colonizers, they are referring to the image of their God, not the Gods of others. The assertion of sameness can be a subtle form of domination when you claim to hold the key. The ELCA includes with repudiation the dropping of a missional stance toward Native peoples, which they will replace with the “practice of accompaniment.” This indirectly implicates the Great Commission. The Evangelical Covenant Church similarly commits to a change from mission to accompaniment. This, of course, presupposes the desire for such a relationship on the part of the Native peoples. Full and complete repudiation of the Doctrine of Discovery must include specifically denouncing Unam Sanctam (One God, One Faith, One Spiritual Authority) as the position of domination that it is. None of our statements does so. In essence, it asserts that there is only one God, and it is Christianity’s God, not yours. Also, any validity to your spiritual insights and practices can be judged by ours, such as those incorporated in Pope Francis’s 2022 visit to First Nations. To the claimed authority of the book the Christians wished the Native peoples to embrace, many of the latter felt quite adequately guided by their own traditions, which they lived and reinforced daily with rituals and other practices. (See Philip P. Arnold & Sandra L. Bigtree, Ten Religious Themes of the Doctrine of Christian Discovery (DoCD) that Contrast with Indigenous Values) As tribute to their effectiveness, many Christians who lived long term with the Indigenous peoples left records of admiration for “the purity of Indian character,” (p.20, Errand to the World) The right to live in peace, specified in at least one statement of repudiation, conflicts with the Biblically based notion of a chosen people with a promised land that informed the Doctrine and Manifest Destiny. The Doctrine conflicts with the human right to freedom, autonomy, and liberty. These are consistent with the Indigenous value of non-domination. (See value #5 in Arnold & Bigtree) Being kind, it should be noted, is not the equivalent. In the art of domination, kindness plays the role of helping prevent rebellion. The Doctrine as Lived Today by Christian Churches The United Church in Australia takes the important step of having its repudiation include that of the “theological foundations” of the Doctrine, though those foundations are not identified, nor are the Biblical bases for them. To acknowledge in detail the religious components of the Doctrine leaves some challenging work ahead. Each component needs to be repudiated and corrective action taken. For example, if are no chosen people with a promised land, and there never were, then what? Without the justification of “go and occupy,” churches are left having to acknowledge that they have no moral right to the ownership of property they possess and that their current ministries depend on. While the land back movement is gaining some traction among Christians as an ideal, it has mostly been applied to land they no longer use. In contrast, to transfer ownership of lands they actively use and depend on to the Indigenous nation who it was taken from and request a lease puts things in a more proper order in terms of respect for inherent rights. Related would be to denounce the belief in the right of Christians to have majority domination in what feels to them like their own land. Instead of arguing over whether the U.S., for example, is or is not a Christian nation, the issue is that Christianity has no moral right to make such an assertion. The political founders and Christian colonizers may have had different ideas about religious domination. But this is not an historical question; it is a moral one. As identified here, other parts of the theological foundation needing to be repudiated include the belief that non-Christians are enemies of Christ. And the Great Commission needs to be formally decommissioned to better protect non-Christians. The Great Commandment and Golden Rule similarly need revision to safeguard against doing harm. This brings up the thorny problem of what to do with the Bible, which contains the dangerous passages identified here that led Christians to violate innate human rights and still do today. To simply say that popes and colonizers misunderstood or misused these passages does not increase the safety of non-Christians. We are talking about theologically trained popes and clergy as well as legions of ordinary Christians being led by the Bible to violate human rights over centuries. The Bible must somehow be made safer as a playbook for Christian behavior toward non-Christians. The recent rise of Christian nationalism makes this need urgent."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/world-water-one/",
    "title": "World Water One",
    "publishedAt": "2023-03-21T07:54:46Z",
    "description": "Ten years since the  First Dismantling the Doctrine of Discovery International Conference  held at Arizona State University West on April 19-20, 2013, the  Continental Commission Abya Yala  will advance into the next cycle of INTENT and ENGAGEMENT towards the objectives and goals of the local-regional, continental-global initiative which has remained active across the continent throughout this most recent chapter of our collective history as  Original Nations  of  Indigenous Peoples  of  Abya Yala . The continental call to consciousness and courage will be emitted today at dawn during the  Tlanexpapalotl  (Butterfly Sun) Ceremonies of the  Izcalli Abya Yala  at dawn. The date corresponds to the spring equinox north of the equator, and the fall equinox in the south which will occur on March 20, 2023. As was the case ten years ago, the call by the Continental Commission Abya Yala is being led by the same three organizations of Indigenous Peoples: Techantit, Vision Maya, and TONATIERRA. Now advancing beyond the initial ten-year phase of the Dismantling of the Doctrine of Discovery of Christendom, the Continental Commission will coordinate and synchronize with ceremonial protocols appropriate to each particular nation and territory, the  EMERGENCE  and  REGENERATION  of the  Original Nations  of  Indigenous Peoples  of  Abya Yala  in exercise of an autonomous and interdependent geopolitical continental alliance of Indigenous Self Determination. In the north, the ceremonies will commence at sunrise and go to noon of the Tlanexpapalotl (Spring Equinox) on March 20, 2023. South of the equator, the Original Nations of Indigenous Peoples of Abya Yala will synchronize and coordinate accordingly as they celebrate the Yohualpapalotl (Fall Equinox) in complementarity with the spirit of the  Kundur Anka , the  Continental Confederation  of the  Eagle-Condor .",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "tonatierra",
      "featured",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "Ten years since the First Dismantling the Doctrine of Discovery International Conference held at Arizona State University West on April 19-20, 2013, the Continental Commission Abya Yala will advance into the next cycle of INTENT and ENGAGEMENT towards the objectives and goals of the local-regional, continental-global initiative which has remained active across the continent throughout this most recent chapter of our collective history as Original Nations of Indigenous Peoples of Abya Yala. The continental call to consciousness and courage will be emitted today at dawn during the Tlanexpapalotl (Butterfly Sun) Ceremonies of the Izcalli Abya Yala at dawn. The date corresponds to the spring equinox north of the equator, and the fall equinox in the south which will occur on March 20, 2023. As was the case ten years ago, the call by the Continental Commission Abya Yala is being led by the same three organizations of Indigenous Peoples: Techantit, Vision Maya, and TONATIERRA. Now advancing beyond the initial ten-year phase of the Dismantling of the Doctrine of Discovery of Christendom, the Continental Commission will coordinate and synchronize with ceremonial protocols appropriate to each particular nation and territory, the EMERGENCE and REGENERATION of the Original Nations of Indigenous Peoples of Abya Yala in exercise of an autonomous and interdependent geopolitical continental alliance of Indigenous Self Determination. In the north, the ceremonies will commence at sunrise and go to noon of the Tlanexpapalotl (Spring Equinox) on March 20, 2023. South of the equator, the Original Nations of Indigenous Peoples of Abya Yala will synchronize and coordinate accordingly as they celebrate the Yohualpapalotl (Fall Equinox) in complementarity with the spirit of the Kundur Anka, the Continental Confederation of the Eagle-Condor.",
    "externalUrl": "https://redabyayala.blogspot.com/2023/03/cemanahuac-superseding-doctrine-of.html"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/blog/yakama-nation-deer/",
    "title": "State of Washington v. Wallahee overturned",
    "publishedAt": "2024-05-16T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "“Our nation’s history is rife with such injustices. It is no victory to sanitize the past, but there is a difference between erasing history and redressing harm. This court’s wrongful decision can be characterized as an instructive feature of the past only by those who do not feel its sting in the present. The Doctrine of Discovery and its use in law to justify state-sponsored violence are a stain on this nation. Today we take a step toward reconciliation: we grant the motion to intervene, grant the motion to recall the mandate, and grant the motion to vacate Mr. Wallahee’s conviction.” Read the Brief",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "Doctrine-of-Discovery",
      "blog"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Our nation’s history is rife with such injustices. It is no victory to sanitize the past, but there is a difference between erasing history and redressing harm. This court’s wrongful decision can be characterized as an instructive feature of the past only by those who do not feel its sting in the present. The Doctrine of Discovery and its use in law to justify state-sponsored violence are a stain on this nation. Today we take a step toward reconciliation: we grant the motion to intervene, grant the motion to recall the mandate, and grant the motion to vacate Mr. Wallahee’s conviction.\" Read the Brief",
    "externalUrl": "https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legal_profession/2024/05/hundred-year-old-conviction-vacated.html"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/canopy/",
    "title": "Canopy Forum Series",
    "publishedAt": "2026-06-25T01:21:28Z",
    "textContent": "200 Years of Johnson v. M’Intosh: Law, Religion, and Native American Lands A Canopy Forum Thematic Series March – April 2023 Produced through a partnership between Canopy Forum, the Indigenous Values Initiative (IVI), and Syracuse University, this series of essays brings together religion scholars, legal scholars, and Indigenous activists to explore the problematic legacy of Johnson v. M'Intosh (1823) and the 15 th  century Doctrine of (Christian) Discovery -- a legal and religious rationale by which European powers claimed the right to discover and claim lands inhabited by non-Christian peoples. Focusing primarily on the 19^th^ through the 21 st  centuries, these essays illustrate how Johnson and the Doctrine of Christian Discovery have global import to Turtle Island) (especially the United States and Canada) and Aotearoa (New Zealand).  Grounding this conversation in the Two Row Wampum method, the editors of this series have worked to include both Indigenous and non-Indigenous voices so we can journey side by side without violating the waters down the river of life. We recognize the urgency and need for more inclusion of indigenous voices to reaffirm our proper relationship with the natural world in the staid disciplines of religion, law, history, anthropology, and cultural studies. We hope this series inspires generative conversations around Johnson and the Doctrine of Christian Discovery. CANOPY SERIES - Abstract - Introduction - Federal Anti-Indian Law - Order, Economy, and Legality: Johnson v. M'Intosh after Two Hundred Years - The Contemporary Presence of Discovery's Assertion in Canada - Haaland v. Brackeen and the Logic of Discovery - Did Pope Alexander VI Authorize England's Colonization of North America? - However, Extravagant The Pretensions Of Johnson V. M'Intosh - Johnson v. M'Intosh, Plenary Power, and Our Colonial Constitution - The International Law of Colonialism: Johnson v. M'Intosh and the Doctrine of Discovery - The Legacy of the Right to Control Land and Dependency - Johnson v. M'Intosh, Wi Parata v. Bishop of Wellington, and the Legacy of the Doctrine of Discovery in Aotearoa-New Zealand - Johnson v. M'Intosh and the Missing Cover of the Jigsaw Puzzle"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/cayuga-v-pataki/",
    "title": "Cayuga v. Pataki",
    "publishedAt": "2018-08-27T11:35:51Z",
    "description": "We understand Sherrill to hold that equitable doctrines, such as laches, acquiescence, and impossibility, can in appropriate circumstances, be applied to Indian land claims, even when such a claim is legally viable and with in the statute of limitations",
    "updatedAt": "2026-01-19T05:00:00Z",
    "tags": [
      "Law",
      "US",
      "US-Law",
      "Cayuga-Nation",
      "Pataki"
    ],
    "textContent": "Analysis by Steven T. Newcomb The Haudenosaunee Cases: Cayuga Indian Nation v. Pataki (2nd Cir. June 28, 2005) - Domination Translator Series - Part 11 Key Excerpt:   “We understand Sherrill to hold that equitable doctrines, such as laches, acquiescence, and impossibility, can in appropriate circumstances, be applied to Indian land claims, even when such a claim is legally viable and with in the statute of limitations … One of the few incontestable propositions about this unusually complex and confusing area of law is that doctrines and categorizations applicable to other areas do not translate neatly to these claims.” Download the Cayuga Indian Nation v. Pataki, 413 F. 3d 266, (2nd Cir. June 28, 2005) Decision. (⤓ Download as PDF) Back to Law."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/christian-domination/",
    "title": "Christian Domination and the Failure of ‘Truth and Reconciliation’",
    "publishedAt": "2019-06-28T17:27:22Z",
    "description": "A conference in Onondaga Nation Territory, at Syracuse University and Skä·noñh—Great Law of Peace Center, Saturday and Sunday, 17-18 August 2019.",
    "tags": [
      "Indigenous-Peoples",
      "Haudenosaunee",
      "doctrine-of-discovery",
      "sovereignty",
      "women",
      "Event"
    ],
    "textContent": "Description: This conference continues discussions between religious communities and Indigenous Peoples about the Doctrine of Christian Discovery (DOCD) so that real healing can occur. “Truth and Reconciliation” efforts in settler-colonial states have the appearance of resolving the history of conquest and domination but often do not result in a healing of Indigenous Peoples and their lands. Using words like reconciliation, repudiation, domination, discovery, conquest, missionization, colonialism and settler-colonialism, or referring to Indigenous Peoples in the singular or as populations, issues or groups, has consequences. Noam Chomsky, George Lakoff, and Steven Newcomb remind us that word choice matters and, although these concepts appear benign, they actually perpetuate and give cover to a violent past. The DOCD continues to be a matter of urgent concern for Indigenous Peoples around the world. It has emboldened trans-national corporations to further their extraction practices everywhere forcing standoffs and migration of Indigenous Peoples. Our lineup of speakers will address international migration issues and the connection between the DOCD and the destruction of Mother Earth. Confirmed speakers: Oren Lyons (Onondaga Nation Council of Chiefs) Tadodaho Sid Hill (Onondaga Nation Council of Chiefs) Beverly Jacobs (Law, University of Windsor) Betty Lyons (American Indian Law Alliance) Sandy Bigtree (Indigenous Values Initiative) Joe Heath (General Council for the Onondaga Nation) Phil Arnold (Religion, Syracuse University) Conference fees: Early-bird registration $125 until 30 June 2019 Regular registration $150 until 31 July 2019 Late registration $175 until 15 August Walkup registration $200 Register Now {: .btn .btn--info .btn--large} Scholarships: There are a limited number of scholarships available to cover the registration fee. If you need a scholarship, please send an email to info@indigenousvalues.org and briefly tell us who you are, why you would like to attend and any work you do connected to dismantling the ‘doctrine of discovery’ and why you are applying for a scholarship. Please put ‘scholarship request’ in the subject of the email.  If you want to contribute a scholarship for others to attend the conference you can donate to the conference. Hotels Book your group rate for SU Religion"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/doctrine-of-christian-discovery-after-repudiation-what-next/",
    "title": "Doctrine of Christian Discovery: After Repudiation, What Next",
    "publishedAt": "2018-07-26T11:37:00Z",
    "description": "Doctrine of Christian Discovery: After Repudiation, What Next? Conference May 24-25 2014 The Skä·noñh — Great Law of Peace Center.",
    "tags": [
      "Catholic",
      "Christians",
      "Protestants",
      "Indigenous-Peoples",
      "Onondaga-Nation",
      "Haudenosaunee-Confederacy",
      "Event"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Doctrine of Christian Discovery: After Repudiation, What Next?\" Conference May 24-25 2014 The Skä·noñh — Great Law of Peace Center 6680 Onondaga Lake Parkway, Liverpool, NY 13088 Opening Comments Joe Heath: Onondaga Land Rights Action, the OAS, and the DoCD Betty Lyons: (report from Tonya Gonnella Frichner on 13th UNPFII) RELIGIOUS GROUPS REPUDIATION THE Doctrine of Discovery Episcopalian: John Dieffenbacher-Krall Loretto Community: Libby Comeaux, Sandra Hareld, Theresa Kubasak, Sally Dunne Friends: Susan Wolf and Tom Rothschild Unitarian-Universalist: Clyde Grubbs United Methodist: Kae Wilbert Disciples of Christ: David Bell (Skype) AFTERNOON SPEAKERS Robert Miller (Skype) Sally Dunne - Loretto Report on UN Conference SUMMATION Reports from Small Group Discussions DOCUMENTS Statement On The Historical Use Of The Doctrine Of Christian Discovery By The United States Supreme Court Since 1823 The Doctrine of Discovery: The International Law of Colonialism & Robert Miller's Ten Elements that Constitute the Doctrine Conference Summary - ⤓ download pdf Conference Flyer - ⤓ download pdf Conference Photos"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/doctrine-of-discovery-sermon-john-diffenbacher/",
    "title": "A Episcopalian Sermon On Doctrine of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2018-07-27T15:02:31Z",
    "description": "...the Doctrine of Discovery consists of the idea that Christians have a right sanctioned by God to take non-Christian lands and property and assert political control over the indigenous inhabitants. The Doctrine of Discovery emanates from a perverted understanding of God’s designation of a chosen people that has heavenly sanction to do un-God-like acts in the name of God.",
    "tags": [
      "Sermon",
      "Episcopal",
      "Christian",
      "Maine",
      "Repudiations",
      "Faith-Communities"
    ],
    "textContent": "How St. James’ Might Respond to General Convention Resolution D035 A Sermon Preached by John Dieffenbacher-Krall at St. James’ Episcopal Church, Old Town, Maine October 11, 2009 Nearly three years ago something started here at St. James’ that has received international attention. On October 15, 2006, I preached a sermon titled “Remembrance, Recognition and Reconciliation: The Episcopal Church’s Call for Justice for Indigenous People.” In that sermon, I called upon St. James’, our diocese, the Episcopal Church, and the Anglican Communion to denounce the Christian Doctrine of Discovery and to forge a more just, mutually beneficial, and loving relationship with the Indigenous Peoples of this world. Few of us knew anything about the Christian Doctrine of Discovery at the time. As a reminder and for those not here three years ago, the Doctrine of Discovery consists of the idea that Christians have a right sanctioned by God to take non-Christian lands and property and assert political control over the indigenous inhabitants. The Doctrine of Discovery emanates from a perverted understanding of God’s designation of a chosen people that has heavenly sanction to do un-God-like acts in the name of God. Popes Nicholas V and Alexander VI imbued this evil idea with a religious sanction that eventually would become the basis of international law depriving Indigenous Peoples of their inherent rights to freedom and self-determination. Pope Nicholas V advanced the Doctrine of Discovery in his 1452 papal bull Dum Diversas. In this papal edict Nicholas V gives his support to King Alfonso of Portugal to “capture, vanquish and subdue the Saracens, pagans and other enemies of Christ, and put them into perpetual slavery and to take all their possessions and their property.” Pope Alexander VI followed Pope Nicholas V pronouncement 41 years later with the Inter Caetera papal bull which divides the New World between Spain and Portugal for their conquest. Three hundred thirty years later Chief Justice John Marshall writing in perhaps the most important US Supreme Court case ever decided affecting US Indian law cited the Christian Doctrine of Discovery as the basis for asserting that the Indigenous Peoples of this land possessed only a right of occupancy and not title to this land. On the discovery of this immense continent, the great nations of Europe were eager to appropriate to themselves so much of it as they could respectively acquire. Its vast extent offered an ample field to the ambition and enterprise of all; and the character and religion of its inhabitants afforded an apology for considering them as a people over whom the superior genius of Europe might claim an ascendency. The potentates of the old world found no difficulty in convincing themselves that they made ample compensation to the inhabitants of the new, by bestowing on them civilization and Christianity, in exchange for unlimited independence. But, as they were all in pursuit of nearly the same object, it was necessary, in order to avoid conflicting settlements, and consequent war with each other, to establish a principle, which all should acknowledge as the law by which the right of acquisition, which they all asserted, should be regulated as between themselves. This principle was, that discovery gave title to the government by whose subjects, or by whose authority, it was made, against all other European governments, which title might be consummated by possession. So much for, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” By categorizing the Indigenous Peoples of this land as less than human, Chief Justice Marshall justifies taking their land and leaving them with nothing more than a right of occupancy. How does this comport with Jesus’ Great Commandment to us, “’You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it. ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” Encouragingly, our Church has recognized the reprehensible nature of the Doctrine of Discovery. At our General Convention this past July, the gathered delegates passed Resolution D035 titled “Repudiate the Doctrine of Discovery.” Resolution D035 states “the 76th General Convention repudiates and renounces the Doctrine of Discovery as fundamentally opposed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and our understanding of the inherent rights that individuals and peoples have received from God, and that this declaration be proclaimed among our churches and shared with the United Nations and all the nations and peoples located within the Episcopal Church’s boundaries.” Resolution D035 also exhorts “each diocese within the Episcopal Church be encouraged to reflect upon its own history, in light of these actions and encourage all Episcopalians to seek a greater understanding of the Indigenous Peoples within the geo-political boundaries claimed by the United States and other nation states located within the Episcopal Church’s boundaries, and to support those peoples in their ongoing efforts for their inherent sovereignty and fundamental human rights as peoples to be respected.” How should we as the people of St. James respond to the adoption of Resolution D035? What can we do “to seek a greater understanding of the Indigenous Peoples” within our midst and “to support those peoples in their ongoing efforts for their inherent sovereignty and fundamental human rights?” Though we should be concerned with all of the many Indigenous Peoples living across the world as we are called by Christ to love all human beings, we as the people of St. James’ within the Diocese of Maine can make the greatest difference with our neighbors the Wabanaki. Our history with the Wabanaki contains many deplorable and unchristian actions. But the Episcopal Diocese of Maine has also demonstrated genuine leadership among all the faith communities in Maine in terms of solidarity with and support for the Wabanaki. Let me assure you that the Wabanaki need our political support. Though I see ever increasing numbers of non-Indian people who appreciate and value Wabanaki culture, I also witness continued ignorance, hatred, and racism directed at the Wabanaki. In a Bangor Daily News (BDN) story published this past Wednesday about the Aroostook Band of Micmacs acquiring 1,200 acres of land, miah1620 commented, “Don’t the Micmacs get enough handouts?” Another person commenting on a September 23 BDN story concerning the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians receiving money for a domestic violence shelter wrote, “Why are we paying for their abuse prevention. Its their problem not ours...They are always blaming us. When will this bias against us end?” Demsuk64 posted a comment September 3 in reaction to a BDN article about the attempted selling of Indian scalps on Craigslist, “Enough with the crying, if Indian culture and civilization was so great THEY would have defeat\\[ed\\] the few Anglos who came here. No one likes to hear that they are the product of an inferior culture.” If I searched more, I could have found even more offensive comments. I present those three examples to inspire us to become the light of the world when it comes to awareness of and solidarity with our Wabanaki neighbors. We can begin by educating ourselves. Now we may have an advantage over some of our fellow Episcopalians because some of us know Wabanaki individuals. Some of us went to school with Penobscot Nation citizens. Other parishioners are fortunate and proud to call Penobscot Nation citizens our friends. We know from our direct experience that the false stereotypes repeated by some ignorant individuals don’t comport with our direct knowledge of the Wabanaki. We can build on that positive foundation of direct knowledge by seeking opportunities to supplement what we already know with more information about the Wabanaki, especially their present day political situation. Our Diocesan Committee on Indian Relations commissioned an excellent film titled Invisible. We have never shown it in this church. When it is shown, I encourage you to view it. This coming week the University of Maine at Augusta will hold a four-day event called Wabanaki Perspectives and Human Awareness created by Wabanaki representatives. It will consist of presentations, films, demonstrations, and cultural exchange. I encourage anyone able to travel to Augusta to give it serious consideration to experience what promises to be an excellent event. For the parents of St. James’ with children in public schools, we can ask our kids’ teachers what they are doing to implement Maine’s law requiring teaching about the Wabanaki. The exciting news is the Department of Education created a new website this past June http://www.maine.gov/education/lres/ss/wabanaki/index.shtml) exclusively devoted to the law that suggests concepts and knowledge students should master at each grade level and provides free curricula and teaching resources all available at the click of a mouse. If your child attends private school, let the education director and teachers there know about the Dept. of Education website available to anyone with Internet access. Seize teachable moments with our children. Tomorrow we observe Columbus Day. Our Diocesan Committee on Indian Relations formed in 1992 when our Diocese grappled with how to treat the 500th anniversary of Columbus so-called discovery of the Western Hemisphere. We can dispel many of the myths surrounding Columbus and the conventional history we learned in school. The Thanksgiving holiday next month presents another teaching opportunity. I am not advocating a lecture during the turkey feast. But as parents we have all experienced those moments when our children ask us a question, sometimes an uncomfortable one. That is the moment when we can impart some truth and genuine understanding. Next year the entire Maine Legislature will stand for election. We will also have a gubernatorial election. Let the candidates for these offices know that tribal-state relations matter to you. Ask the candidates their positions on questions dealing with tribal sovereignty. When they respond that they don’t know, offer to provide them with information. The Maine Indian Tribal-State Commission website can serve as an excellent source of information, www.mitsc.org. Our state motto, dirigo, means “I lead.” Let’s make St. James a leader in supporting our Wabanaki neighbors. Christ told us nothing is more important than loving God and our fellow brothers and sisters. Amen. K"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/doctrine-of-discovery-short-film/",
    "title": "Doctrine of Discovery Short Film",
    "publishedAt": "2018-08-03T08:19:36Z",
    "description": "Doctrine of Discovery Short Film on Youtube   The First Video in the  Digital Wampum series",
    "tags": [
      "videos",
      "films",
      "Education",
      "resources",
      "Resources",
      "Videos"
    ],
    "textContent": "Doctrine of Discovery Short Film on Youtube  The First Video in the Digital Wampum series"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/dum-diversas/",
    "title": "Dum Diversas",
    "publishedAt": "2018-07-23T15:08:34Z",
    "description": "Papal Bull Dum Diversas 18 June, 1452",
    "tags": [
      "Catholic",
      "Papal-Bulls"
    ],
    "textContent": "Papal Bull Dum Diversas 18 June, 1452 Pope Nicholas V issued the papal bull Dum Diversas on 18 June, 1452. It authorised Alfonso V of Portugal to reduce any “Saracens (Muslims) and pagans and any other unbelievers” to perpetual slavery. This facilitated the Portuguese slave trade from West Africa. The same pope wrote the bull Romanus Pontifex on January 5, 1455 to the same Alfonso. As a follow-up to the Dum diversas, it extended to the Catholic nations of Europe dominion over discovered lands during the Age of Discovery. Along with sanctifying the seizure of non-Christian lands, it encouraged the enslavement of native, non-Christian peoples in Africa and the New World. “We weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso -- to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit -- by having secured the said faculty, the said King Alfonso, or, by his authority, the aforesaid infante, justly and lawfully has acquired and possessed, and doth possess, these islands, lands, harbors, and seas, and they do of right belong and pertain to the said King Alfonso and his successors”. In 1493 Alexander VI issued the bull Inter Caetera stating one Christian nation did not have the right to establish dominion over lands previously dominated by another Christian nation, thus establishing the Law of Nations. Together, the Dum Diversas, the Romanus Pontifex and the Inter Caetera came to serve as the basis and justification for the Doctrine of Discovery, the global slave-trade of the 15th and 16th centuries, and the Age of Imperialism.   Dum Diversas (Latin Original). Papal Bulls"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/elca/",
    "title": "Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Repudiates the Doctrine of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2019-10-30T10:18:09Z",
    "description": "Read the ELCA's statement repudiating the Doctrine of Discovery.",
    "tags": [
      "Lutheran",
      "Christian",
      "PDF",
      "ELCA",
      "Repudiations",
      "Faith-Communities"
    ],
    "textContent": "Vance Blackfox, \"A Reflection on the 2016 ELCA Churchwide Assembly’s Repudiation of the Doctrine of Discovery,\" Journal of Lutheran Ethics, Volume 17, Issue 2, March 2017, elca.org/JLE/Articles/1202. Download the ELCA's statement (⤓ PDF)"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/episcopal-church-repudiates-the-doctrine-of-discovery/",
    "title": "Episcopal Church Repudiates the Doctrine of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2018-07-27T11:41:33Z",
    "description": "That the 76th General Convention repudiates and renounces the Doctrine of Discovery as fundamentally opposed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and our understanding of the inherent rights that individuals and peoples have received from God, and that this declaration be proclaimed among our churches and shared with the United Nations and all the nations and peoples located within The Episcopal Church’s boundaries.",
    "tags": [
      "Repudiations",
      "Faith-Communities"
    ],
    "textContent": "(2018) Resolution establishing a framework for anti-racism training that cites history of boarding schools (2012)\"Repudiation of the Doctrine of Discovery.\" Resolution Number: 2009-D035 Title: Repudiate the Doctrine of Discovery Legislative Action Taken: Concurred as Substituted Final Text: Resolved, That the 76th General Convention repudiates and renounces the Doctrine of Discovery as fundamentally opposed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and our understanding of the inherent rights that individuals and peoples have received from God, and that this declaration be proclaimed among our churches and shared with the United Nations and all the nations and peoples located within The Episcopal Church’s boundaries. This doctrine, which originated with Henry VII in 1496, held that Christian sovereigns and their representative explorers could assert dominion and title over non-Christian lands with the full blessing and sanction of the Church. It continues to be invoked, in only slightly modified form, in court cases and in the many destructive policies of governments and other institutions of the modern nation-state that lead to the colonizing dispossession of the lands of indigenous peoples and the disruption of their way of life; and be it further Resolved, That The Episcopal Church review its policies and programs with a view to exposing the historical reality and impact of the Doctrine of Discovery and eliminating its presence in its contemporary policies, program and structures and, further, that this body directs the appropriate representatives of the House of Bishops and House of Deputies, to inform all relevant governmental bodies in the United States of its action and suggest similar and equivalent review of historical and contemporary policies that contribute to the continuing colonization of Indigenous Peoples and, further, to write to Queen Elizabeth II, the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, requesting that her Majesty disavow, and repudiate publicly, the claimed validity of the Christian Doctrine of Discovery; and be it further Resolved, That each diocese within The Episcopal Church be encouraged to reflect upon its own history, in light of these actions and encourage all Episcopalians to seek a greater understanding of the Indigenous Peoples within the geo-political boundaries claimed by the United States and other nation states located within The Episcopal Church’s boundaries, and to support those peoples in their ongoing efforts for their inherent sovereignty and fundamental human rights as peoples to be respected; and be it further Resolved, That the 76th General Convention direct the Office of Government Relations to advocate for the U.S. government’s endorsement of the “United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,” which the United States has refused to endorse (only the U.S., Canada, New Zealand and Australia have failed to sign on). Citation: General Convention, Journal of the General Convention of...The Episcopal Church, Anaheim, 2009 (New York: General Convention, 2009), pp. 371-372. Legislative History Author: Dr. John Chaffee Originating House: House of Deputies Originating Committee: Committee on National and International Concerns via: The Episcopal Archives"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/episcopalian-remembrance-recognition-and-reconciliation/",
    "title": "Episcopalian Remembrance, Recognition and Reconciliation",
    "publishedAt": "2018-07-27T15:05:39Z",
    "description": "Before we judge the papal edicts too harshly, we need to know of the Anglican connection to this Doctrine of Discovery.",
    "tags": [
      "Sermon",
      "Episcopal",
      "Christian",
      "Maine",
      "Repudiations",
      "Faith-Communities"
    ],
    "textContent": "Remembrance, Recognition and Reconciliation: The Episcopal Church’s Call for Justice for Indigenous People A Sermon Preached by John Dieffenbacher-Krall at St. James’ Episcopal Church, Old Town, Maine October 15, 2006 Few of us gathered here today may know that our national church passed a resolution on 7/18/97 proclaiming the time period of 1997-2007 the \"Decade of Remembrance, Recognition, and Reconciliation.\" The resolution calls upon each diocese to “take such steps as necessary to fully recognize and welcome Native Peoples into congregational life.” Last Monday Columbus Day occurred. If we as Episcopalians, if we as followers of Jesus Christ who commanded us to “love your neighbor as yourself” want to meaningfully reflect upon Columbus Day, we can use the title of our church’s resolution to remember what we must recall, to recognize what we must see and reconcile ourselves to overcome the past to love our Indigenous neighbors and all people as Christ has called us to do. All of us have some awareness of our church’s past that has not reflected a love for our neighbors. The crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, witch hunts and many other efforts to strike down heathens and unbelievers cause us pain to remember them. We try to avoid pain. Our bodies instantly react to pain. In many respects, avoiding pain is justifiable and sensible. Yet bodily pain alerts us to the fact that something is wrong. If we are to remember our church’s particular history with the Indigenous People of the Western Hemisphere, forgive me as I remind us of some painful church history. Pope Nicholas V in 1452 issued the papal bull Dum Diversas. It grants the king of Portugal the Pope’s blessing to go to the western coast of Africa, and to ... “'capture, vanquish and subdue the Saracens, pagans and other enemies of Christ, and put them into perpetual slavery and to take all their possessions and their property.'” This papal sanctioning of Christian enslavement and power over non-Christians became known as the Doctrine of Discovery. The Doctrine of Discovery became reinforced with the papal bull Inter Caetera issued in 1493. Pope Alexander VI settled a dispute between the monarchs of Portugal and Spain by drawing a line 100 leagues west of the Azores and Cape Verde. Spain was granted authority to take all lands and possessions west of the line as long as no other Christian ruler had previously claimed them. Portugal was given dominion to possess all lands east of the line with the same proviso that no other Christian ruler had previously claimed them. King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella required those working on their behalf to read a statement to any Indigenous Peoples they discovered. The statement was read in Latin and Spanish, languages spoken by none of the people they encountered. In part it said to the Indigenous People: But if you do not do this (accept Spanish rule), and maliciously make delay in it, I certify to you that, with the help of God, we shall powerfully enter into your country, and shall make war against you in all ways and manners that we can, and shall subject you to the yoke and obedience of the Church and of their highnesses; we shall take you, and your wives, and your children, and shall make slaves of them, and as such shall sell and dispose of them as their highnesses may command; and we shall take away your goods, and shall do you all the mischief and damage that we can, as to vassals who do not obey, and refuse to receive their lord, and resist and contradict him: and we protest that the deaths and losses which shall accrue from this are your fault, and not that of their highnesses, or ours, nor of these cavaliers who come with us… Before we judge the papal edicts too harshly, we need to know of the Anglican connection to this Doctrine of Discovery. In 1496, King Henry VII granted a patent to John Cabot and his sons to possess all lands in the New World not previously discovered by Portugal or Spain. It is known as the 1496 Royal Charter of the Church of England. It reads in part: And that the before-mentioned John and his sons or their heirs and deputies may conquer, occupy and possess whatsoever such towns, castles, cities and islands by them thus discovered that they may be able to conquer, occupy and possess, as our vassals and governors lieutenants and deputies therein, acquiring for us the dominion, title and jurisdiction of the same towns, castles, cities, islands and mainlands so discovered; One of the many ugly legacies of this Christian Doctrine of Discovery is it serves as the legal underpinning of Federal Indian Law. Supreme Court Justice John Marshall used the concept in part as the legal reasoning for the 1823 Supreme Court decision Johnson v. M’Intosh. The brilliant Native American scholar Steve Newcomb writes in FIVE HUNDRED YEARS OF INJUSTICE: The Legacy of Fifteenth Century Religious Prejudice 1992, “Writing for the unanimous court, Chief Justice John Marshall observed that Christian European nations had assumed \"ultimate dominion\" over the lands of America during the Age of Discovery, and that--upon \"discovery\"--the Indians had lost \"their rights to complete sovereignty, as independent nations,\" and only retained a right of \"occupancy\" in their lands. In other words, Indian nations were subject to the ultimate authority of the first nation of Christendom to claim possession of a given region of Indian lands.” As the United States expanded westward during the nineteenth century, an ever increasing amount of Indian land was seized. Treaties that temporarily ended hostilities over certain lands were routinely broken by the United States. The end result was a reduction of the Indigenous population from an estimated 12 to 20 million at the time of European contact to 237,196 Indians in 1900. This may be the most horrific genocide in human history. We have done some remembering together of the evil perpetrated against Indigenous people. How do we recognize what to do to attempt to correct this injustice? Our national church has recognized the need to reverse this history. At the General Convention in 1985, our church passed a resolution that “the National Committee on Indian Work be instructed by the 68th General Convention of the Episcopal Church to direct all agencies of the Church to advocate and support the honoring of all Indian treaty rights and the right to internal autonomy and self-determination of Indian Nations and Tribes.” What can we do here in the State of Maine to honor that 1985 General Convention resolution? First, remember that we have four living Indian Nations within the borders of what we today call the State of Maine. They are the Aroostook Band of Micmacs, the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians, Passamaquoddy Tribe, and Penobscot Nation. These Tribes’ ancestors fought with the colonists to help us win our liberty from Great Britain only to see their sovereignty continually diminished through violence, theft and broken treaties. The Passamaquoddy Tribe and Penobscot Nation forced the US Dept. of Justice to file a lawsuit on their behalf in the 1970s to recover 12.5 million acres assessed at $25 billion. Eventually, the lawsuit was settled in 1980 and produced the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act. The Passamaquoddies and Penobscots received $13.5 million and 150,000 acres each in exchange for forever relinquishing their claim to millions of acres they once called their own. The Houlton Band of Maliseets received a much smaller settlement of $900,000. Besides specifying the compensation to be paid to the Tribes, the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act established a new legal relationship between the Tribes, the State of Maine and the US defining certain powers and jurisdiction belonging to each. Though enacted with the hope of settling these questions and strengthening the relationships, over time certain provisions of the Settlement Act have become viewed by the Tribes as oppressive and unjust. We must understand that the Tribes are struggling to retain their identity as separate peoples with unique cultures, distinct languages and a spirituality thousands of years older than Christianity. They do not want to be assimilated. Any diminishment of their sovereignty weakens their prospect for survival. We must listen to their pleas for justice. We must demand of our governor and the Maine Legislature to amend the Maine Implementing Act, Maine’s codification of the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act, to respect the inherent sovereignty of the Wabanaki people. God created the Wabanaki and all peoples. No government, even our own, should deprive a people of their God derived right to exist. At a national and international level, we should respond to the demand of Indigenous People from around the world who want the rescission of the papal bulls of 1452 and 1493 and the 1496 Royal Charter of the Church of England. Two months ago 23 nations and nongovernmental organizations and over 100 individual signatories signed a \"Resolution of the Summit of Indigenous Nations Calling for a Rescission of the Conceptual Doctrine of Discovery and Related Documents, Specifically the Inter Caetera Bull (Papal Bulls) of 1493 and the 1496 Royal Charter of the Church of England.\" The resolution urges: that the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church and the Queen of England and Archbishop of Canterbury for the Church of England disavow and rescind the claimed validity of the doctrine of discovery against all peoples, specifically as it is documented in the Inter Caetera Bull of 1493 and the 1496 Royal Charter, and all other doctrines that have been relied thereon for the dispossession of lands and the subjugation of non-christian peoples from their initial use to the present… When we renounce the 1496 Royal Charter of the Church of England here at St. James, in the Diocese of Maine, within the Episcopal Church and among the entire Anglican communion, we can achieve some degree of reconciliation with Indigenous People. As we reconcile ourselves with the Indigenous People of the Western Hemisphere, we also do our part in helping to reconcile this broken world with God. Amen."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/event-colonial-terrorism/",
    "title": "The Doctrine of Discovery and Colonial Terrorism: A Dialogue Between Sovereign Women, Weaving Indigenous Truths Across Time and Space",
    "publishedAt": "2019-04-26T14:27:22Z",
    "description": "Like the rings of a tree, the record of our people, our indigenous truth, is carried in the bones of indigenous women, which we bear forth with every birth onto our lands.",
    "tags": [
      "Indigenous-Peoples",
      "Haudenosaunee",
      "Maori",
      "sovereignty",
      "women",
      "Event"
    ],
    "textContent": "The Doctrine of Discovery and Colonial Terrorism: A Dialogue Between Sovereign Women, Weaving Indigenous Truths Across Time and Space. Tuesday 30 April, 2019. 6:30PM ORA Gallery 51, 7th Avenue, New York, New York. ↗︎ Facebook Event Like the rings of a tree, the record of our people, our indigenous truth, is carried in the bones of indigenous women, which we bear forth with every birth onto our lands. Our bodies bear the testament of colonial invasion by empires both state and corporate and the stories continue through the bloodlines of indigenous survivors. While settler colonial governments present terrorist atrocities as aberrations, carried out by others - we carry the truth that terrorists atrocities began with the arrival of colonialism and continue everyday in the violent systems upheld by settler colonial governments. In this dialogue between Sovereign Women held amongst Māori and Pacific artworks on the Doctrine of Discovery, Indigenous truths will be woven from the past to the present with a vision to the future and across continents between Māori and Haudenosaunee Nations. Panelists: Betty Lyons (Onondaga, Snipe Clan) Beverly Jacobs (Kanienkehaka, Bear Clan) Dawn Martin-Hill (Mohawk, Wolf Clan) Tina Ngata (Māori, Ngati Porou) Learn More at aila.ngo"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/event/198-years-domination-event/",
    "title": "198 Years of Domination: Screening of The Doctrine of Discovery: Unmasking the Domination Code with Panel",
    "publishedAt": "2021-02-26T14:54:46Z",
    "description": "A Screening Of The Domination Code followed by an incredible panel discussion with Sheldon Wolfchild (Dakota), Steven Newcomb (Shawnee/Lenape), Buffy Sainte Marie (Cree), Dr. Luis Rivera-Pagán, JoDe Goudy (Yakama Nation), Steve Schwartzberg, Shawna Bluestar Newcomb (Shawnee/Lenape/Azteca), and Peter d'Errico",
    "updatedAt": "2021-06-30T14:54:46Z",
    "tags": [
      "videos",
      "Law",
      "Event",
      "Conference",
      "Education",
      "Resources",
      "US-Law",
      "US-Indian-Law",
      "Indigenous-Peoples"
    ],
    "textContent": "A Two Year Journey leading to the 200th Anniversary of the US Supreme Court Case Johnson v. M'Intosh It has been 198 years since the US Supreme Court issued the Johnson v. M'inTosh decision of 1823. On February 28, 2021, 1-4PM (Pacific Standard Time) REDTHOUGHT.org is sponsoring a free screening of The Doctrine of Discovery: Unmasking the Domination Code, directed by Sheldon Wolfchild (Dakota) and co-produced by Steven Newcomb (Shawnee/Lenape). Register at REDTHOUGHT.org (an online event). This will kick off a two year educational campaign about the Doctrine of Christian Discovery and Domination. That campaign will end on February 28, 2023. On February 28, 1823, the US Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in the case Johnson v. Graham's Lessee v M'Intosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543\\. The claim of a right of domination (\"ultimate dominion\") which is expressed in theJohnson ruling, has been used against original nations and peoples in the United States and in many other parts of the world. After the one hour screening, there will be a two-hour panel with Sheldon Wolfchild, Steven Newcomb, Buffy Sainte Marie (Cree), Dr. Luis Rivera-Pagán, a theologian from Puerto Rico, JoDe Goudy (Yakama Nation), Steve Schwartzberg, and Shawna Bluestar Newcomb (Shawnee/Lenape/Azteca), and Peter d'Errico, professor emeritus UMass/Amherst. Register"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/event/education/mother-earths-pandemic/",
    "title": "Mother Earth‘s Pandemic: The Doctrine of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2020-06-29T13:15:09Z",
    "description": "This conference will connect the dots between our current pandemic, environmental devastation, the Doctrine of Discovery, and a way forward.",
    "tags": [
      "docd",
      "doctrine-of-discovery",
      "Haudenosaunee",
      "Indigenous-Peoples",
      "featured",
      "Event",
      "Education"
    ],
    "textContent": "“Peace can only be attained when human beings live in proper relationship to the natural world” Tadodaho of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, Sid Hill “The pandemic gives us all an opportunity to be at home and reflect on what we have done and where we are going. It is an opportunity for Mother Earth to breath, rest and recover.” Jake Haiwhagai'i Edwards, Onondaga Nation citizen Event Details Title: Mother Earth’s Pandemic: The Doctrine of Discovery Dates: Thursday August 6, 13, and 20, 2020 Location: Online Times: 6-9 PM EST each Thursday, followed by caucuses/small group discussions. Sponsors: Indigenous Values Initiative, American Indian Law Alliance, Syracuse Unviersity ‘CUSE GRANT, the Syracuse University Department of Religion Learn more about the conference{: .btn .btn--success} The “Doctrine of Discovery,” better described as the “Doctrine of Christian Discovery and World Domination,” established the worldview that not only brought devastation to the natural world, but also impaired the ability for human beings to live in proper relationship with the Earth. 15 th  century Papal Bulls, issued by the Vatican, justified the assault upon Indigenous Peoples as an artificial justification to take possession of their bodies, lands and resources in order to finance their New World Order. This worldview advanced the Age of Discovery as an extension of the Crusades, and was the conceptual framework behind the Protestant Reformation, the establishment of Nation States around the world, and later secularized to define colonialism, white supremacy and global capitalism. Essentially, what defines Indigenous Peoples is their relationship with a living landscape that includes the soil, water, air, and all other non-human being co-inhabitants. This orientation to land is distinctly opposed to the European concept of owning land and the process of colonization. Indigenous scholars have discussed these two opposing orientations as being one of habitation and the other, of occupation. Although the violent seizure of Indigenous lands was initiated with “discovery,” corporations today, continue exploiting Indigenous Peoples and their land all over the world. The Doctrine of Discovery is the root of the problem, and the reason that it is discussed at the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. This current pandemic and the escalating climate chaos clarify to everyone that there are consequences to the devastation humans have perpetrated upon the environment. As Oren Lyons has pointed out, Natural Law will reestablish balance, and these climate changes will not destroy the Earth, but will most likely destroy the human beings who abuse her. The earth will rebound in its own time. If we are to survive as a species, we must reorient to an Indigenous worldview acknowledging that we are first and foremost, co-inhabitants with this Earth—not in charge of it. These Indigenous values, along with the acceptance of traditional ecological knowledge, will transform future technological innovations possibly resulting in a viable future for our species. Religious concepts of imperial thinking urgently need to be re-imagined; messages from Indigenous Peoples need to be heeded; and environmental justice needs to be restored. Racist ideologies of conquest and domination are directly connected with domination of the Earth and other non-human beings. This conference will connect the dots between our current pandemic, environmental devastation, the Doctrine of Discovery, and a way forward. Too often these are thought of as unrelated concepts, rather than being the core impediment in working towards social justice in an ecologically balanced Earth. Our speakers have been working in these areas for many decades. Participants will hear the wisdom from the traditions of the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois), as well as other Indigenous Peoples. Through virtual discussion groups, you will be able to interact on how best to implement these values of respect, thanksgiving, and peace into your lives. Please join us in August 2020 for conversations about the Doctrine of Discovery, so we can begin the process of decolonization back to understanding our proper relationship to the natural world and peace. View the schedule{: .btn .btn--success} Download the flyer as a PDF{: .btn .btn--info} Conference Details Videos Index ⤓ Download the Study Guide as a PDF Watch the Talks on YouTube Mother Earth‘s Pandemic Resources The Good, The Bad & The Ugly In Mcgirt V. Oklahoma Let‘s Change the Subject: Grounding Social Change in Indigenous History and Philosophy"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/event/revisiting-washington-assault-haudenosaunee/",
    "title": "Revisiting George Washington’s assault on the Haudenosaunee 240 Years Later",
    "publishedAt": "2020-09-28T14:54:46Z",
    "description": "In 1779, General George Washington suspended the colonial war against England and moved to extinguish the Haudenosaunee (Six Nations Iroquois) with his “Sullivan-Clinton Scorched Earth Campaign.”",
    "tags": [
      "Event",
      "Conference",
      "Haudenosaunee",
      "Washington",
      "Sullivan-Clinton"
    ],
    "textContent": "In 1779, General George Washington suspended the colonial war against England and moved to extinguish the Haudenosaunee (Six Nations Iroquois) with his “Sullivan-Clinton Scorched Earth Campaign.” Washington’s soldiers were paid with land.  As a result, the Haudenosaunee created the title of President, Hanadagá•yas “Town Destroyer,” It was the largest assault upon Native nations in US history, yet rarely is it mentioned. The effects, however, continue to reverberate throughout the world and can be traced through land theft, broken treaties, attacks on Haudenosaunee sovereignty, that continue to inflict harm today. Through an Indigenous perspective, this panel seeks to disrupt the narrative of colonial US history and demonstrate how an interdisciplinary humanities approach to the campaign complicates this settler narrative, so we can help elevate Indigenous voices.  This panel will reveal that the Haudenosaunee understanding of the campaign not only provides a more accurate account in highlighting how xenophobia, racism, and sexism are part of the framing of the United States of America, but also provides insight into establishing a more perfect union. Scholars from religion, anthropology, transnational studies, history, and Native American studies join with Jake Edwards of Onondaga Nation to assess the 240 years of harm. Sponsors: Syracuse University Humanities Center Syracuse University Department of Religion Skä•noñh – Great Law of Peace Center Indigenous Values Initiative Presenter/Performer: Philip P. Arnold (Syracuse University, Religion) Alyssa Mt. Pleasant (University of Buffalo, Transnational Studies) Jake Haiwhagai'i Edwards (Onondaga Nation) Andrea Smith (Lafayette College, Anthropology) Robert Venables (Cornell, emeritus). Date of Event: Saturday 10 October 11-1:00pm RSVP: Facebook Virtual event platform: Streaming on Facebook: @SkaNonhCenter, @IndigenousValues Streaming on Twitter: @SkaNonhCenter, @IndigenousVI Streaming on YouTube: @IndigenousValuesInitiative Download event flyer as a ⤓ image or as a ⤓ PDF. ➡︎ Learn more about the Sullivan-Clinton Campaign. Watch on Youtube"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/faith-communities/",
    "title": "Repudiations by Faith Communities",
    "publishedAt": "2018-07-30T17:36:53Z",
    "updatedAt": "2022-09-04T22:57:02Z",
    "tags": [
      "Repudiations",
      "Faith-Communities",
      "main-list",
      "featured",
      "Main"
    ],
    "textContent": "Religious Communities who have Repudiated the Doctrine of Discovery Anglican Church of Canada Baptist World Alliance Church of the Brethern The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ, the U.S and Canada) Christian Reformed Church (NA) Community of Christ The Evangelical Covenant Church Evangelical Church in Canada Episcopal Church (USA) Evangelical Church in Canada Evangelical Lutheran Church The Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) Society of Friends Baltimore Yearly Meeting Canadian Friends Service Committee (Quakers) Friends General Conference New England Yearly Meeting Mennonite Church USA Presbyterian Church Presbyterian Church (USA) Presbyterian Church in Canada Quakers Baltimore Yearly Meeting Canadian Friends Service Committee (Quakers) Friends General Conference New England Yearly Meeting Roman Catholic Organizations linked above are the following Joint Statement of the Dicasteries for Culture and Education and for Promoting Integral Human Development on the “Doctrine of Discovery”, 30.03.2023 The Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) Passionists International Pax Christi The Loretto Community A joint statement by 13 Roman Catholic Organizations Continuing Christian Domination: A Response To The Vatican’s Repudiation Of The Doctrine Of Discovery Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations United Church of Christ United Church of Canada United Methodist Church Uniting Church in Australia Uniting Church in Sweden/Equmeniakyrkan World Council of Churches Critiques What Doctrine of Discovery Statements of Religious Repudiation Reveal"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/featured/",
    "title": "Featured",
    "publishedAt": "2023-01-25T19:34:30Z",
    "textContent": "Featured Posts - What is the Doctrine of Discovery? - 10 Religious Dimensions - 10 Legal Dimensions - City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York Sublimis Deus: A Brief Overview Sublimis Deus, Pastorale Officium & Non Indecens Videtur The U.S. Government's Claim of a Right of Domination What Repudiations Reveal A Maya Commentary The Doctrine of Christian Discovery and Domination and the Denial of Treaty Rights Reappraising the Doctrine of Discovery Indigenous Consent: A Right Rooted in the Doctrine of Discovery Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association Animal Nations & the Doctrine of Discovery Effectuating Renunciation: An International Effort to Provide a Pathway to Repudiate the Doctrine of Discovery The Doctrine of Discovery and Christian Zionism Manifest Destiny Christian Control Of Women And Mother Earth The Doctrine of Discovery and Christian Zionism Superseding the Doctrine of Discovery Doctrine of Discovery in Brazil The Regalian Doctrine: The Philippine Case The Myth of Divine Right River Series Podcast - Mapping the Doctrine of Discovery Updated Translations - The Papal Bull Inter Caetera of May 4, 1493. Introduced and translated by Sebastian Modrow and Melissa Smith"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/fletcher-v-peck-10-us-87-1810/",
    "title": "Fletcher v. Peck, 10 US 87 (1810)",
    "publishedAt": "2018-08-27T00:14:29Z",
    "description": "What is Indian title?  It is a mere occupancy for the purpose of hunting.  It is not like our tenures, they have no idea of a title to the soil itself.  It is overrun by them, rather than inhabited",
    "updatedAt": "2026-01-19T05:00:00Z",
    "tags": [
      "Law",
      "US-Law",
      "Indigenous-Peoples"
    ],
    "textContent": "Analysis by Steven T. Newcomb The Domination Translator Series: An Extended Essay on Various U.S. Supreme Court Rulings and Other Topics - Part 1 Fletcher v. Peck (1810) - Domination Translator Series - Part 2 Case Excerpts: “What is Indian title?  It is a mere occupancy for the purpose of hunting.  It is not like our tenures, they have no idea of a title to the soil itself.  It is overrun by them, rather than inhabited.  It is not a true and legal possession.  It is a right not to be transferred, but extinguished. The Europeans found the territory in possession of a rude and uncivilized people, consisting of separate and independent nations.  They had no idea of property in the soil, but a right of occupation.  A right not individual but national.  This is the right gained by conquest.  The Europeans always claimed and exercised the right of conquest over the land.” Read the full decision at Cornell Legal Information Institute For more see Lindsay G. Robertson, \"SYMPOSIUM: \"A Mere Feigned Case\": Rethinking the Fletcher v. Peck Conspiracy and Early Republican Legal Culture,\" Utah Law Review, 2000, 249 (2000). link . Back to Law."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/friends-general-conference/",
    "title": "Friends General Conference Repudiates the Doctrine of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2018-07-27T22:40:26Z",
    "description": "Minute on the Doctrine of Discovery, Approved July 25, 2012, New York Yearly Meeting Summer Sessions Silver Bay, New York",
    "updatedAt": "2020-07-29T13:08:00Z",
    "tags": [
      "quakers",
      "friends",
      "repudiations",
      "christianity",
      "PDF",
      "Faith-Communities",
      "Repudiations"
    ],
    "textContent": "Minute on the Doctrine of Discovery, Approved July 25, 2012, New York Yearly Meeting Summer Sessions Silver Bay, New York (⤓ PDF Download) Baltimore Yearly Meeting (Religious Society of Friends) 2012, Indian Affairs Committee, Background Materials for Minute to Repudiate Doctrine of Discovery (⤓ PDF Download) A Minute to Repudiate the Doctrine of Discovery and to Affirm the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Drafted by the Indigenous Peoples Concerns Committee, Approved by Boulder Friends Meeting on March 10, 2013 (⤓ PDF Download) Repudiating the Doctrine of Discovery: Some references and resources Prepared by Canadian Friends Service Committee March 2013 (⤓ PDF Download) Canadian Friends Service Committee (Quakers) - Repudiation of the Doctrine of Discovery. 2013. (⤓ PDF Download) Quaker Indigenous Rights Committee - FAQs on the Doctrine of Discovery & Terra Nullius. 2015. (⤓ PDF Download) Related: Quaker Indian Committee Disavows Doctrine of Discovery Quakers Canadian Friends Service Committee (Quakers)"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/haudenosaunee-democracy/",
    "title": "Haudenosaunee Democracy",
    "publishedAt": "2018-08-27T11:16:28Z",
    "description": "Academics, attorneys and religious leaders from as far away as Chile gathered at this site sacred to members of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy to discuss the Doctrine of Discovery.",
    "tags": [
      "Law",
      "US-Law",
      "Indigenous-Peoples",
      "Haudenosaunee-confederacy",
      "Onondaga-Nation",
      "Conference",
      "event",
      "News"
    ],
    "textContent": "Excerpt: While visiting with President and Director of the American Indian Law Alliance Betty Lyons prior to the start of the recent Haudenosaunee Doctrine of Discovery conference, I was advised that the United States would certainly be run a lot differently if it were part of that confederacy. “We would never allow in our nation what’s happening in the United States right now. Our women have the power to put our leaders up, and to take them down when they’re not doing their duties and responsibilities. So, all of those positions are not ones of power and prestige, they’re positions of responsibility.” Read More in the Lakota Times (Subscription)"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/haudenosaunee-host-doctrine-of-discovery-gathering/",
    "title": "Haudenosaunee Host Doctrine of Discovery Gathering",
    "publishedAt": "2018-08-26T23:51:46Z",
    "description": "\" I think it’s something that people don’t really understand,\" observes Betty Lyons, President and Director of the American Indian Law Alliance. \" They go about their daily lives and they do things and they don’t understand why they’re doing them and how much the Doctrine has affected everyone everywhere.\"",
    "tags": [
      "Onondaga-Nation",
      "Haudenosaunee-Confederacy",
      "Interview",
      "Event",
      "Conference",
      "News"
    ],
    "textContent": "“I think it’s something that people don’t really understand,” observes Betty Lyons, President and Director of the American Indian Law Alliance. “They go about their daily lives and they do things and they don’t understand why they’re doing them and how much the Doctrine has affected everyone everywhere.” … “Really what we’re doing is bringing together people who did not get along in the recent past,” comments Phil Arnold. “What we’re trying to do is get Christian groups and other religious groups to put into the restoration and healing of Indigenous peoples, as much energy into that as they have in the past into their destruction. The idea was that they were a primitive and inferior group of people. They were hindering civilization and progress and so they were understood to be in the way.” Read More at the Lakota Country Times (subscription)"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/haudenosaunee-statement-on-the-doctrine-of-discovery/",
    "title": "Haudenosaunee Statement on the Doctrine of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2018-07-27T11:05:34Z",
    "description": "With the adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples by the General Assembly of the United Nations, we finally took our place at the table of humanity in 2007.",
    "tags": [
      "Repudiations",
      "Haudenosaunee-Confederacy",
      "Indigenous-Peoples",
      "United-Nations",
      "Onondaga-Nation",
      "featured",
      "Education",
      "Resources"
    ],
    "textContent": "Eleventh Session of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues 7-18 May, 2012 Agenda Item 3 – May 8, 2012 Haudenosaunee Statement on the Construct Known as the Doctrine of Discovery, A History A Seat at the Table The Haudenosaunee take this opportunity to thank Ms. Cunningham for her work as past Chair of the UNPFII, and to extend our hand in support of Grand Chief Ed John as the new Chair of the Permanent Forum. With the adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples by the General Assembly of the United Nations, we finally took our place at the table of humanity in 2007. We now embark on the next journey which is to implement the articles of the Declaration. In order to do that, the general public must be educated as to the history of how the present circumstances of indigenous peoples came to be. I will invoke an old adage at this time to frame the context of the issues facing indigenous peoples: “If you’re not at the table, you’re probably on the menu.” Indeed, there has been feasting going on at our expense. Our lands, resources and labor have been, and continue to be, on the entrée list as main dishes. The question is: how did this come about? The answer was and continues to be: dehumanize and demonize indigenous peoples. We could start with the Vatican and Pope Innocent of the 10th century, the beginning of the Christian Crusades that visited centuries of misery on victims and perpetrators. We could ask the question: how could the teaching of the Christian “Prince of Peace” degenerate into slaughter and slavery in His name in all quarters of the world? We could, and we will, and we are now asking for an accounting from those who were and are responsible for these centuries of exploitation and carnage visited upon our peoples. We, whom you call savages, heathens, pagans, Saracens, we the original peoples of the lands on Mother Earth, ask for an accounting. Now that we sit at the table of humanity we bring our questions to bear. These are questions of morality that must be acknowledged, redressed with atonement, and reconciled so we can face a very uncertain future in common cause for the wellbeing of children and future generations. The “Doctrine of Discovery” initiated from the papal bulls of the 14th and 15th centuries are responsible for over six centuries of crimes against humanity, setting a standard of exploitation that nation states now call “international law.” The universal laws of nature will prevail. These are the laws that direct the lives of indigenous peoples. Respect, understanding, adherence and promotion of these laws are vital to our survival as a species. We can help here. We understand our relationship and responsibility to these laws. They are simple and absolute. We must work together: cooperation rather than competition. We must learn again to share, trials and tribulations as well as health and wellbeing. The Haudenosaunee ancient philosophy of “one dish, one spoon,” to share equally – and these words that go with it, “Nobody owns the woods, but everybody is responsible,” has guided us. We are out of balance. There are over seven billion people in the world today. Each soul will need water, food, and a place to live. The crisis we face today is one of inequity – a lack of fairness for the people. We share in common with all life the need for water, food and shelter. We must return to the concept of “one dish, one spoon.” Of all the uncertainties in our lives today there is one certainty and that is: our fate as nations and peoples is in our own hands; our conduct will determine what happens to us. At the end of our day, we will continue on a good life or suffer the consequences of wrong decisions. We the Haudenosaunee say to one and all Jah guh! Try hard! As long as there is one to speak and one to listen, one to sing and one to dance – the fight is on. We are not alone. Da nay to (now I am finished). Oren Lyons, on behalf of the Haudenosaunee (the Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy) Recommendation: That an international study be made by the UNPFII on the effects of the international construct known as the “Doctrine of Discovery” upon the health, physical, psychological, social, well-being, human and collective rights, resources, medicines, lands and titles to such lands, to be submitted to the UNPFII in 2014 as an addendum to the UN International Decade of Indigenous Peoples, with recommendations addressing the discoveries and findings of this study. ⤓ Download the Statement as a PDF"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/if-you-dont-know-treaties-and-sovereignty-you-dont-know-history/",
    "title": "If you don’t know treaties and sovereignty, you don’t know history",
    "publishedAt": "2018-09-13T16:31:24Z",
    "description": "Reclaiming Native Truth’s research shows hope. For instance, it demonstrates that, when presented with a narrative that educates on the value of and values inherent in the treaties signed between the United States and Native Nations, support for laws that uphold tribal sovereignty increases by 16 percent. This may seem like a negligible margin",
    "tags": [
      "Haudenosaunee-Confederacy",
      "Onondaga-Nation",
      "News"
    ],
    "textContent": "Reclaiming Native Truth’s research shows hope. For instance, it demonstrates that, when presented with a narrative that educates on the value of and values inherent in the treaties signed between the United States and Native Nations, support for laws that uphold tribal sovereignty increases by 16 percent. This may seem like a negligible margin. But, at a time when one percent of the national vote has meant the difference between one presidential candidate, who seemed indifferent to sovereign rights of Native Nations, and another, who seemed hostile and affirmed the Jacksonian campaigns to eradicate sovereign rights altogether, it becomes quite clear that Reclaiming Native Truth is on to something.   Suzan Shown Harjo. for Indian Country Today"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/indigenous-delegates-ask-pope-to-repudiate-doctrine-of-discovery/",
    "title": "Indigenous delegates ask Pope to repudiate Doctrine of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2018-07-26T11:16:47Z",
    "description": "Indigenous delegates ask Pope to repudiate Doctrine of Discovery",
    "tags": [
      "Catholic",
      "Repudiations",
      "Indigenous-Peoples",
      "parliament-of-worlds-religions",
      "News"
    ],
    "textContent": "Indigenous delegates ask Pope to repudiate Doctrine of Discovery By Gale Courey Toensing Story Published: Dec 21, 2009 Originally Published by Indian Country Today Media Network MELBOURNE, Australia – While indigenous delegates from around the world were sidelined at the 15th United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Copenhagen, the collective voice of indigenous peoples at the 2009 Parliament of the World’s Religions was heard calling on the Pope to repudiate the Christian Doctrine of Discovery. The Doctrine, a fundamentally racist philosophy from the 15th century, continues to allow powerful nation-states to dehumanize people and devastate the living earth in their endless search for resources and markets, the delegation said. Indigenous peoples from around the world, including a Haudenosaunee delegation, attended the Parliament of the World’s Religions in Australia Dec. 3 – 9. The Parliament is an interfaith organization formed in 1893 “to cultivate harmony among the world’s religious and spiritual communities and foster their engagement with the world and its guiding institutions in order to achieve a just, peaceful and sustainable world.” It meets every five years. While the delegates came from diverse geographies and cultures, they easily unified around the intersecting themes of the Christian Doctrine of Discovery, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and climate change. The delegates articulated their concerns in a document called “An Indigenous Peoples’ Statement to the World Delivered at The Parliament of the World’s Religions Convened at Melbourne, Australia on the Traditional Lands of the Wurundjeri People of the Kulin Nation December 9, 2009.” The seven point statement calls for immediate action on climate change; the protection of earth-based religions and sacred sites both within and outside their territories; strengthening and protecting indigenous cultures and languages, repatriation of the ancestors’ remains and sacred items, and the support and implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The final item is “To call upon Pope Benedict XVI and the Vatican to publicly acknowledge and repudiate the papal decrees that legitimized the original activities that have evolved into the dehumanizing Doctrine of Christian Discovery and dominion in laws and policies.” “Overall the trip was very successful in bringing forward the idea of rescinding the papal bulls,” said Jake Swamp, Wolf Clan sub-chief of the Kahniakehaka, Mohawk Nation, author, and founder of the Tree of Peace Society, an international organization promoting peace and environmental conservation. “I think that’s the most important thing in our time is to finally attack the roots of the oppression experienced by indigenous peoples worldwide.” The papal bulls were 15th century documents issued by the popes of the Roman Catholic Church giving permission to the kings of Spain and Portugal to conquer and claim “undiscovered” lands, enslave or skill their non-Christian populations, and expropriate their possessions and resources. The English monarchy followed suit with “charters” to explorers such as John Cabot to colonize “the New World.” The Doctrine of Discovery, which these documents formulated, was a principle of international law – a kind of early trade agreement that whichever Christian European country “discovered” lands populated by non-Christians could claim those lands and resources. The Doctrine concerns indigenous people all over the world, because it continues to negatively affect people everywhere, said Philip Arnold, associate professor of indigenous religions in the Department of Religion at Syracuse University, and a member of the Haudenosaunee delegation. Arnold, who is married to a Mohawk woman, participated on a panel with some members of the Haudenosaunee delegation where he discussed how the Doctrine even affects his own family. The Doctrine justified the establishment of the notorious boarding schools in the 19th and 20th centuries that aimed to “civilize” Indian children by removing them from their families and stripping them of their language, traditions, and culture, Arnold said. “My wife’s family suffered through boarding schools, so I was able to talk about the Doctrine and how it negatively impacts us. In those boarding schools, everything was stripped out of these kids, so even though it was more than 100 years ago that my wife’s grandfather was in a boarding school, we still deal with that legacy every day with our children, trying to help them understand what was done and why they don’t participate in Long House ceremonies, for example, because their clans were taken from them by this ‘civilizing’ process.” He said the panel presentations by the Haudenosaunee delegation were effective in stimulating interest. “There were a lot of Christians from a variety of denominations and they got very active and wanted to know what they could do to help bring awareness about the Doctrine of Discovery and we encouraged them to do that within their own denominations. There was a Catholic priest who was very animated about this.” A movement to repudiate the Doctrine is gaining steam among Christian churches since the Episcopal Church issued a resolution renouncing it and urging support of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples at its national meeting last summer. Last September, the Indian Committee of the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends made a similar commitment. Arnold said members of the Haudenosaunee delegation will continue to work to raise awareness of the Doctrine in the hope of gaining a critical mass of grassroots support the Vatican will not be able to ignore. “The Doctrine maps a cultural attitude – our arrogance – toward the indigenous peoples and the earth. The whole colonial project, which is the legacy of America, is based on these principles, which are directly antagonistic to Native peoples, but also antagonistic to the life systems of the earth. So this idea of Discovery just can’t hold up.”"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/indigenous-statement-parliament-worlds-religions/",
    "title": "Indigenous Statement to the Parliament of World’s Religions",
    "publishedAt": "2018-07-26T11:13:51Z",
    "description": "An Indigenous Peoples’ Statement to the World Delivered at The Parliament of the World’s Religions Convened at Melbourne, Australia on the Traditional Lands of the Wurundjeri People of the Kulin Nation",
    "tags": [
      "World-Parliament",
      "Indigenous-Peoples",
      "Religion"
    ],
    "textContent": "An Indigenous Peoples’ Statement to the World Delivered at The Parliament of the World’s Religions Convened at Melbourne, Australia on the Traditional Lands of the Wurundjeri People of the Kulin Nation December 9, 2009 In keeping with the theme of this year’s Parliament: “Make a World of Difference: Hearing each other, Healing the earth,” We, the Indigenous Peoples participating in this Parliament hereby issue this statement: We are Indigenous Peoples and Nations who honor our ancestors and care for our future generations by preserving our lands and cultures. For thousands of years, Indigenous peoples have maintained a fundamental and sacred relationship with Mother Earth. As peoples of the land, we declare our inherent rights to our present and continuing survival within our sacred homelands and territories throughout the world; We commend the Australian government’s recent support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples adopted on September 13, 2007. We call on all governments to support and implement the provisions of the UN Declaration, particularly the right of self-determination; Since time immemorial we have lived in keeping with our sacred laws, principles, and spiritual values, given by the Creator. Our ways of life are based on thousands of years of accumulated ecological knowledge, a great respect for our Mother Earth, a reverence and respect for all our Natural World relations and the survival of our languages, cultures, and traditions; The Indigenous instructions of sharing and the responsibility of leadership to future generations are wise and enduring. As the traditional nations of our lands we affirm the right to educate our children in our earth-based education systems in order to maintain our indigenous knowledge systems and cultures. These have also contributed to our spiritual, physical and mental health; Indigenous peoples concept of health and survival is holistic, collective and individual. It encompasses the spiritual, the intellectual, the physical and the emotional. Expressions of culture relevant to health and survival of Indigenous Peoples includes relationships, families, and kinship, social institutions, traditional laws, music, dances, songs and songlines, reindeer and caribou, ceremonies and dreamtime, our ritual performances and practices, games, sports, language, mythologies, names, lands, sea, water, every life forms, and all documented forms and aspects of culture, including burial and sacred sites, human genetic materials, ancestral remains so often stolen, and our artifacts; Unfortunately, certain doctrines have been threatening to the survival of our cultures, our languages, and our peoples, and devastating to our ways of life. These are found in particular colonizing documents such as the Inter Caetera papal bull of 1493, which called for the subjugation of non-Christian nations and peoples and “the propagation of the Christian empire.” This is the root of the Doctrine of Christian Discovery that is still interwoven into laws and policies today that must be changed. The principles of subjugation contained in this and other such documents, and in the religious texts and documents of other religions, have been and continue to be destructive to our ways of life (religions), cultures, and the survival of our Indigenous nations and peoples. This oppressive tradition is what led to the boarding schools, the residential schools, and the Stolen Generation, resulting in the trauma of Indigenous peoples being cut off from their languages and cultures, resulting in language death and loss of family integrity from the actions of churches and governments. We call on those churches and governments to put as much time, effort, energy and money into assisting with the revitalization of our languages and cultures as they put into attempting to destroy them; The doctrines of colonization and dominion have laid the groundwork for contemporary problems of racism and dispossession. These problems include the industrial processes of resource exploitation and extraction by governments and corporations that has consistently meant the use of imposed laws to force the removal of Indigenous peoples from our traditional territories, and to desecrate and destroy our sacred sites and places. The result is a great depletion of biodiversity and the loss of our traditional ways of life, as well as the depletion and contamination of the waters of Mother Earth from mining and colonization. Such policies and practices do not take into account that water is the first law of life and a gift from the Creator for all beings. Clean, healthy, safe, and free water is necessary for the continuity and well being of all living things. The commercialization and poisoning of water is a crime against life. The negative ethics of contemporary society, discovery, conquest, dominion, exploitation, extraction, and industrialization, have brought us to today’s crisis of global warming. Climate change is now our most urgent issue and affecting the lives of indigenous peoples at an alarming rate. Many of our people’s lives are in crisis due to the rapid global warming. The ice melt in the north and rapid sea rise continue to accelerate, and the time for action is brief. The Earth’s resources are finite and the present global consumption levels are unsustainable and continue to affect our peoples and all peoples. Therefore, we join the other members of the Parliament in calling for prompt, immediate, and effective action at Copenhagen to combat climate change; In July 2009, the Episcopal Church in the United States adopted a resolution at its 76th General Convention, repudiating and disavowing the dehumanizing Doctrine of Christian Discovery. By doing so, the Church took particular note of the charter issued by King Henry VII of England to John Cabot and his sons, which authorized the colonizing of North America. It was by this ‘boss over’ tradition of Christian discovery that the British crown eventually laid claim to the traditional territories of the Aboriginal nations of the continent now called Australia, under terra nullius and terra nullus. This step by the Episcopal Church was an act of conscience and moral leadership by one of the world’s major religions. Religious bodies of Quakers and Unitarians have taken similar supportive actions. In Conclusion, we appeal to all people of conscience to join with us in support of the following issues: 1. Climate Change and its far-reaching impacts on our Peoples and homelands—for this we need immediate action. 2. he protection Indigenous peoples significant and sacred sites within their traditional homelands and territories and working to eradicate discrimination and intolerance against earth based Indigenous spiritual and ceremonial traditions. 3. Protection of Sacred Places used for prayer and ceremonies. At these special places we Minister to the earth and heal her sacred soul. 4. The critical need to strengthen and continue our unique cultures and languages, particularly by bringing together elder cultural and wisdom keepers and Indigenous youth. 5. The return of the bones of our ancestors and our sacred items. 6. The immediate support and implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. 7. To call upon Pope Benedict XVI and the Vatican to publicly acknowledge and repudiate the papal decrees that legitimized the original activities that have evolved into the dehumanizing Doctrine of Christian Discovery and dominion in laws and policies."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/inter-caetera/",
    "title": "Inter Caetera",
    "publishedAt": "2022-06-13T17:37:23Z",
    "description": "The Papal Bull Inter Caetera of May 4, 1493",
    "tags": [
      "Catholic",
      "Papal-Bulls"
    ],
    "textContent": "The Papal Bull Inter Caetera of May 4, 1493 Introduced and translated by Sebastian Modrow and Melissa Smith ⤓ Download and Read the new translation as a PDF Pope Alexander VI's Demarcation Bull, May 4, 1493. Via Gilder Lehrman Collection . Introduction Christopher Columbus returned from his first voyage on March 4, 1493, landing first at the mouth of the Tagus River close to Lisbon, Portugal. He informed the Portuguese authorities of his arrival and met with King John II before continuing on to the Spanish port of Palos, arriving on March 15. He probably reached the Aragonese court in Barcelona by mid-April.[^1] While still in Portugal or perhaps while on his way to the Spanish court, Columbus dispatched two letters written in Spanish describing the experiences and findings of his first voyage. One was addressed to his supporter and benefactor Luis de Santángel, Escribano de Racion at the Court of Aragon, and the other to the Spanish monarchs, Isabella and Ferdinand. The letter was soon published (between late March and mid-April, most likely in Barcelona), and a Latin version (purportedly translated on April 29) was printed in Rome.[^2] While Pope Alexander VI, a Spaniard himself, would have had no issues reading the Spanish version, it is likely that it was the Latin translation that was brought to his attention. While clearly informed by Columbus’s letter and whatever additional information the Spanish monarchs may have provided, Inter Caetera must first and foremost be seen and understood in the context of a series of papal bulls that reacted to the development of Portuguese and Spanish ‘discoveries,’ first along and off the western coast of Africa but later also with regard to the trans- Atlantic route to ‘India.’ The bull Inter Caetera was not even the first with this name. In 1456, Calixtus III, an uncle of the later pope Alexander VI, had issued a bull the main text of which, after the introductory protocol, began with these words (and a bull is usually named after these opening words). Going beyond the geographical scope of its predecessors Dum Diversas (1452) and Romanus Pontifex (1454), both issued by Pope Nicholas V, the 1456 Inter Caetera bull granted Portugal the right of conquest > “‘as far as the Indies’ (usque ad Indos) - that is, Asia –,” as William Henry Scott reminds us, “and threatened any challengers with excommunication. Similarly, after the Treaty of Alcobas ended Spain’s unsuccessful attempt to do so, Sixto IV’s Aeterni Regis of 1481 granted what had already been decided by naval artillery – Portuguese occupation of Atlantic islands like the Azores, Madeiras and Cape Verdes – and sanctioned all future such discoveries ‘in the Ocean Seas’ (in mari oceano), the waters believed to surround the Eurasian land mass. The question of eastern and western sea routes had not yet become an issue. European cosmographers, unaware of the existence of the American continents, did not doubt that the same waters washed the eastern shores of Asia and the west coast of Europe. Thus when Ferdinand V sent Columbus into those waters to reach the Indies, he was breaking the oath he had sworn at Alcobas and defying papal excommunication.”[^3] Alexander VI’s Inter Caetera bull, the name of which was hardly chosen by accident, addressed and amended, therefore, an established framework of papal grants in a changed geopolitical reality, as Spain seemed to have discovered the western route to Asia. Its first version was ostensibly written on May 3, but it had in fact entered the Vatican registry (Regesta Vaticana) by the end of April 1493.[^4] In order to avoid a violation of the stipulations of Aeterni Regis and the Treaty of Alcobas, which could have led to an open confrontation with Portugal, the pope granted the Spanish monarchs ‘only’ those lands that at the time of their discovery were not ruled by a Christian prince and made it very clear that “no right conferred on any Christian prince is hereby to be understood as withdrawn or to be withdrawn.”[^5] This could hardly have been satisfactory to the crowns of Castile and Aragon, who, informed already about the results of Columbus’s first voyage, feared the Portuguese would enter a ‘discovery’ race in the west for which, in 1493, they were far better positioned than Castile and Aragon. Alexander’s second version of Inter Caetera, dated only one day later (May 4) but written probably months after the first version, reproduces in large part the same text as the May 3 version but with one (twice mentioned) addition: The May 4 bull establishes a demarcation line for the spheres of the Spanish and Portuguese interests from the North to the South Pole “one hundred leagues to the west and south of any of the islands that are usually called the Azores and Cape Verde.” The Latin text was established using the digitized original[^6] as well as Davenport’s edition.[^7] Mostly in concordance with Davenport but in contrast to the edition of Levy Maria Jordão,[^8] it reproduces the original’s 15th-century Latin spelling as well as its capitalizations and only rarely disagrees with Davenport’s readings, as in its retention of the text’s negocio in contrast to Davenport’s hypercorrect negotio. However, while Davenport for the sake of greater readability dissolved all abbreviations, for this edition, the abbreviations are expanded by including the omitted letters in square brackets. We are aware that this might slightly decrease the readability of the edited Latin text but hope that it will increase and encourage the use of the original document, which in Davenport’s day was reproducible only as a black and white facsimile, in contrast to today’s high resolution digital surrogates. To further encourage the use of this edition alongside the (digitized) original, we also indicated line breaks with a slash where they occur in the document, which will hopefully help readers navigate the text in the original bull. Translation differences between this new translation and Davenport’s occur more often in tone than in content. Of the latter, the most important is probably this: When discussing the religious aims of these expeditions and conquests, the pope states that it is a priority for him that those barbarian peoples ad fidem ipsam reducantur, which Davenport translates as being “brought to the faith itself.” However, since the semantics of the verb reducere carry an element of ‘back/return’ due to its prefix ‘re-’, we decided to translate the clause as “bringing them back to the faith”, the implications of which Sebastian Modrow is exploring in a separate piece of scholarship. With slight variations, this papal request to return the local populations to the true faith occurs multiple times throughout the bull. ⤓ Download the new translation as a PDF Footnotes [^1]: William H. Scott, “Demythologizing the Papal Bull ‘Inter Caetera,’” Philippine Studies 35, no. 3 (1987), 350 and 352. [^2]: Elizabeth M. Willingham, The Mythical Indies and Columbus's Apocalyptic Letter: Imagining the Americas in the Late Middle Ages (Eastbourne, UK: Sussex Academic Press, 2015), 17. The 1893 Quaritch facsimile of the folio edition of the Spanish letter including a transcription is available through Google Books, , as is the 1893 Quaritch facsimile of the Latin letter, . The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History provides an English translation of the Latin letter, . [^3]: Scott, “Demythologizing,” 350. [^4]: Scott, “Demythologizing,” 352. [^5]: European Treaties Bearing on the History of the United States and its Dependencies. ed. Frances G. Davenport, (Carnegie Institution of Washington: Washington, DC, 1917), 56. [^6]: “Bulla del Papa Alexandro VI dada el año 1493, en que concede a los Reyes Cathólicos y sus sucesores todo lo que ganaren y conquistaren en las Indias no estando ocupado por otros”. 1493-05-04 , Roma; MP-BULAS\\BREVES,4, Archivo General de Indias, Sevilla, Spain, . [^7]: Davenport, European Treaties, 72-75. [^8]: Levy Maria Jordão, ed., Bullarium Patronatus Portugalliae Regum in Ecclesiis Africae, Asiae Atque Oceaniae: Bullas, Brevia, Epistolas, Decreta Actaque Sanctae Sedis Ab Alexandro III Ad Hoc Usque Tempus Amplectens, Tomus I (Lisbon: Ex Typographia nationali, 1868). Details PDF ⤓ Download the new translation as a PDF Citation Alexander VI. 2022. \"Inter Caetera.\" Translated by Sebastian Modrow and Melissa Smith. Indigenous Values Initiative. Doctrine of Discovery Project. . Citation Files Bibtex citation RIS XML"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/johnson-v-mcintosh/",
    "title": "Johnson v. M’Intosh",
    "publishedAt": "2018-07-23T14:54:46Z",
    "description": "The Indians were admitted to be the rightful occupants of the soil, with a legal as well as just claim to retain possession of it, and to use it according to their own discretion; but their rights to complete sovereignty, as independent nations, were necessarily diminished, and...Discovery gave exclusive title to those who made it.",
    "updatedAt": "2024-07-24T11:45:11Z",
    "tags": [
      "Law",
      "US-Law"
    ],
    "textContent": "Analysis by Steven T. Newcomb The Marshall Trilogy: Johnson v. McIntosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823) - Domination Translator Series - Part 3 The Marshall Trilogy: Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) - Domination Translator Series - Part 4 The Marshall Trilogy: Worcester v. Georgia (1832) - Domination Translator Series - Part 5 Key Excerpts: “The Indians were admitted to be the rightful occupants of the soil, with a legal as well as just claim to retain possession of it, and to use it according to their own discretion; but their rights to complete sovereignty, as independent nations, were necessarily diminished, and . . . Discovery gave exclusive title to those who made it. \\[T\\]he different Nations of Europe . . . Asserted the ultimate dominion to be in themselves; and claimed and exercised, as a consequence of this ultimate dominion, a power to grant the soil, while yet in possession of the natives.” “However extravagant the pretension of converting the discovery of inhabited country into conquest may appear, if the principle has been asserted in the first instance, and afterwards sustained; if a country has acquired and held under it; if the property of the great mass of the community originates in it, it becomes the law of the land, and cannot be questioned.” (id., at 591.) Academic Opinions on the case 1. 200 Years of Johnson v. M'Intosh: Law, Religion, and Native American Lands 2. \"Introduction to the 200 Years of Johnson v. M'Intosh: Law, Religion, and Native American Lands Series\" 3. \"Johnson v. M'Intosh and the Missing Cover of the Jigsaw Puzzle\" 4. \"Johnson v. M'Intosh, Wi Parata v. Bishop of Wellington, and the Legacy of the Doctrine of Discovery in Aotearoa-New Zealand\" 5. \"The Legacy of the Right to Control Land and Dependency\" 6. \"The International Law of Colonialism: Johnson v. M'Intosh and the Doctrine of Discovery Applied Worldwide\" 7. \"Johnson v. M'Intosh, Plenary Power, and Our Colonial Constitution\" 8. \"However, Extravagant The Pretensions of Johnson V. M'Intosh\". 9. \"Did Pope Alexander VI Authorize England's Colonization of North America?\" 10. \"Haaland v. Brackeen and the Logic of Discovery\" 11. \"The Contemporary Presence of Discovery's Assertion in Canada\" 12. \"Order, Economy, and Legality: Johnson v. M'Intosh after Two Hundred Years\" 13. \"Federal Anti-Indian Law: The Legal Entrapment of Indigenous Peoples\" 14. S02E01 - The Backstory of Johnson v. M’Intosh with Lindsay Robertson Resources United Illinois and Wabash Land Companies Collection The collection consists of 263 original manuscripts, five hand-drawn maps and seven published documents which relate to the Companies’ efforts to acquire title to Indian lands during the period 1775 to 1823. These efforts culminated in the Supreme Court’s landmark 1823 decision in Johnson v. M’Intosh divesting Native Americans of title to their lands. Jasper Brinton, great-great-great grandson of John Hill Brinton, the Companies’ secretary from 1805 to 1823, entrusted the papers to the Donald E. Pray Law Library. The papers informed Lindsay G. Robertson’s award-winning book, Conquest by Law: How the Discovery of America Dispossessed Indigenous Peoples of Their Lands (Oxford University Press, 2005) Back to Law. Text Johnson v. M'Intosh, 21 U.S. 543, 5 L.Ed. 681, 8 Wheat. 543 (1823) JOHNSON and GRAHAM'S Lessee v. WILLIAM M'INTOSH March 10, 1823 \"ERROR to the District Court of Illinois. This was an action of ejectment for lands in the State and District of Illinois, claimed by the plaintiffs under a purchase and conveyance from the Piankeshaw Indians, and by the defendant, under a grant from the United States. It came up on a case stated, upon which there was a judgment below for the defendant. The case stated set out the following facts: 1st. That on the 23d of May, 1609, James I. king of England, by his letters patent of that date, under the great seal of England, did erect, form, and establish Robert, Earl of Salisbury, and others, his associates, in the letters patent named, and their successors, into a body corporate and politic, by the name and style of 'The Treasurer and Company of Adventurers and Planters of the City of London, for the first Colony in Virginia,' with perpetual succession, and power to make, have, and use a common seal; and did give, grant, and confirm unto this company, and their successors, \\\\\\544 under certain reservations and limitations in the letters patent expressed, 'All the lands, countries, and territories, situate, lying, and being in that part of North America called Virginia, from the point of land called Cape or Point Comfort, all along the seacoast to the northward two hundred miles; and from the said Cape or Point Comfort, all along the seacoast to the southward, two hundred miles; and all that space and circuit of land lying from the seacoast of the precinct aforesaid, up into the land throughout from the sea, west and northwest; and also all the islands lying within one hundred miles, along the coast of both seas of the precinct aforesaid; with all the soil, grounds, rights, privileges, and appurtenances to these territories belonging, and in the letters patent particularly enumerated:' and did grant to this corporation, and their successors, various powers of government, in the letters patent particularly expressed. 2d. That the place, called in these letters patent, Cape or Point Comfort, is the place now called and known by the name of Old Point Comfort, on the Chesapeake Bay and Hampton Roads; and that immediately after the granting of the letters patent, the corporation proceeded, under and by virtue of them, to take possession of parts of the territory which they describe, and to form settlements, plant a colony, and exercise the powers of government therein; which colony was called and known by the name of the colony of Virginia. 3d. That at the time of granting these letters patent, and of the discovery of the continent of \\\\\\545 North America by the Europeans, and during the whole intermediate time, the whole of the territory, in the letters patent described, except a small district on James River, where a settlement of Europeans had previously been made, was held, occupied, and possessed, in full sovereignty, by various independent tribes or nations of Indians, who were the sovereigns of their respective portions of the territory, and the absolute owners and proprietors of the soil; and who neither acknowledged nor owed any allegiance or obedience to any European sovereign or state whatever: and that in making settlements within this territory, and in all the other parts of North America, where settlements were made, under the authority of the English government, or by its subjects, the right of soil was previously obtained by purchase or conquest, from the particular Indian tribe or nation by which the soil was claimed and held; or the consent of such tribe or nation was secured. 4th. That in the year 1624, this corporation was dissolved by due course of law, and all its powers, together with its rights of soil and jurisdiction, under the letters patent in question, were revested in the crown of England; whereupon the colony became a royal government, with the same territorial limits and extent which had been established by the letters patent, and so continued until it became a free and independent State; except so far as its limits and extent were altered and curtailed by the treaty of February 10th, 1763, between Great Britain and France, and by the letters patent granted by the King of England, \\\\\\546 for establishing the colonies of Carolina, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. 5th. That some time previous to the year 1756, the French government, laying a claim to the country west of the Alleghany or Appalachian mountains, on the Ohio and Mississippi rivers, and their branches, took possession of certain parts of it, with the consent of the several tribes or nations of Indians possessing and owning them; and, with the like consent, established several military posts and settlements therein, particularly at Kaskaskias, on the river Kaskaskias, and at Vincennes, on the river Wabash, within the limits of the colony of Virginia, as described and established in and by the letters patent of May 23d, 1609: and that the government of Great Britain, after complaining of these establishments as encroachments, and remonstrating against them, at length, in the year 1756, took up arms to resist and repel them; which produced a war between those two nations, wherein the Indian tribes inhabiting and holding the countries northwest of the Ohio, and on the Mississippi above the mouth of the Ohio, were the allies of France, and the Indians known by the name of the Six Nations, or the Iroquois, and their tributaries and allies, were the allies of Great Britain; and that on the 10th of February, 1763, this war was terminated by a definitive treaty of peace between Great Britain and France, and their allies, by which it was stipulated and agreed, that the river Mississippi, from its source to the Iberville, should for ever after form the boundary between the dominions of \\\\\\547 Great Britain and those of France, in that part of North America, and between their respective allies there. 6th. That the government of Virginia, at and before the commencement of this war, and at all times after it became a royal government, claimed and exercised jurisdiction, with the knowledge and assent of the government of Great Britain, in and over the country northwest of the river Ohio, and east of the Mississippi, as being included within the bounds and limits described and established for that colony, by the letters patent of May 23d, 1609; and that in the year 1749, a grant of six hundred thousand acres of land, within the country northwest of the Ohio, and as part of Virginia, was made by the government of Great Britain to some of its subjects, by the name and style of the Ohio Company. 7th. That at and before the commencement of the war in 1756, and during its whole continuance, and at the time of the treaty of February 10th, 1763, the Indian tribes or nations, inhabiting the country north and northwest of the Ohio, and east of the Mississippi, as far east as the river falling into the Ohio called the Great Miami, were called and known by the name of the Western Confederacy of Indians, and were the allies of France in the war, but not her subjects, never having been in any manner conquered by her, and held the country in absolute sovereignty, as independent nations, both as to the right of jurisdiction and sovereignty, and the right of soil, except a few military posts, and a small territory around each, \\\\\\548 which they had ceded to France, and she held under them, and among which were the aforesaid posts of Kaskaskias and Vincennes; and that these Indians, after the treaty, became the allies of Great Britain, living under her protection as they had before lived under that of France, but were free and independent, owing no allegiance to any foreign power whatever, and holding their lands in absolute property; the territories of the respective tribes being separated from each other, and distinguished by certain natural marks and boundaries to the Indians well known; and each tribe claiming and exercising separate and absolute ownership, in and over its own territory, both as to the right of sovereignty and jurisdiction, and the right of soil. 8th. That among the tribes of Indians, thus holding and inhabiting the territory north and northwest of the Ohio, east of the Mississippi, and west of the Great Miami, within the limits of Virginia, as described in the letters patent of May 23d, 1609, were certain independent tribes or nations, called the Illinois or Kaskaskias, and the Piankeshaw or Wabash Indians; the first of which consisted of three several tribes united into one, and called the Kaskasias, the Pewarias, and the Cahoquias; that the Illinois owned, held, and inhabited, as their absolute and separate property, a large tract of country within the last mentioned limits, and situated on the Mississippi, Illinois, and Kaskaskias rivers, and on the Ohio below the mouth of the Wabash; and the Piankeshaws, another large tract of country within the same \\\\\\549 limits, and as their absolute and separate property, on the Wabash and Ohio rivers; and that these Indians remained in the sole and absolute ownership and possession of the country in question, until the sales made by them, in the manner herein after set forth. 9th. That on the termination of the war between Great Britain and France, the Illinois Indians, by the name of the Kaskaskias tribes of Indians, as fully representing all the Illinois tribes then remaining, made a treaty of peace with Great Britain, and a treaty of peace, limits, and amity, under her mediation, with the Six Nations, or Iroquois, and their allies, then known and distinguished by the name of the Northern Confederacy of Indians; the Illinois being a part of the confederacy then known and distinguished by the name of the Southern Confederacy, and sometimes by that of the Western Confederacy. 10th. That on the 7th of October, 1763, the King of Great Britain made and published a proclamation, for the better regulation of the countries ceded to Great Britain by that treaty, which proclamation is referred to, and made part of the case. 11th. That from time immemorial, and always up to the present time, all the Indian tribes, or nations of North America, and especially the Illinois and Piankeshaws, and other tribes holding, possessing, and inhabiting the said countries north and northeast of the Ohio, east of the Mississippi, and west of the Great Miami, held their respective lands and territories each in common, the individuals \\\\\\550 of each tribe or nation holding the lands and territories of such tribe in common with each other, and there being among them no separate property in the soil; and that their sole method of selling, granting, and conveying their lands, whether to governments or individuals, always has been, from time immemorial, and now is, for certain chiefs of the tribe selling, to represent the whole tribe in every part of the transaction; to make the contract, and execute the deed, on behalf of the whole tribe; to receive for it the consideration, whether in money or commodities, or both; and, finally, to divide such consideration among the individuals of the tribe: and that the authority of the chiefs, so acting for the whole tribe, is attested by the presence and assent of the individuals composing the tribe, or some of them, and by the receipt by the individuals composing the tribe, of their respective shares of the price, and in no other manner. 12th. That on the 5th of July, 1773, certain chiefs of the Illinois Indians, then jointly reprepresenting, acting for, and being duly authorized by that tribe, in the manner explained above, did, by their deed poll, duly executed and delivered, and bearing date on that day, at the post of Kaskaskias, then being a British military post, and at a public council there held by them, for and on behalf of the said Illinois nation of Indians, with William Murray, of the Illinois country, merchant, acting for himself and for Moses Franks and Jacob Franks, of London, in Great Britain, David Franks, John Inglis, Bernard Gratz, Michael \\\\\\551 Gratz, Alexander Ross, David Sproat, and James Milligan, all of Philadelphia, in the province of Pennsylvania; Moses Franks, Andrew Hamilton, William Hamilton, and Edmund Milne, of the same place; Joseph Simons, otherwise called Joseph Simon, and Levi Andrew Levi of the town of Lancaster in Pennsylvania; Thomas Minshall of York county, in the same province; Robert Callender and William Thompson, of Cumberland county, in the same province; John Campbell of Pittsburgh, in the same province; and George Castles and James Ramsay of the Illinois country; and for a good and valuable consideration in the said deed stated, grant, bargain, sell, alien, lease, enfeoff, and confirm, to the said William Murray, Moses Franks, Jacob Franks, David Franks, John Inglis, Bernard Gratz, Michael Gratz, Alexander Ross, David Sproat, James Milligan, Andrew Hamilton, William Hamilton, Edmund Milne, Joseph Simons, otherwise called Joseph Simon, Levi Andrew Levi, Thomas Minshall, Robert Callender, William Thompson, John Campbell, George Castles, and James Ramsay, their heirs and assigns for ever, in severalty, or to George the Third, then King of Great Britain and Ireland, his heirs and successors, for the use, benefit, and behoof of the grantees, their heirs and assigns, in severalty, by whichever of those tenures they might most legally hold, all those two several tracts or parcels of land, situated, lying, and being within the limits fo Virginia, on the east of the Mississippi, northwest of the Ohio, and west of the Great Miami, and thus butted \\\\\\552 and bounded: Beginning for one of the said tracts on the east side of the Mississippi, at the mouth of the Heron creek, called by the French the river of Mary, being about a league below the mouth of the Kaskaskias river, and running thence a northward of east course, in a direct line, back to the Hilly Plains, about eight leagues more or less; thence the same course, in a direct line to the Crab Tree Plains, about seventeen leagues more or less; thence the same course, in a direct line, to a remarkable place known by the name of the Big Buffalo Hoofs, about seventeen leagues more or less; thence the same course, in a direct line to the Salt Lick creek, about seven leagues more or less; then crossing the Salt Lick creek, about one league below the ancient Shawanese town, in an easterly, or a little to the north of east, course, in a direct line to the river Ohio, about four leagues more or less; then down the Ohio, by its several courses, until it empties into the Mississippi, about thirty-five leagues more or less; and then up the Mississippi, by its several courses, to the place of beginning, about thirty-three leagues more or less: And beginning for the other tract on the Mississippi, at a point directly opposite to the mouth of the Missouri, and running up the Mississippi, by its several courses, to the mouth of the Illinois, about six leagues more or less; and thence up the Illinois, by its several courses, to Chicagou or Garlic creek, about ninety leagues, more or less; thence nearly a northerly course, in a direct line, to a certain remarkable place, being the ground on which a \\\\\\553 battle was fought, about forty or fifty years before that time, between the Pewaria and Renard Indians, about fifty leagues more or less; thence by the same course, in a direct line, to two remarkable hills close together, in the middle of a large prairie or plain, about fourteen leagues more or less; thence a north of east course, in a direct line, to a remarkable spring, known by the Indians by the name of 'Foggy Spring,' about fourteen leagues more or less; thence the same course, in a direct line to a great mountain, to the northwest of the White Buffalo Plain, about fifteen leagues more or less; and thence nearly a southwest course to the place of beginning, about forty leagues more or less: To have and to hold the said two tracts of land, with all and singular their appurtenances, to the grantees, their heirs and assigns, for ever, in severalty, or to the king, his heirs and successors, to and for the use, benefit, or behoof of the grantees, their heirs and assigns, for ever, in severalty: as will more fully appear by the said deed poll, duly executed under the hands and seals of the grantors, and duly recorded at Kaskaskias, on the 2d of September, 1773, in the office of Vicerault Lemerance, a notary public, duly appointed and authorized. This deed, with the several certificates annexed to or endorsed on it, was set out at length in the case. 13th. That the consideration in this deed expressed, was of the value of 24,000 dollars, current money of the United States, and upwards, and was paid and delivered, at the time of the execution of the deed, by William Murray, one \\\\\\554 of the grantees, in behalf of himself and the other grantees, to the Illinois Indians, who freely accepted it, and divided it among themselves: that the conferences in which the sale of these lands was agreed on and made, and in which it was agreed that the deed should be executed, were publicly held, for the space of a month, at the post of Kaskaskias, and were attended by many individuals of all the tribes of Illinois Indians, besides the chiefs, named as grantors in the deed; that the whole transaction was open, public, and fair, and the deed fully explained to the grantors and other Indians, by the sworn interpreters of the government, and fully understood by the grantors and other Indians, before it was executed; that the several witnesses to the deed, and the grantees named in it, were such persons, and of such quality and stations, respectively, as they are described to be in the deed, the attestation, and the other endorsements on it; that the grantees did duly authorize William Murray to act for and represent them, in the purchase of the lands, and the acceptance of the deed; and that the two tracts or parcels of land which it describes, and purports to grant, were then part of the lands held, possessed, and inhabited by the Illinois Indians, from time immemorial, in the manner already stated. 14th. That all the persons named as grantees in this deed, were, at the time of its execution, and long before, subjects of the crown of Great Britain, and residents of the several places named in the deed as their places of residence; and that \\\\\\555 they entered into the land, under and by virtue of the deed, and became seised as the law requires. 15th. That on the 18th of October, 1775, Tabac, and certain other Indians, all being chiefs of the Piankeshaws, and jointly representing, acting for, and duly authorized by that nation, in the manner stated above, did, by their deed poll, duly executed, and bearing date on the day last mentioned, at the post of Vincennes, otherwise called post St. Vincent, then being a British military post, and at a public council there held by them, for and on behalf of the Piankeshaw Indians, with Louis Viviat, of the Illinois country, acting for himself, and for the Right Honourable John, Earl of Dunmore, then governor of Virginia, the Honourable John Murray, son of the said Earl, Moses Franks and Jacob Franks, of London, in Great Britain, Thomas Johnson, jr. and John Davidson, both of Annapolis, in Maryland, William Russel, Matthew Ridley, Robert Christie, sen. and Robert Christie, jr., of Baltimore town, in the same province, Peter Compbell, of Piscataway, in the same province, William Geddes, of Newtown Chester, in the same province, collector of his majesty's customs, David Franks and Moses Franks, both of Philadelphia, in Pennsylvania, William Murray and Daniel Murray, of the Illinois country, Nicholas St. Martin and Joseph Page, of the same place, Francis Perthuis, late of Quebec, in Canada, but then of post St. Vincent, and for good and valuable consideration, in the deed poll mentioned and enumerated, grant, bargain, sell, alien, enfeoff, release, ratify, and \\\\\\556 confirm to the said Louis Viviat, and the other persons last mentioned, their heirs and assigns, equally to be divided, or to George III. then king of Great Britain and Ireland, his heirs and successors, for the use, benefit, and behoof of all the above mentioned grantees, their heirs and assigns, in severalty, by which ever of those tenures they might most legally hold, all those two several tracts of land, in the deed particularly described, situate, lying, and being northwest of the Ohio, east of the Mississippi, and west of the Great Miami, within the limits of Virginia, and on both sides of the Ouabache, otherwise called the Wabash; which two tracts of land are contained respectively within the following metes and bounds, courses and distances, that is to say: beginning for one of the said tracts at the mouth of a rivulet called Riviere du Chat, or Cat river, where it empties itself into the Ouabache or Wabash, by its several courses, to a place called Point Coupee, about twelve leagues above post St. Vincent, being forty leagues, or thereabouts, in length, on the said river Ouabache, from the place of beginning, with forty leagues in width or breadth on the east side, and thirty leagues in breadth or width on the west side of that river, to be continued along from the place of beginning to Point Coupee. And beginning for the other tract at the mouth of White river, where it empties into the Ouabache, about twelve leagues below post St. Vincent, and running thence down the Ouabache, by its several courses, until it empties into the Ohio; being from White river to the Ohio, about fifty-three leagues in length, more or less, with forty \\\\\\557 leagues in width or breadth on the east side, and thirty in width or breadth on the west side of the Ouabache, to be continued along from the White river to the Ohio; with all the rights, liberties, privileges, hereditaments, and appurtenances, to the said tract belonging; to have and to hold to the grantees, their heirs and assigns, for ever, in severalty, or to the king, his heirs and successors, for the use, benefit, and behoof of the grantees, their heirs and assigns, as will more fully appear by the deed itself, duly executed under the hands and seals of the grantors, and duly recorded at Kaskaskias, on the 5th of December, 1775, in the office of Louis Bomer, a notary public, duly appointed and authorized. This deed, with the several certificates annexed to or endorsed on it, was set out at length. 16th. That the consideration in this deed expressed, was of the value of 31,000 dollars, current money of the United States, and upwards, and was paid and delivered at the time of the execution of the deed, by the grantee, Lewis Viviat, in behalf of himself and the other grantees, to the Piankeshaw Indians, who freely accepted it, and divided it among themselves; that the conferences in which the sale of these two tracts of land was agreed on and made, and in which it was agreed, that the deed should be executed, were publicly held for the space of a month, at the post of Vincennes, or post St. Vincent, and were attended by many individuals of the Piankeshaw nation of Indians, besides the chiefs named as grantors in the deed; that the whole \\\\\\558 transaction was open, public, and fair, and the deed fully explained to the grantors and other Indians, by skilful interpreters, and fully understood by them before it was executed; that it was executed in the presence of the several witnesses by whom it purports to have been attested, and was attested by them; that the grantees were all subjects of the crown of Great Britain, and were of such quality, station, and residence, respectively, as they are described in the deed to be; that the grantees did duly authorize Lewis Viviat to act for, and represent them, in the purchase of these two tracts of land, and in the acceptance of the deed; that these tracts of land were then part of the lands held, possessed, and inhabited by the Piankeshaw Indians, from time immemorial, as is stated above; and that the several grantees under this deed entered into the land which it purports to grant, and became seized as the law requires. 17th. That on the 6th of May, 1776, the colony of Virginia threw off its dependence on the crown and government of Great Britain, and declared itself an independent State and government, with the limits prescribed and established by the letters patent of May 23d, 1609, as curtailed and restricted by the letters patent establishing the colonies of Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Carolina, and by the treaty of February 10th, 1763, between Great Britain and France; which limits, so curtailed and restricted, the State of Virginia, by its constitution and form of government, declared should be and remain the limits of the State, and should bound its western and northwestern extent.\\\\\\559 18th. That on the 5th of October, 1778, the General Assembly of Virginia, having taken by arms the posts of Kaskaskias and Vincennes, or St. Vincent, from the British forces, by whom they were then held, and driven those forces from the country northwest of the Ohio, east of the Mississippi, and west of the Great Miami, did, by an act of Assembly of that date, entitled, 'An act for establishing the county of Illinois, and for the more effectual protection and defence thereof,' erect that country, with certain other portions of territory within the limits of the State, and northwest of the Ohio, into a county, by the name of the county of Illinois. 19th. That on the 20th of December, 1783, the State of Virginia, by an act of Assembly of that date, authorized their Delegates in the Congress of the United States, or such of them, to the number of three at least, as should be assembled in Congress, on behalf of the State, and by proper deeds or instruments in writing under their hands and seals, to convey, transfer, assign, and make over to the United States, in Congress assembled, for the benefit of the said States, all right, title, and claim, as well of soil as jurisdiction, which Virginia had to the territory or tract of country within her limits, as defined and prescribed by the letters patent of May 23d, 1609, and lying to the northwest of the Ohio; subject to certain limitations and conditions in the act prescribed and specified; and that on the 1st of March, 1784, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Hardy, Arthur Lee, and James Monroe, then being four of the Delegates \\\\\\560 of Virginia to the Congress of the United States, did, by their deed poll, under their hands and seals, in pursuance and execution of the authority to them given by this act of Assembly, convey, transfer, assign, and make over to the United States, in Congress assembled, for the benefit of the said States, all right, title, and claim, as well of soil as jurisdiction, which that State had to the territory northwest of the Ohio, with the reservations, limitations, and conditions, in the act of Assembly prescribed; which cession the United States accepted. 20th. That on the twentieth day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eighteen, the United States, by their officers duly authorized for that purpose, did sell, grant, and convey to the defendant in this action, William M'Intosh, all those several tracts or parcels of land, containing 11,560 acres, and butted, bounded, and described, as will fully appear in and by the patent for the said lands, duly executed, which was set out at length. 21st. That the lands described and granted in and by this patent, are situated within the State of Illinois, and are contained within the lines of the last, or second of the two tracts, described and purporting to be granted and conveyed to Louis Viviat and others, by the deed of October 18th, 1775; and that William M'Intosh, the defendant, entered upon these lands under, and by virtue of his patent, and became possessed thereof before the institution of this suit. 22d. That Thomas Johnson, one of the grantees, \\\\\\561 in and under the deed of October 18th, 1775, departed this life on or about the 1st day of October, 1819, seised of all his undivided part or share of, and in the two several tracts of land, described and purporting to be granted and conveyed to him and others by that deed, having first duly made and published his last will and testament in writing, attested by three credible witnesses, which he left in full force, and by which he devised all his undivided share and part of those two tracts of land, to his son, Joshua Johnson, and his heirs, and his grandson, Thomas J. Graham, and his heirs, the lessors of the plaintiff in this action, as tenants in common. 23d. That Joshua Johnson, and Thomas J. Graham, ham, the devisees, entered into the two tracts of land last above mentioned, under and by virtue of the will, and became thereof seised as the law requires. That Thomas Johnson, the grantee and devisor, during his whole life, and at the time of his death, was an inhabitant and citizen of the State of Maryland; that Joshua Johnson, and Thomas J. Graham, the lessors of the plaintiff, now are, and always have been, citizens of the same State; that the defendant, William M'Intosh, now is, and at and before the time of bringing this action was, a citizen of the State of Illinois; and that the matter in dispute in this action is of the value of 2000 dollars, current money of the United States, and upwards. 24th. And that neither William Murray, nor any other of the grantees under the deed of July the 5th, 1773, nor Louis Viviat, nor any other of the \\\\\\562 grantees under the deed of October the 8th, 1775, nor any person for them, or any of them, ever obtained, or had the actual possession, under and by virtue of those deeds, or either of them, of any part of the lands in them, or either of them, described and purporting to be granted; but were prevented by the war of the American revolution, which soon after commenced, and by the disputes and troubles which preceded it, from obtaining such possession; and that since the termination of the war, and before it, they have repeatedly, and at various times, from the year 1781, till the year 1816, petitioned the Congress of the United States to acknowledge and confirm their title to those lands, under the purchases and deeds in question, but without success. Judgment being given for the defendant on the case stated, the plaintiffs brought this writ of error. \\\\\\562 The cause was argued by Mr. Harper and Mr. Webster for the plaintiffs, and by Mr. Winder and Mr. Murray for the defendants. But as the arguments are so fully stated in the opinion of the Court, it is deemed unnecessary to give any thing more than the following summary. On the part of the plaintiffs, it was contended, 1. That upon the facts stated in the case, the Piankeshaw Indians were the owners of the lands in dispute, at the time of executing the deed of October 10th, 1775, and had power to sell. But as the United States had purchased the same lands of the same Indians, both parties claim from the same source. It would seem, therefore, to be unnecessary, and merely speculative, to discuss \\\\\\563 the question respecting the sort of title or ownership, which may be thought to belong to savage tribes, in the lands on which they live. Probably, however, their title by occupancy is to be respected, as much as that of an individual, obtained by the same right, in a civilized state. The circumstance, that the members of the society held in common, did not affect the strength of their title by occupancy. \\[Footnote\\] In the memorial, or manifesto, of the British government, in 1755, a right of soil in the Indians is admitted. It is also admitted in the treaties of Utrecht and Aix la Chapelle. The same opinion has been expressed by this Court \\[Footnote\\] , and by the Supreme Court of New-York. \\[Footnote\\] In short, all, or nearly all, the lands in the United States, is holden under purchases from the Indian nations; and the only question in this case must be, whether it be competent to individuals to make such purchases, or whether that be the exclusive prerogative of government. 1. That the British king's proclamation of October 7th, 1763, could not affect this right of the Indians to sell; because they were not British subjects, nor in any manner bound by the authority of the British government, legislative or executive. And, because, even admitting them to be British subjects, absolutely, or sub modo, they were still proprietors of the soil, and could not be devested of their rights of property, or any of its \\\\\\564 incidents, by a mere act of the executive government, such as this proclamation. 2. That the proclamation of 1763 could not restrain the purchasers under these deeds from purchasing; because the lands lay within the limits of the colony of Virginia, of which, or of some other British colony, the purchasers, all being British subjects, were inhabitants. And because the king had not, within the limits of that colonial government, or any other, any power of prerogative legislation; which is confined to countries newly conquered, and remaining in the military possession of the monarch, as supreme chief of the military forces of the nation. The present claim has long been known to the government of the United States, and is mentioned in the Collection of Land Laws, published under public authority. The compiler of those laws supposes this title void, by virtue of the proclamation of 1763. But we have the positive authority of a solemn determination of the Court of King's Bench, on this very proclamation, in the celebrated Grenada case, for asserting that it could have no such effect. \\[Footnote\\] This country being a new conquest, and a military possession, the crown might exercise legislative powers, until a local legislature was established. But the establishment of a government establishes a system of laws, and excludes the power of legislating by proclamation. The proclamation could not have the force of law within the chartered limits of Virginia. A proclamation, \\\\\\565 that no person should purchase land in England or Canada, would be clearly void. 3. That the act of Assembly of Virginia, passed in May, 1779, \\[Footnote\\] cannot affect the right of the plaintiffs, and others claiming under these deeds; because, on general principles, and by the constitution of Virginia, the legislature was not competent to take away private, vested rights, or appropriate private property to public use, under the circumstances of this case. And because the act is not \\\\\\566 contained in the revisal of 1794, and must, therefore, be considered as repealed; and the repeal reinstates all rights that might have been affected by the act, although the territory, in which the lands in question lie, was ceded to the United States before the repeal. The act of 1779 was passed after the sales were made, and it cannot affect titles previously obtained. At the time of the purchases there was no law of Virginia rendering such purchases void. If, therefore, the purchases were not affected by the proclamation of 1763, nor by the act of 1779, the question of their validity comes to the general inquiry, whether individuals, in Virginia, at the time of this purchase, could legally obtain Indian titles. In New-England, titles have certainly been obtained in this mode. But whatever may be said on the more general question, and in reference to other colonies or States, the fact being, that in Virginia there was no statute existing at the time against such purchases, mere general considerations would not apply. It may be true, that in almost all the colonies, individual purchases from the Indians were illegal; but they were rendered so by express provisions of the local law. In Virginia, also, it may be true, that such purchases have generally been prohibited; but at the time the purchases now in question were made, there was no prohibitory law in existence. The old colonial laws on the subject had all been repealed. The act of 1779 was a private act, so far as respects this case. It is the same as if it had enacted, that these particular deeds were void. Such acts \\\\\\567 bind only those who are parties to them, who submit their case to the Legislature. On the part of the defendants, it was insisted, that the uniform understanding and practice of European nations, and the settled law, as laid down by the tribunals of civilized states, denied the right of the Indians to be considered as independent communities, having a permanent property in the soil, capable of alienation to private individuals. They remain in a state of nature, and have never been admitted into the general society of nations. \\[Footnote\\] All the treaties and negotiations between the civilized powers of Europe and of this continent, from the treaty of Utrecht, in 1713, to that of Ghent, in 1814, have uniformly disregarded their supposed right to the territory included within the jurisdictional limits of those powers. \\[Footnote\\] Not only has the practice of all civilized nations been in conformity with this doctrine, but the whole theory of their titles to lands in America, rests upon the hypothesis, that the Indians had no right of soil as sovereign, independent states. Discovery is the foundation of title, in European nations, and this overlooks all proprietary rights in the natives. \\[Footnote\\] The sovereignty and \\\\\\568 eminent domain thus acquired, necessarily precludes the idea of any other sovereignty existing within the same limits. The subjects of the discovering nation must necessarily be bound by the declared sense of their own government, as to the extent of this sovereignty, and the domain acquired with it. Even if it should be admitted that the Indians were originally an independent people, they have ceased to be so. A nation that has passed under the dominion of another, is no longer a sovereign state. \\[Footnote\\] The same treaties and negotiations, before referred to, show their dependent condition. Or, if it be admitted that they are now independent and foreign states, the title of the plaintiffs would still be invalid: as grantees from the Indians, they must take according to their laws of property, and as Indian subjects. The law of every dominion affects all persons and property situate within it; \\[Footnote\\] and the Indians never had any idea of individual property in lands. It cannot be said that the lands conveyed were disjoined from their dominion; because the grantees could not take the sovereignty and eminent domain to themselves. Such, then, being the nature of the Indian title to lands, the extent of their right of alienation must depend upon the laws of the dominion under which they live. They are subject to the sovereignty of the United States. The subjection proceeds from their residence within our territory \\\\\\569 and jurisdiction. It is unnecessary to show, that they are not citizens in the ordinary sense of that term, since they are destitute of the most essential rights which belong to that character. They are of that class who are said by jurists not to be citizens, but perpetual inhabitants with diminutive rights. \\[Footnote\\] The statutes of Virginia, and of all the other colonies, and of the United States, treat them as an inferior race of people, without the privileges of citizens, and under the perpetual protection and pupilage of the government. The act of Virginia of 1662, forbade purchases from the Indians, and it does not appear that it was ever repealed. The act of 1779 is rather to be regarded as a declaratory act, founded upon what had always been regarded as the settled law. These statutes seem to define sufficiently the nature of the Indian title to lands; a mere right of usufruct and habitation, without power of alienation. By the law of nature, they had not acquired a fixed property capable of being transferred. The measure of property acquired by occupancy is determined, according to the law of nature, by the extent of men's wants, and their capacity of using it to supply them. \\[Footnote\\] It is a violation of the rights of others to exclude them from the use of what we do not want, and they have an occasion for. Upon this principle the North American Indians could have acquired no proprietary interest in the vast tracts \\\\\\570 of territory which they wandered over; and their right to the lands on which they hunted, could not be considered as superior to that which is acquired to the sea by fishing in it. The use in the one case, as well as the other, is not exclusive. \\[Footnote\\] According to every theory of property, the Indians had no individual rights to land; nor had they any collectively, or in their national capacity; for the lands occupied by each tribe were not used by them in such a manner as to prevent their being appropriated by a people of cultivators. All the proprietary rights of civilized nations on this continent are founded on this principle. The right derived from discovery and conquest, can rest on no other basis; and all existing titles depend on the fundamental title of the crown by discovery. The title of the crown (as representing the nation) passed to the colonists by charters, which were absolute grants of the soil; and it was a first principle in colonial law, that all titles must be derived from the crown. It is true that, in some cases, purchases were made by the colonies from the Indians; but this was merely a measure of policy to prevent hostilities; and William Penn's purchase, which was the most remarkable transaction of this kind, was not deemed to add to the strength of his title. \\[Footnote\\] In most of the colonies, the \\\\\\571 doctrine was received, that all titles ot land must be derived exclusively from the crown, upon the principle that the settlers carried with them, not only all the rights, but all the duties of Englishmen; and particularly the laws of property, so far as they are suitable to their new condition. \\[Footnote\\] In New-England alone, some lands have been held under Indian deeds. But this was an anomaly arising from peculiar local and political causes. \\[Footnote\\] As to the effect of the proclamation of 1763: if the Indians are to be regarded as independent sovereign states, then, by the treaty of peace, they became subject to the prerogative legislation of the crown, as a conquered people, in a territory acquired, jure belli, and ceded at the peace. \\[Footnote\\] If, on the contrary, this country be regarded as a royal colony, then the crown had a direct power of legislation; or at least the power of prescribing the limits within which grants of land and settlements should be made within the colony. The same practice always prevailed under the proprietary governments, and has been followed by the government of the United States. March 10th. Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court. The plaintiffs in this cause claim the land, in their declaration mentioned, under two grants, purporting to be made, the first in 1773, and the last in 1775, by the chiefs of certain \\\\\\572 Indian tribes, constituting the Illinois and the Piankeshaw nations; and the question is, whether this title can be recognised in the Courts of the United States? The facts, as stated in the case agreed, show the authority of the chiefs who executed this conveyance, so far as it could be given by their own people; and likewise show, that the particular tribes for whom these chiefs acted were in rightful possession of the land they sold. The inquiry, therefore, is, in a great measure, confined to the power of Indians to give, and of private individuals to receive, a title which can be sustained in the Courts of this country. As the right of society, to prescribe those rules by which property may be acquired and preserved is not, and cannot be drawn into question; as the title to lands, especially, is and must be admitted to depend entirely on the law of the nation in which they lie; it will be necessary, in pursuing this inquiry, to examine, not singly those principles of abstract justice, which the Creator of all things has impressed on the mind of his creature man, and which are admitted to regulate, in a great degree, the rights of civilized nations, whose perfect independence is acknowledged; but those principles also which our own government has adopted in the particular case, and given us as the rule for our decision. On the discovery of this immense continent, the great nations of Europe were eager to appropriate to themselves so much of it as they could respectively acquire. Its vast extent offered an \\\\\\573 ample field to the ambition and enterprise of all; and the character and religion of its inhabitants afforded an apology for considering them as a people over whom the superior genius of Europe might claim an ascendency. The potentates of the old world found no difficulty in convincing themselves that they made ample compensation to the inhabitants of the new, by bestowing on them civilization and Christianity, in exchange for unlimited independence. But, as they were all in pursuit of nearly the same object, it was necessary, in order to avoid conflicting settlements, and consequent war with each other, to establish a principle, which all should acknowledge as the law by which the right of acquisition, which they all asserted, should be regulated as between themselves. This principle was, that discovery gave title to the government by whose subjects, or by whose authority, it was made, against all other European governments, which title might be consummated by possession. The exclusion of all other Europeans, necessarily gave to the nation making the discovery the sole right of acquiring the soil from the natives, and establishing settlements upon it. It was a right with which no Europeans could interfere. It was a right which all asserted for themselves, and to the assertion of which, by others, all assented. Those relations which were to exist between the discoverer and the natives, were to be regulated by themselves. The rights thus acquired being exclusive, no other power could interpose between them. \\\\\\574 In the establishment of these relations, the rights of the original inhabitants were, in no instance, entirely disregarded; but were necessarily, to a considerable extent, impaired. They were admitted to be the rightful occupants of the soil, with a legal as well as just claim to retain possession of it, and to use it according to their own discretion; but their rights to complete sovereignty, as independent nations, were necessarily diminished, and their power to dispose of the soil at their own will, to whomsoever they pleased, was denied by the original fundamental principle, that discovery gave exclusive title to those who made it. While the different nations of Europe respected the right of the natives, as occupants, they asserted the ultimate dominion to be in themselves; and claimed and exercised, as a consequence of this ultimate dominion, a power to grant the soil, while yet in possession of the natives. These grants have been understood by all, to convey a title to the grantees, subject only to the Indian right of occupancy. The history of America, from its discovery to the present day, proves, we think, the universal recognition of these principles. Spain did not rest her title solely on the grant of the Pope. Her discussions respecting boundary, with France, with Great Britain, and with the United States, all show that she placed in on the rights given by discovery. Portugal sustained her claim to the Brazils by the same title. France, also, founded her title to the vast territories she claimed in America on discovery. However \\\\\\575 conciliatory her conduct to the natives may have been, she still asserted her right of dominion over a great extent of country not actually settled by Frenchmen, and her exclusive right to acquire and dispose of the soil which remained in the occupation of Indians. Her monarch claimed all Canada and Acadie, as colonies of France, at a time when the French population was very inconsiderable, and the Indians occupied almost the whole country. He also claimed Louisiana, comprehending the immense territories watered by the Mississippi, and the rivers which empty into it, by the title of discovery. The letters patent granted to the Sieur Demonts, in 1603, constitute him Lieutenant General, and the representative of the King in Acadie, which is described as stretching from the 40th to the 46th degree of north latitude; with authority to extend the power of the French over that country, and its inhabitants, to give laws to the people, to treat with the natives, and enforce the observance of treaties, and to parcel out, and give title to lands, according to his own judgment. The States of Holland also made acquisitions in America, and sustained their right on the common principle adopted by all Europe. They allege, as we are told by Smith, in his History of New-York, that Henry Hudson, who sailed, as they say, under the orders of their East India Company, discovered the country from the Delaware to the Hudson, up which he sailed to the 43d degree of north latitude; and this country they claimed under the title acquired by this voyage. \\\\\\576 Their first object was commercial, as appears by a grant made to a company of merchants in 1614; but in 1621, the States General made, as we are told by Mr. Smith, a grant of the country to the West India Company, by the name of New Netherlands. The claim of the Dutch was always contested by the English; not because they questioned the title given by discovery, but because they insisted on being themselves the rightful claimants under that title. Their pretensions were finally decided by the sword. No one of the powers of Europe gave its full assent to this principle, more unequivocally than England. The documents upon this subject are ample and complete. So early as the year 1496, her monarch granted a commission to the Cabots, to discover countries then unknown to Christian people, and to take possession of them in the name of the king of England. Two years afterwards, Cabot proceeded on this voyage, and discovered the continent of North America, along which he sailed as far south as Virginia. To this discovery the English trace their title. In this first effort made by the English government to acquire territory on this continent, we perceive a complete recognition of the principle which has been mentioned. The right of discovery given by this commission, is confined to countries 'then unknown to all Christian people;' and of these countries Cabot was empowered to take possession in the name of the king of England. Thus asserting a right to take possession, \\\\\\577 notwithstanding the occupancy of the natives, who were heathens, and, at the same time, admitting the prior title of any Christian people who may have made a previous discovery. The same principle continued to be recognised. The charter granted to Sir Humphrey Gilbert, in 1578, authorizes him to discover and take possession of such remote, heathen, and barbarous lands, as were not actually possessed by any Christian prince or people. This charter was afterwards renewed to Sir Walter Raleigh, in nearly the same terms. By the charter of 1606, under which the first permanent English settlement on this continent was made, James I. granted to Sir Thomas Gates and others, those territories in America lying on the seacoast, between the 34th and 45th degrees of north latitude, and which either belonged to that monarch, or were not then possessed by any other Christian prince or people. The grantees were divided into two companies at their own request. The first, or southern colony, was directed to settle between the 34th and 41st degrees of north latitude; and the second, or northern colony, between the 38th and 45th degrees. In 1609, after some expensive and not very successful attempts at settlement had been made, a new and more enlarged charter was givne by the crown to the first colony, in which the king granted to the 'Treasurer and Company of Adventurers of the city of London for the first colony in Virginia,' in absolute property, the lands extending along the seacoast four hundred miles, and \\\\\\578 into the land throughout from sea to sea. This charter, which is a part of the special verdict in this cause, was annulled, so far as respected the rights of the company, by the judgment of the Court of King's Bench on a writ of quo warranto; but the whole effect allowed to this judgment was, to revest in the crown the powers of government, and the title to the lands within its limits. At the solicitation of those who held under the grant to the second or northern colony, a new and more enlarged charter was granted to the Duke of Lenox and others, in 1620, who were denominated the Plymouth Company, conveying to them in absolute property all the lands between the 40th and 48th degrees of north latitude. Under this patent, New-England has been in a great measure settled. The company conveyed to Henry Rosewell and others, in 1627, that territory which is now Massachusetts; and in 1628, a charter of incorporation, comprehending the powers of government, was granted to the purchasers. Great part of New-England was granted by this company, which, at length, divided their remaining lands among themselves; and, in 1635, surrendered their charter to the crown. A patent was granted to Gorges for Maine, which was allotted to him in the division of property. All the grants made by the Plymouth Company, so far as we can learn, have been respected. In pursuance of the same principle, the king, in 1664, granted to the Duke of York the country of New-England as far south as the Delaware \\\\\\579 bay. His royal highness transferred New-Jersey to Lord Berkeley and Sir George Carteret. In 1663, the crown granted to Lord Clarendon and others, the country lying between the 36th degree of north latitude and the river St. Mathes; and, in 1666, the proprietors obtained from the crown a new charter, granting to them that province in the king's dominions in North America which lies from 36 degrees 30 minutes north latitude to the 29th degree, and from the Atlantic ocean to the South sea. Thus has our whole country been granted by the crown while in the occupation of the Indians. These grants purport to convey the soil as well as the right of dominion to the grantees. In those governments which were denominated royal, where the right to the soil was not vested in individuals, but remained in the crown, or was vested in the colonial government, the king claimed and exercised the right of granting lands, and of dismembering the government at his will. The grants made out of the two original colonies, after the resumption of their charters by the crown, are examples of this. The governments of New-England, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and a part of Carolina, were thus created. In all of them, the soil, at the time the grants were made, was occupied by the Indians. Yet almost every title within those governments is dependent on these grants. In some instances, the soil was conveyed by the crown unaccompanied by the powers of government, as in the case of the northern neck of Virginia. It has never \\\\\\580 been objected to this, or to any other similar grant, that the title as well as possession was in the Indians when it was made, and that it passed nothing on that account. These various patents cannot be considered as nullities; nor can they be limited to a mere grant of the powers of government. A charter intended to convey political power only, would never contain words expressly granting the land, the soil, and the waters. Some of them purport to convey the soil alone; and in those cases in which the powers of government, as well as the soil, are conveyed to individuals, the crown has always acknowledged itself to be bound by the grant. Though the power to dismember regal governments was asserted and exercised, the power to dismember proprietary governments was not claimed; and, in some instances, even after the powers of government were revested in the crown, the title of the proprietors to the soil was respected. Charles II. was extremely anxious to acquire the property of Maine, but the grantees sold it to Massachusetts, and he did not venture to contest the right of that colony to the soil. The Carolinas were originally proprietary governments. In 1721 a revolution was effected by the people, who shook off their obedience to the proprietors, and declared their dependence immediately on the crown. The king, however, purchased the title of those who were disposed to sell. One of them, Lord Carteret, surrendered his interest in the government, but retained his title to the soil. That \\\\\\581 title was respected till the revolution, when it was forfeited by the laws of war. Further proofs of the extent to which this principle has been recognised, will be found in the history of the wars, negotiations, and treaties, which the different nations, claiming territory in America, have carried on, and held with each other. The contests between the cabinets of Versailles and Madrid, respecting the territory on the northern coast of the gulf of Mexico, were fierce and bloody; and continued, until the establishment of a Bourbon on the throne of Spain, produced such amicable dispositions in the two crowns, as to suspend or terminate them. Between France and Great Britain, whose discoveries as well as settlements were nearly contemporaneous, contests for the country, actually covered by the Indians, began as soon as their settlements approached each other, and were continued until finally settled in the year 1763, by the treaty of Paris. Each nation had granted and partially settled the country, denominated by the French, Acadie, and by the English, Nova Scotia. By the 12th article of the treaty of Utrecht, made in 1703, his most Christian Majesty ceded to the Queen of Great Britain, 'all Nova Scotia or Acadie, with its ancient boundaries.' A great part of the ceded territory was in the possession of the Indians, and the extent of the cession could not be adjusted by the commissioners to whom it was to be referred. The treaty of Aix la Chapelle, which was made \\\\\\582 on the principle of the status ante bellum, did not remove this subject of controversy. Commissioners for its adjustment were appointed, whose very able and elaborate, though unsuccessful arguments, in favour of the title of their respective sovereigns, show how entirely each relied on the title given by discovery to lands remaining in the possession of Indians. After the termination of this fruitless discussion, the subject was transferred to Europe, and taken up by the cabinets of Versailles and London. This controversy embraced not only the boundaries of New-England, Nova Scotia, and that part of Canada which adjoined those colonies, but embraced our whole western country also. France contended not only that the St. Lawrence was to be considered as the centre of Canada, but that the Ohio was within that colony. She founded this claim on discovery, and on having used that river for the transportation of troops, in a war with some southern Indians. This river was comprehended in the chartered limits of Virginia; but, though the right of England to a reasonable extent of country, in virtue of her discovery of the seacoast, and of the settlements she made on it, was not to be questioned; her claim of all the lands to the Pacific ocean, because she had discovered the country washed by the Atlantic, might, without derogating from the principle recognised by all, be deemed extravagant. It interfered, too, with the claims of France, founded on the same principle. She therefore sought to strengthen her original title to \\\\\\583 the lands in controversy, by insisting that it had been acknowledged by France in the 15th article of the treaty of Utrecht. The dispute respecting the construction of that article, has no tendency to impair the principle, that discovery gave a title to lands still remaining in the possession of the Indians. Whichever title prevailed, it was still a title to lands occupied by the Indians, whose right of occupancy neither controverted, and neither had then extinguished. These conflicting claims produced a long and bloody war, which was terminated by the conquest of the whole country east of the Mississippi. In the treaty of 1763, France ceded and guarantied to Great Britain, all Nova Scotia, or Acadie, and Canada, with their dependencies; and it was agreed, that the boundaries between the territories of the two nations, in America, should be irrevocably fixed by a line drawn from the source of the Mississippi, through the middle of that river and the lakes Maurepas and Ponchartrain, to the sea. This treaty expressly cedes, and has always been understood to cede, the whole country, on the English side of the dividing line, between the two nations, although a great and valuable part of it was occupied by the Indians. Great Britain, on her part, surrendered to France all her pretensions to the country west of the Mississippi. It has never been supposed that she surrendered nothing, although she was not in actual possession of a foot of land. She surrendered all right to acquired the country; and any after attempt to purchase it from the Indians, would have been considered \\\\\\584 and treated as an invasion of the territories of France. By the 20th article of the same treaty, Spain ceded Florida, with its dependencies, and all the country she claimed east or southeast of the Mississippi, to Great Britain. Great part of this territory also was in possession of the Indians. By a secret treaty, which was executed about the same time, France ceded Louisiana to Spain; and Spain has since retroceded the same country to France. At the time both of its cession and retrocession, it was occupied, chiefly, by the Indians. Thus, all the nations of Europe, who have acquired territory on this continent, have asserted in themselves, and have recognised in others, the exclusive right of the discoverer to appropriate the lands occupied by the Indians. Have the American States rejected or adopted this principle? By the treaty which concluded the war of our revolution, Great Britain relinquished all claim, not only to the government, but to the 'propriety and territorial rights of the United States,' whose boundaries were fixed in the second article. By this treaty, the powers of government, and the right to soil, which had previously been in Great Britain, passed definitively to these States. We had before taken possession of them, by declaring independence; but neither the declaration of independence, nor the treaty confirming it, could give us more than that which we before possessed, or to which Great Britain was before entitled. It \\\\\\585 has never been doubted, that either the United States, or the several States, had a clear title to all the lands within the boundary lines described in the treaty, subject only to the Indian right of occupancy, and that the exclusive power to extinguish that right, was vested in that government which might constitutionally exercise it. Virginia, particularly, within whose chartered limits the land in controversy lay, passed an act, in the year 1779, declaring her 'exclusive right of pre- emption from the Indians, of all the lands within the limits of her own chartered territory, and that no person or persons whatsoever, have, or ever had, a right to purchase any lands within the same, from any Indian nation, except only persons duly authorized to make such purchase; formerly for the use and benefit of the colony, and lately for the Commonwealth.' The act then proceeds to annul all deeds made by Indians to individuals, for the private use of the purchasers. Without ascribing to this act the power of annulling vested rights, or admitting it to countervail the testimony furnished by the marginal note opposite to the title of the law, forbidding purchases from the Indians, in the revisals of the Virginia statutes, stating that law to be repealed, it may safely be considered as an unequivocal affirmance, on the part of Virginia, of the broad principle which had always been maintained, that the exclusive right to purchase from the Indians resided in the government. In pursuance of the same idea, Virginia proceeded, at the same session, to open her \\\\\\586 land office, for the sale of that country which now constitutes Kentucky, a country, every acre of which was then claimed and possessed by Indians, who maintained their title with as much persevering courage as was ever manifested by any people. The States, having within their chartered limits different portions of territory covered by Indians, ceded that territory, generally, to the United States, on conditions expressed in their deeds of cession, which demonstrate the opinion, that they ceded the soil as well as jurisdiction, and that in doing so, they granted a productive fund to the government of the Union. The lands in controversy lay within the chartered limits of Virginia, and were ceded with the whole country northwest of the river Ohio. This grant contained reservations and stipulations, which could only be made by the owners of the soil; and concluded with a stipulation, that 'all the lands in the ceded territory, not reserved, should be considered as a common fund, for the use and benefit of such of the United States as have become, or shall become, members of the confederation,' &c. 'according to their usual respective proportions in the general charge and expenditure, and shall be faithfully and bona fide disposed of for that purpose, and for no other use or purpose whatsoever.' The ceded territory was occupied by numerous and warlike tribes of Indians; but the exclusive right of the United States to extinguish their title, and to grant the soil, has never, we believe, been doubted. \\\\\\587 After these States became independent, a controversy subsisted between them and Spain respecting boundary. By the treaty of 1795, this controversy was adjusted, and Spain ceded to the United States the territory in question. This territory, though claimed by both nations, was chiefly in the actual occupation of Indians. The magnificent purchase of Louisiana, was the purchase from France of a country almost entirely occupied by numerous tribes of Indians, who are in fact independent. Yet, any attempt of others to intrude into that country, would be considered as an aggression which would justify war. Our late acquisitions from Spain are of the same character; and the negotiations which preceded those acquisitions, recognise and elucidate the principle which has been received as the foundation of all European title in America. The United States, then, have unequivocally acceded to that great and broad rule by which its civilized inhabitants now hold this country. They hold, and assert in themselves, the title by which it was acquired. They maintain, as all others have maintained, that discovery gave an exclusive right to extinguish the Indian title of occupancy, either by purchase or by conquest; and gave also a right to such a degree of sovereignty, as the circumstances of the people would allow them to exercise. The power now possessed by the government of the United States to grant lands, resided, while we were colonies, in the crown, or its grantees. The validity of the titles given by either has never \\\\\\588 been questioned in our Courts. It has been exercised uniformly over territory in possession of the Indians. The existence of this power must negative the existence of any right which may conflict with, and control it. An absolute title to lands cannot exist, at the same time, in different persons, or in different governments. An absolute, must be an exclusive title, or at least a title which excludes all others not compatible with it. All our institutions recognise the absolute title of the crown, subject only to the Indian right of occupancy, and recognise the absolute title of the erown to extinguish that right. This is incompatible with an absolute and complete title in the Indians. We will not enter into the controversy, whether agriculturists, merchants, and manufacturers, have a right, on abstract principles, to expel hunters from the territory they possess, or to contract their limits. Conquest gives a title which the Courts of the conqueror cannot deny, whatever the private and speculative opinions of individuals may be, respecting the original justice of the claim which has been successfully asserted. The British government, which was then our government, and whose rights have passed to the United States, asserted title to all the lands occupied by Indians, within the chartered limits of the British colonies. It asserted also a limited sovereignty over them, and the exclusive right of extinguishing the title which occupancy gave to them. These claims have been maintained and established as far west as the river Mississippi, by the sword. The title \\\\\\589 to a vast portion of the lands we now hold, originates in them. It is not for the Courts of this country to question the validity of this title, or to sustain one which is incompatible with it. Although we do not mean to engage in the defence of those principles which Europeans have applied to Indian title, they may, we think, find some excuse, if not justification, in the character and habits of the people whose rights have been wrested from them. The title by conquest is acquired and maintained by force. The conqueror prescribes its limits. Humanity, however, acting on public opinion, has established, as a general rule, that the conquered shall not be wantonly oppressed, and that their condition shall remain as eligible as is compatible with the objects of the conquest. Most usually, they are incorporated with the victorious nation, and become subjects or citizens of the government with which they are connected. The new and old members of the society mingle with each other; the distinction between them is grandually lost, and they make one people. Where this incorporation is practicable, humanity demands, and a wise policy requires, that the rights of the conquered to property should remain unimpaired; that the new subjects should be governed as equitably as the old, and that confidence in their security should gradually banish the painful sense of being separated from their ancient connexions, and united by force to strangers. When the conquest is complete, and the conquered inhabitants can be blended with the conquerors, \\\\\\590 or safely governed as a distinct people, public opinion, which not even the conqueror can disregard, imposes these restraints upon him; and he cannot neglect them without injury to his fame, and hazard to his power. But the tribes of Indians inhabiting this country were fierce savages, whose occupation was war, and whose subsistence was drawn chiefly from the forest. To leave them in possession of their country, was to leave the country a wilderness; to govern them as a distinct people, was impossible, because they were as brave and as high spirited as they were fierce, and were ready to repel by arms every attempt on their independence. What was the inevitable consequence of this state of things? The Europeans were under the necessity either of abandoning the country, and relinquishing their pompous claims to it, or of enforcing those claims by the sword, and by the adoption of principles adapted to the condition of a people with whom it was impossible to mix, and who could not be governed as a distinct society, or of remaining in their neighbourhood, and exposing themselves and their families to the perpetual hazard of being massacred. Frequent and bloody wars, in which the whites were not always the aggressors, unavoidably ensued. European policy, numbers, and skill, prevailed. As the white population advanced, that of the Indians necessarily receded. The country in the immediate neighbourhood of agriculturists became unfit for them. The game fled \\\\\\591 into thicker and more unbroken forests, and the Indians followed. The soil, to which the crown originally claimed title, being no longer occupied by its ancient inhabitants, was parcelled out according to the will of the sovereign power, and taken possession of by persons who claimed immediately from the crown, or mediately, through its grantees or deputies. That law which regulates, and ought to regulate in general, the relations between the conqueror and conquered, was incapable of application to a people under such circumstances. The resort to some new and different rule, better adapted to the actual state of things, was unavoidable. Every rule which can be suggested will be found to be attended with great difficulty. However extravagant the pretension of converting the discovery of an inhabited country into conquest may appear; if the principle has been asserted in the first instance, and afterwards sustained; if a country has been acquired and held under it; if the property of the great mass of the community originates in it, it becomes the law of the land, and cannot be questioned. So, too, with respect to the concomitant principle, that the Indian inhabitants are to be considered merely as occupants, to be protected, indeed, while in peace, in the possession of their lands, but to be deemed incapable of transferring the absolute title to others. However this restriction may be opposed to natural right, and to the usages of civilized nations, yet, if it be indispensable to that system under which the country has been settled, and be \\\\\\592 adapted to the actual condition of the two people, it may, perhaps, be supported by reason, and certainly cannot be rejected by Courts of justice. This question is not entirely new in this Court. The case of Fletcher v. Peck, grew out of a sale made by the State of Georgia of a large tract of country within the limits of that State, the grant of which was afterwards resumed. The action was brought by a sub-purchaser, on the contract of sale, and one of the covenants in the deed was, that the State of Georgia was, at the time of sale, seised in fee of the premises. The real question presented by the issue was, whether the seisin in fee was in the State of Georgia, or in the United States. After stating, that this controversy between the several States and the United States, had been compromised, the Court thought in necessary to notice the Indian title, which, although entitled to the respect of all Courts until it should be legitimately extinguished, was declared not to be such as to be absolutely repugnant to a seisin in fee on the part of the State. This opinion conforms precisely to the principle which has been supposed to be recognised by all European governments, from the first settlement of America. The absolute ultimate title has been considered as acquired by discovery, subject only to the Indian title of occupancy, which title the discoverers possessed the exclusive right of acquiring. Such a right is no more incompatible with a seisin in fee, than a lease for years, and might as effectually bar an ejectment. Another view has been taken of this question, \\\\\\593 which deserves to be considered. The title of the crown, whatever it might be, could be acquired only by a coveyance from the crown. If an individual might extinguish the Indian title for his own benefit, or, in other words, might purchase it, still he could acquire only that title. Admitting their power to change their laws or usages, so far as to allow an individual to separate a portion of their lands from the common stock, and hold it in severalty, still it is a part of their territory, and is held under them, by a title dependent on their laws. The grant derives its efficacy from their will; and, if they choose to resume it, and make a different disposition of the land, the Courts of the United States cannot interpose for the protection of the title. The person who purchases lands from the Indians, within their territory, incorporates himself with them, so far as respects the property purchased; holds their title under their protection, and subject to their laws. If they annul the grant, we know of no tribunal which can revise and set aside the proceeding. We know of no principle which can distinguish this case from a grant made to a native Indian, authorizing him to hold a particular tract of land in severalty. As such a grant could not separate the Indian from his nation, nor give a title which our Courts could distinguish from the title of his tribe, as it might still be conquered from, or ceded by his tribe, we can perceive no legal principle which will authorize a Court to say, that different consequences are attached to this purchase, because it was made by a stranger. By the treaties concluded \\\\\\594 between the United States and the Indian nations, whose title the plaintiffs claim, the country comprehending the lands in controversy has been ceded to the United States, without any reservation of their title. These nations had been at war with the United States, and had an unquestionable right to annul any grant they had made to American citizens. Their cession of the country, without a reservation of this land, affords a fair presumption, that they considered it as of no validity. They ceded to the United States this very property, after having used it in common with other lands, as their own, from the date of their deeds to the time of cession; and the attempt now made, is to set up their title against that of the United States. The proclamation issued by the King of Great Britain, in 1763, has been considered, and, we think, with reason, as constituting an additional objection to the title of the plaintiffs. By that proclamation, the crown reserved under its own dominion and protection, for the use of the Indians, 'all the land and territories lying to the westward of the sources of the rivers which fall into the sea from the west and northwest,' and strictly forbade all British subjects from making any purchases or settlements whatever, or taking possession of the reserved lands. It has been contended, that, in this proclamation, the king transcended his constitutional powers; and the case of Campbell v. Hall, (reported by Cowper,) is relied on to support this position. \\\\\\595 It is supposed to be a principle of universal law, that, if an uninhabited country be discovered by a number of individuals, who acknowledge no connexion with, and owe no allegiance to, any government whatever, the country becomes the property of the discoverers, so far at least as they can use it. They acquire a title in common. The title of the whole land is in the whole society. It is to be divided and parcelled out according to the will of the society, expressed by the whole body, or by that organ which is authorized by the whole to express it. If the discovery be made, and possession of the country be taken, under the authority of an existing government, which is acknowledged by the emigrants, it is supposed to be equally well settled, that the discovery is made for the whole nation, that the country becomes a part of the nation, and that the vacant soil is to be disposed of by that organ of the government which has the constitutional power to dispose of the national domains, by that organ in which all vacant territory is vested by law. According to the theory of the British constitution, all vacant lands are vested in the crown, as representing the nation; and the exclusive power to grant them is admitted to reside in the crown, as a branch of the royal prerogative. It has been already shown, that this principle was as fully recognised in America as in the island of Great Britain. All the lands we hold were originally granted by the crown; and the establishment of a regal government has never been considered as \\\\\\596 impairing its right to grant lands within the chartered limits of such colony. In addition to the proof of this principle, furnished by the immense grants, already mentioned, of lands lying within the chartered limits of Virginia, the continuing right of the crown to grant lands lying within that colony was always admitted. A title might be obtained, either by making an entry with the surveyor of a county, in pursuance of law, or by an order of the governor in council, who was the deputy of the king, or by an immediate grant from the crown. In Virginia, therefore, as well as elsewhere in the British dominions, the complete title of the crown to vacant lands was acknowledged. So far as respected the authority of the crown, no distinction was taken between vacant lands and lands occupied by the Indians. The title, subject only to the right of occupancy by the Indians, was admitted to be in the king, as was his right to grant that title. The lands, then, to which this proclamation referred, were lands which the king had a right to grant, or to reserve for the Indians. According to the theory of the British constitution, the royal prerogative is very extensive, so far as respects the political relations between Great Britain and foreign nations. The peculiar situation of the Indians, necessarily considered, in some respects, as a dependent, and in some respects as a distinct people, occupying a country claimed by Great Britain, and yet too powerful and brave not to be dreaded as formidable enemies, required, that means should be adopted for \\\\\\597 the preservation of peace; and that their friendship should be secured by quieting their alarms for their property. This was to be effected by restraining the encroachments of the whites; and the power to do this was never, we believe, denied by the colonies to the crown. In the case of Campbell against Hall, that part of the proclamation was determined to be illegal, which imposed a tax on a conquered province, after a government had been bestowed upon it. The correctness of this decision cannot be questioned, but its application to the case at bar cannot be admitted. Since the expulsion of the Stuart family, the power of imposing taxes, by proclamation, has never been claimed as a branch of regal prerogative; but the powers of granting, or refusing to grant, vacant lands, and of restraining encroachments on the Indians, have always been asserted and admitted. The authority of this proclamation, so far as it respected this continent, has never been denied, and the titles it gave to lands have always been sustained in our Courts. In the argument of this cause, the counsel for the plaintiffs have relied very much on the opinions expressed by men holding offices of trust, and on various proceedings in America, to sustain titles to land derived from the Indians. The collection of claims to lands lying in the western country, made in the 1st volume of the Laws of the United States, has been referred to; but we find nothing in that collection to support the argument. Most of the titles were derived \\\\\\598 from persons professing to act under the authority of the government existing at the time; and the two grants under which the plaintiffs claim, are supposed, by the person under whose inspection the collection was made, to be void, because forbidden by the royal proclamation of 1763. It is not unworthy of remark, that the usual mode adopted by the Indians for granting lands to individuals, has been to reserve them in a treaty, or to grant them under the sanction of the commissioners with whom the treaty was negotiated. The practice, in such case, to grant to the crown, for the use of the individual, is some evidence of a general understanding, that the validity even of such a grant depended on its receiving the royal sanction. The controversy between the colony of Connecticut and the Mohegan Indians, depended on the nature and extent of a grant made by those Indians to the colony; on the nature and extent of the reservations made by the Indians, in their several deeds and treaties, which were alleged to be recognised by the legitimate authority; and on the violation by the colony of rights thus reserved and secured. We do not perceive, in that case, any assertion of the principle, that individuals might obtain a complete and valid title from the Indians. It has been stated, that in the memorial transmitted from the Cabinet of London to that of Versailles, during the controversy between the two nations, respecting boundary, which took place in 1755, the Indian right to the soil is recognised. \\\\\\599 But this recognition was made with reference to their character as Indians, and for the purpose of showing that they were fixed to a particular territory. It was made for the purpose of sustaining the claim of his Britannic majesty to dominion over them. The opinion of the Attorney and Solicitor General, Pratt and Yorke, have been adduced to prove, that, in the opinion of those great law officers, the Indian grant could convey a title to the soil without a patent emanating from the crown. The opinion of those persons would certainly be of great authority on such a question, and we were not a little surprised, when it was read, at the doctrine it seemed to advance. An opinion so contrary to the whole practice of the crown, and to the uniform opinions given on all other occasions by its great law officers, ought to be very explicit, and accompanied by the circumstances under which it was given, and to which it was applied, before we can be assured that it is properly understood. In a pamphlet, written for the purpose of asserting the Indian title, styled 'Plain Facts,' the same opinion is quoted, and is said to relate to purchases made in the East Indies. It is, of course, entirely inapplicable to purchases made in America. Chalmers, in whose collection this opinion is found, does not say to whom it applies; but there is reason to believe, that the author of Plain Facts is, in this respect, correct. The opinion commences thus: 'In respect to such places as have been, or shall be acquired, by treaty or grant, from any of the Indian princes or governments, \\\\\\600 your majesty's letters patent are not necessary.' The words 'princes or governments,' are usually applied to the East Indians, but not to those of North America. We speak of their sachems, their warriors, their chiefmen, their nations or tribes, not of their 'princes or governments.' The question on which the opinion was given, too, and to which it relates, was, whether the king's subjects carry with them the common law wherever they may form settlements. The opinion is given with a view to this point, and its object must be kept in mind while construing its expressions. Much reliance is also placed on the fact, that many tracts are now held in the United States under the Indian title, the validity of which is not questioned. Before the importance attached to this fact is conceded, the circumstances under which such grants were obtained, and such titles are supported, ought to be considered. These lands lie chiefly in the eastern States. It is known that the Plymouth Company made many extensive grants, which, from their ignorance of the country, interfered with each other. It is also known that Mason, to whom New-Hampshire, and Gorges, to whom Maine was granted, found great difficulty in managing such unwieldy property. The country was settled by emigrants, some from Europe, but chiefly from Massachusetts, who took possession of lands they found unoccupied, and secured themselves in that possession by the best means in their power. The disturbances in \\\\\\601 England, and the civil war and revolution which followed those disturbances, prevented any interference on the part of the mother country, and the proprietors were unable to maintain their title. In the mean time, Massachusetts claimed the country, and governed it. As her claim was adversary to that of the proprietors, she encouraged the settlement of persons made under her authority, and encouraged, likewise, their securing themselves in possession, by purchasing the acquiescence and forbearance of the Indians. After the restoration of Charles II., Gorges and Mason, when they attempted to establish their title, found themselves opposed by men, who held under Massachusetts, and under the Indians. The title of the proprietors was resisted; and though, in some cases, compromises were made and in some, the opinion of a Court was given ultimately in their favour, the juries found uniformly against them. They became wearied with the struggle, and sold their property. The titles held under the Indians, were sanctioned by length of possession; but there is no case, so far as we are informed, of a judicial decision in their favour. Much reliance has also been placed on a recital contained in the charter of Rhode-Island, and on a letter addressed to the governors of the neighbouring colonies, by the king's command, in which some expressions are inserted, indicating the royal approbation of titles acquired from the Indians. The charter to Rhode-Island recites, 'that the said John Clark, and others, had transplanted \\\\\\602 themselves into the midst of the Indian nations, and were seised and possessed, by purchase and consent of the said natives, to their full content, of such lands,' &c. And the letter recites, that 'Thomas Chifflinch, and others, having, in the right of Major Asperton, a just propriety in the Narraghanset country, in New-England, by grants from the native princes of that country, and being desirous to improve it into an English colony,' &c. 'are yet daily disturbed.' The impression this language might make, if viewed apart from the circumstances under which it was employed, will be effaced, when considered in connexion with those circumstances. In the year 1635, the Plymouth Company surrendered their charter to the crown. About the same time, the religious dissentions of Massachusetts expelled from that colony several societies of individuals, one of which settled in Rhode- Island, on lands purchased from the Indians. They were not within the chartered limits of Massachusetts, and the English government was too much occupied at home to bestow its attention on this subject. There existed no authority to arrest their settlement of the country. If they obtained the Indian title, there were none to assert the title of the crown. Under these circumstances, the settlement became considerable. Individuals acquired separate property in lands which they cultivated and improved; a government was established among themselves; and no power existed in America which could rightfully interfere with it. On the restoration of Charles II., this small so-ciety \\\\\\603 hastened to acknowledge his authority, and to solicit his confirmation of their title to the soil, and to jurisdiction over the country. Their solicitations were successful, and a charter was granted to them, containing the recital which has been mentioned. It is obvious, that this transaction can amount to no acknowledgment, that the Indian grant could convey a title paramount to that of the crown, or could, in itself, constitute a complete title. On the contrary, the charter of the crown was considered as indispensable to its completion. It has never been contended, that the Indian title amounted to nothing. Their right of possession has never been questioned. The claim of government extends to the complete ultimate title, charged with this right of possession, and to the exclusive power of acquiring that right. The object of the crown was to settle the seacoast of America; and when a portion of it was settled, without violating the rights of others, by persons professing their loyalty, and soliciting the royal sanction of an act, the consequences of which were ascertained to be beneficial, it would have been as unwise as ungracious to expel them from their habitations, because they had obtained the Indian title otherwise than through the agency of government. The very grant of a charter is an assertion of the title of the crown, and its words convey the same idea. The country granted, is said to be 'our island called Rhode-Island;' and the charter contains an actual grant of the soil, as well as of the powers of government. \\\\\\604 The letter was written a few months before the charter was issued, apparently at the request of the agents of the intended colony, for the sole purpose of preventing the trespasses of neighbours, who were disposed to claim some authority over them. The king, being willing himself to ratify and confirm their title, was, of course, inclined to quiet them in their possession. This charter, and this letter, certainly sanction a previous unauthorized purchase from Indians, under the circumstances attending that particular purchase, but are far from supporting the general proposition, that a title acquired from the Indians would be valid against a title acquired from the crown, or without the confirmation of the crown. The acts of the several colonial assemblies, prohibiting purchases from the Indians, have also been relied on, as proving, that, independent of such prohibitions, Indian deeds would be valid. But, we think this fact, at most, equivocal. While the existence of such purchases would justify their prohibition, even by colonies which considered Indian deeds as previously invalid, the fact that such acts have been generally passed, is strong evidence of the general opinion, that such purchases are opposed by the soundest principles of wisdom and national policy. After bestowing on this subject a degree of attention which was more required by the magnitude of the interest in litigation, and the able and elaborate arguments of the bar, than by its intrinsic difficulty, the Court is decidedly of opinion, that the plaintiffs do not exhibit a title which can \\\\\\605 be sustained in the Courts of the United States; and that there is no error in the judgment which was rendered against them in the District Court of Illinois. Judgment affirmed, with costs.\""
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/law/",
    "title": "Law",
    "publishedAt": "2018-07-30T17:44:55Z",
    "updatedAt": "2026-01-19T05:00:00Z",
    "tags": [
      "law",
      "international-law",
      "US-Law",
      "SCOTUS",
      "Law"
    ],
    "textContent": "International Law The Doctrine of Discovery: The International Law of Colonialism by Robert J. Miller US Law Fletcher v. Peck, 10 US 87 (1810) Fletcher v. Peck (1810) - Domination Translator Series - By Steven T. Newcomb Johnson v. M'Intosh, March 10, 1823 The Marshall Trilogy: Johnson v. McIntosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823) - Domination Translator Series - By Steven T. Newcomb The Monroe Doctrine, December 2, 1823 The Monroe Doctrine (1823) - Domination Translator Series - By Steven T. Newcomb Martin v. Waddell (1842) The Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, December 6, 1904 President \"Teddy\" Roosevelt's Monroe Doctrine Corollary - Domination Translator Series - By Steven T. Newcomb Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association, 485 U.S. 439 Tee-Hit-Ton v. The United States. US, 348 US 272 (1955) Tee Hit Ton Indians v. United States (1955) - Domination Translator Series - By Steven T. Newcomb City of Sherrill V. Oneida Indian Nation City of Sherrill V. Oneida Indian Nation, 544 U.s. 197 (2005): the Doctrine of Christian Discovery and Domination and the Denial of Treaty Rights By Joseph J. Heath, Esq. Onondaga Nation General Counsel City of Sherrill V. Oneida Indian Nation, 544 U.s. 197 (2005) by Dana Lloyd Ruth Bader Ginsburg: > Under the \"doctrine of discovery,\" ...\"fee title to the lands occupied by Indians when the colonists arrived became vested in the sovereign–first the discovering European nation and later the original States and the United States.\" Cayuga Indian Nation v. Pataki, 413 F. 3d 266, (2nd Cir. June 28, 2005) The Haudenosaunee Cases: Cayuga Indian Nation v. Pataki (2nd Cir. June 28, 2005) - Domination Translator Series - By Steven T. Newcomb Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Logan, 577 F. 3d 634, (6th Cir., 2009) Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, 617 F. 3d 114, August 9, 2010 The Haudenosaunee Cases: Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida (Aug. 9th 2010) - Domination Translator Series - By Steven T. Newcomb Onondaga Nation v. NY, 500 Fed. Appx. 87 (Argued October 12, 2012, decided October 19, 2012) The Haudenosaunee Cases: Onondaga Nation v. N.Y. (Argued Oct. 12, 2012, decided October 19, 2012) - Domination Translator Series - By Steven T. Newcomb White v. University of California, 765 F. 3d 1010, (9th Cir., 2014) White v. University of California (9th Cir., 2014) - Domination Translator Series - By Steven T. Newcomb U.S. v. King Mountain Tobacco Co., Inc. Decision 9th Circuit, August 13, 2018 U.S. v. King Mountain Tobacco Co., Inc. (9th Cir. Court, August 13, 2012) - Domination Translator Series - By Steven T. Newcomb McGirt v. Oklahoma (U.S. Supreme Court, July 2020) The Domination Translator Series: An Extended Essay on Various U.S. Supreme Court Rulings and Other Topics by Steven T. Newcomb The Domination Translator Series: An Extended Essay on Various U.S. Supreme Court Rulings and Other Topics - Part 1 Fletcher v. Peck (1810) - Domination Translator Series - Part 2 The Marshall Trilogy: Johnson v. McIntosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823) - Domination Translator Series - Part 3 The Marshall Trilogy: Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) - Domination Translator Series - Part 4 The Marshall Trilogy: Worcester v. Georgia (1832) - Domination Translator Series - Part 5 The Monroe Doctrine (1823) - Domination Translator Series - Part 6 Martin v. Waddell (1842) - Domination Translator Series - Part 7 President \"Teddy\" Roosevelt's Monroe Doctrine Corollary - Domination Translator Series - Part 8 Tee Hit Ton Indians v. United States (1955) - Domination Translator Series - Part 9 White v. University of California (9th Cir., 2014) - Domination Translator Series - Part 10 The Haudenosaunee Cases: Cayuga Indian Nation v. Pataki (2nd Cir. June 28, 2005) - Domination Translator Series - Part 11 The Haudenosaunee Cases: Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida (Aug. 9th 2010) - Domination Translator Series - Part 12 The Haudenosaunee Cases: Onondaga Nation v. N.Y. (Argued Oct. 12, 2012, decided October 19, 2012) - Domination Translator Series - Part 13 McGirt v. Oklahoma (U.S. Supreme Court, July 2020) - Domination Translator Series - Part 14 U.S. v. King Mountain Tobacco Co., Inc. (9th Cir. Court, August 13, 2012) - Domination Translator Series - Part 15 Related Materials Brief Of Amicus Curiae Confederated Tribes And Bands Of The Yakama Nation In Support Of Respondent with Ethan Jones, Counsel of Record Amicus Curiae Brief Of The Confederated Tribes And Bands Of The Yakama Nation, In Support Of Respondent with Gabriel S. Galanda Statement on the Historical Use of the Doctrine of Christian Discovery by the United States Supreme Court Since 1823. By Joseph J. Heath, Esq. Onondaga Nation General Counsel. Native American Law in the Modern Era in the Albany Government Law Review vol. 10 is. 1&2 2016-17 2018 Panel on \"United States Indian Law.\""
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/law/boarding-school-initiative/",
    "title": "U.S. Department of the Interior Indian Boarding School Initiative",
    "publishedAt": "2021-09-01T14:54:46Z",
    "description": "Read the Indian Boarding School Initiative document.",
    "tags": [
      "PDF",
      "US",
      "law"
    ],
    "textContent": "2021 June 22 Federal Indian Boarding School Initiative view the document as a PDF"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/law/indigenous-peoples/united-nations/education/resources/nations-are-soverign-they-are-not-tribes/",
    "title": "Nations Are Sovereign: They Are Not 'Tribes'",
    "publishedAt": "2018-03-18T09:12:22Z",
    "description": "Interestingly, despite over two centuries of difficulties in this area, in this historic agreement the state accepted the Haudenosaunee as Nations and used that label, rather than tribes.",
    "tags": [
      "Repudiations",
      "Haudenosaunee-Confederacy",
      "Indigenous-Peoples",
      "United-Nations",
      "Onondaga-Nation",
      "redpaper",
      "Law",
      "Education",
      "Resources"
    ],
    "textContent": "(⤓ PDF download). Over the past 35 + years since I have been fortunate enough to have served as General Counsel for the Onondaga Nation. In 1998, I was asked by the Onondaga Chiefs to author a law review article on their diplomatic resolution of the excise tax issue with then Governor Pataki over a year and a half period, which resulted in the May 1997 signing of a New York State/Haudenosaunee Trade and Commerce Agreement, (46 Buffalo Law Review 1011, 1998). Interestingly, despite over two centuries of difficulties in this area, in this historic Agreement the state accepted the Haudenosaunee as Nations and used that label, rather than tribes. The last sentence in the first footnote on this article states: \"The more substantive terms nation and people will be used collectively in their international law sense, rather than the pejorative term tribe\"; and the last sentence of the second foot note states: \"In the past 25 years, as they have struggled to reaffirm their sovereign status, the Haudenosaunee have endeavored to reject these colonial and imperialist terms…\" (Id. at 1012.) So it is important to understand that, to the Haudenosaunee, the use of the term tribe means that they are not be accepted as sovereign, independent Nations. However unintentional the continued use of the term tribe may be, its use will be interpreted as disrespectful and insulting by traditional Haudenosaunee. Read more… (⤓ PDF download)."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/law/lyng/",
    "title": "Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association, 485 U.S. 439",
    "publishedAt": "2023-02-28T07:54:46Z",
    "description": "In 1988 the United States Supreme Court declared constitutional the federal government’s development plan in the High Country, aboriginal homeland of the Karuk Nation of Northern California, sacred to them as well as to the Yurok and Tolowa Nations, and managed today by the US Forest Service as the Six Rivers National Forest among the Siskiyou Mountains. The Court admitted that “it is undisputed that the Indian respondents’ beliefs are sincere and that the Government’s proposed actions will have severe adverse effects on the practice of their religion.” Nevertheless, because the disputed area was on public land, the Court thought that the government should be allowed to manage its property in any way it saw fit, regardless of the severe adverse effects on the religious practice of the three Indigenous nations. A lot has been written about this case, Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association , but here I would like to focus on the Court’s reasoning, that this is government property and therefore cannot be protected as Indigenous sacred land with accordance with the religion clauses of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, writing for the majority, declares that “whatever rights the Indians may have to the use of the area—those rights do not divest the Government of its right to use what is, after all, its land.”",
    "tags": [
      "law",
      "free-exercise",
      "indigenous-peoples",
      "featured"
    ],
    "textContent": "In 1988 the United States Supreme Court declared constitutional the federal government’s development plan in the High Country, aboriginal homeland of the Karuk Nation of Northern California, sacred to them as well as to the Yurok and Tolowa Nations, and managed today by the US Forest Service as the Six Rivers National Forest among the Siskiyou Mountains. The Court admitted that “it is undisputed that the Indian respondents’ beliefs are sincere and that the Government’s proposed actions will have severe adverse effects on the practice of their religion.” Nevertheless, because the disputed area was on public land, the Court thought that the government should be allowed to manage its property in any way it saw fit, regardless of the severe adverse effects on the religious practice of the three Indigenous nations. A lot has been written about this case, Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association, but here I would like to focus on the Court’s reasoning, that this is government property and therefore cannot be protected as Indigenous sacred land with accordance with the religion clauses of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, writing for the majority, declares that “whatever rights the Indians may have to the use of the area—those rights do not divest the Government of its right to use what is, after all, its land.” This statement brings to mind Chief Justice John Marshall’s creation, in Johnson v. McIntosh (1823), of “occupancy rights” for Indigenous peoples whose lands were “discovered” by sovereign European nations, who were entitled to acquire those lands, by purchase or conquest, but had to allow Indigenous peoples to use the lands as long as they inhabited them. O’Connor, like Marshall, does not take away the nations’ rights to use the land; both subject this right to that of a(nother) sovereign nation (in both cases it is the United States), thus relativizing the sovereignty of Indigenous nations in the name of discovery. The High Country is a forest of Douglas firs taller than 300 feet, where pre-human entities called woge reside, Indigenous doctors across Indigenous nations and borders train, and medicine to heal the sick and bring peace to earth is gathered and made. The area includes Peak Eight, Doctor Rock, Golden Stairs, Chimney Rock, Elk Valley, and Sawtooth Mountains, but it is called the High Country because of its spiritual power rather than its elevation. Yurok, Karuk, and Tolowa men and women who are called by the Creator or the Great Spirit to attend the High Country go there to gather and make medicine, to attain power, or maximize their potential, to act in a desired way. Making medicine may involve rituals and prayers, but it is essentially an inward experience, and following all prescribed rituals does not guarantee than one would succeed in making medicine. By the mid-1920s, because of white invasion of the area, only one sweathouse remained in the High Country, but natural prayer seats still abound there. Reading the 1988 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lyng would not tell you all of this. In a case where the Supreme Court allowed the Forest Service to construct a road and to harvest timber in the High Country, despite the Yurok, Karuk, and Tolowa nations’ argument that these actions would severely harm their ability to practice their religion in the area, including gathering medicine, training medicine people, and communicating with the woge, the High Country is referred to simply as “federal land.” The road construction and timber harvest were constitutional, according to the Court, because, sacred or not, the High Country was government property. However, the statement about the High Country being government property is just a side comment in the Lyng decision—almost easy to miss. The decision relies on a body of legal precedent, focused on the free exercise of religion, and analyzing the Yurok, Karuk, and Tolowa ceremonial lives, which are centered around the High Country. The Court compared these ceremonial lives to the request of a Seventh Day Adventist woman that the court protect her right not to work on her Sabbath; to Old Order Amish parents’ request to protect their right not to send their teenage children to public school; to an Abenaki couple requesting to protect their daughter’s right to not be assigned a Social Security number. The side comment about the High Country being government property means, I argue here, that Lyng should be read against a different set of precedent, including Johnson v. McIntosh. The question at the center of Johnson was whether Indigenous peoples themselves could conduct the sale of Indigenous lands or whether only the federal government could broker such sales. The sales in question had taken place before the American Revolution, and therefore subject to British law. According to the British Proclamation of 1763, Native Americans could sell their lands directly only to the government, not to private parties. But at the time Johnson was decided, Indigenous ownership of land was an important, open question for both Native Americans and whites, and so Marshall addressed it, tying together property and sovereignty. Can a people be considered sovereign when inhabiting land that someone else owns? Scholars have written extensively about how Johnson tied whiteness with property (legal scholar Cheryl Harris wrote about “whiteness as property” and Indigenous feminist scholar Aileen Moreton-Robinson called it “the white possessive.”) Yurok, Karuk, and Tolowa peoples, objecting to the destruction of the High Country, did not argue that the land was their property. They were arguing that it was their home and their kin. Settler law since Johnson v. McIntosh, the case that brought the Doctrine of Christian Discovery into US law, seems unable to understand such a relationship to land. Even the dissenting opinion in Lyng, which is usually celebrated as legally correct and politically progressive, essentializes and romanticizes indigeneity and can therefore be read as part of the legacy of Johnson, and as following the logic of “discovery.” It is the shallow understanding of the sacredness of the High Country to the Yurok, Karuk, and Tolowa peoples that makes it problematic. “Because of their perceptions of and relationship with the natural world, Native Americans consider all land sacred,” it states. “Native American” may be a better way to refer to the peoples at the center of the case than O’Connor’s “Indians,” but it generalizes and abstracts just as well. Similarly, all land is sacred to them, according to Justice Brennan—not specifically the High Country. Consequently, the land is sacred rather than stolen; the people religious rather than dispossessed. The High Country was ultimately protected from development by a wilderness designation—another legal device that adheres to the logic of discovery, erasing millennia of Native existence with and cultivation of the place that is represented as wild, and therefore as terra nullius (empty land). But on the 200th anniversary of Johnson v. McIntosh, I would like to end this short piece with a reminder that Yurok, Karuk, and Tolowa peoples continue to live a sovereign life with the High Country, practicing what the courts may call religion, but Native American studies scholae Cutcha Risling Baldy calls “bio-cultural sovereignty.”"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/law/resources/algr-doctrine-christian-discovery-indian-law-repuidation/",
    "title": "The Doctrine Of Christian Discovery: Its Fundamental Importance In United States Indian Law And The Need For its Repudiation And Removal",
    "publishedAt": "2021-07-13T14:54:46Z",
    "description": "The doctrine of discovery has continued to be the cornerstone of United States Indian law. A series of recent, disturbing decisions by the Supreme Court and some of the Circuit Courts of Appeal, over the last decade, have used the doctrine to further limit the rights of Indigenous peoples and nations.",
    "tags": [
      "Repudiations",
      "Haudenosaunee-Confederacy",
      "Onondaga-Nation",
      "Indigenous-Peoples",
      "Indian-Law",
      "featured",
      "Law",
      "Resources"
    ],
    "textContent": "Excerpt: The doctrine of discovery has continued to be the cornerstone of United States Indian law. A series of recent, disturbing decisions by the Supreme Court and some of the Circuit Courts of Appeal, over the last decade, have used the doctrine to further limit the rights of Indigenous peoples and nations. Download as a PDF ⤓ ALGR"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/law/resources/event/doctrine-discovery-domination-mother-earth-pandemic/",
    "title": "The Good, The Bad & The Ugly In Mcgirt V. Oklahoma",
    "publishedAt": "2020-08-14T14:54:46Z",
    "description": "As promising as this decision is, deeply racist problems remain in US law.Left unsaid by Gorsuch was his, and the court’s, unquestioned acceptance of “plenary power”, by which the federal government claims to have complete authority over Indian nations, including the right unilaterally break treaty promises.There is no legitimate basis for this, but it remains US law.",
    "tags": [
      "Law",
      "Event",
      "Conference",
      "Education",
      "Resources",
      "US-Law",
      "US-Indian-Law",
      "Indigenous-Peoples",
      "featured"
    ],
    "textContent": "Watch Joe's talk{: .btn .btn--danger .btn--large} THE GOOD, THE BAD & THE UGLY IN McGIRT v. OKLAHOMA By Joseph J. Heath, Esq.Onondaga Nation General Counsel On Thursday, July 9 th , the Supreme Court decided a treaty rights case–McGirt v. Oklahoma–which is being call a “landmark” case.The NY Times said it is “seen as a watershed victory of Native Americans’ long campaign to uphold sovereignty, treaty boundaries and treaty obligations.” This memo will briefly explain the case and some of the more clear and helpful statements/rulings; and then compare this decision to the harmful rulings in Sherrill and in the dismissal of the Nation’s Land Rights Action. It may well be that with Gorsuch playing a very positive role on Indigenous rights cases, that progress can be made for Onondaga land rights. THE McGirt CASE ITSELF: Jimey McGirt [a Muscogee citizen] was convicted in state court of serious criminal offenses, but the fundamental question in the case was: “Did he commit his crimes in Indian country, as defined in the federal Major Crimes Act?“He had challenged his state court conviction, arguing that it was Indian country and that the state did not have jurisdiction. “Indian county,” is defined as including, among other things: “Any land within the limits of any Indian reservation”; but Oklahoma claimed that the territory was no longer a reservation, because they claimed that it had been disestablished. In the 1832 Treaty with the Creeks: US guaranteed that the Muscogee right to the lands in Oklahoma “shall be continued to said tribe of Indians, as long as they shall exist as a nation and continue to occupy the country hereby assigned to them.” Gorsuch 1 was the swing vote in this 5 to 4 decision and he wrote the majority opinion, in which he applied the long standing rule: “Only Congress can divest a reservation of land and diminish its boundaries.”This holding was that the Muscogee reservation is intact and has not be disestablished, despite all the state’s claims–[which are the same as NY’s arguments against the Haudenosaunee. GORSUCH’S STATEMENTS IN THE DECISION: The decision opens with this sentence: “On the far end of the Trail of Tears was a promise.”; as a reminder that the Muscogee were induced to agree to the Treaty and to be moved to Oklahoma, by the US promise of a permanent reservation west of the Mississippi.The decision systematically and clearly rejected every argument raised by the state, and there were many.The state had argued that “historical practices and demographics, . . . are enough by themselves to prove disestablishment.” Essentially, the state claimed that because the reservation had been broken up by allotment and because so many white land owners now owned most of the parcels, that this effectively meant that the reservation no longer existed. Oklahoma had pointed to “the speedy and persistent movement of white settlers onto Creek lands.” The Court firmly rejected these arguments and in so doing said: A.“Today we are asked whether the land these treaties promises remains an Indian reservation for purposes of federal criminal law.Because Congress has not said otherwise, we hold the government to its word.” B.“While there can be no question that Congress established a reservation for the Creek Nation, it’s equally clear that Congress has since broken more than a few of the promises to the Tribe.” C.“So it’s no matter how many other promises to a tribe the federal government has already broken.It Congress wishes to break the promise of a reservation, it must say so.” D.“In the end, Oklahoma abandons any pretense of law and speaks openly about the potentially “transform[ative]” effects of a loss today.” E.“In any event, the magnitude of a legal wrong is no reason to perpetuate it.”  F.“More importantly, dire warnings are just that, and not a license for us to disregard the law.” G.“[M]any of the arguments before us today follow a sadly familiar pattern.Yes, promises were made, but the price of keeping them has become too great, so now we should just cast a blind eye.We reject such thinking.”  H.“Unlawful acts, performed long enough, and with sufficient vigor, are never enough to amend the law.” I.“To hold otherwise would be to elevate the most brazen and longstanding injustices over the law, both rewarding wrong and failing those in the right.” COMPARISON WITH THE EXCUSES USED BY 2 nd CIRCUIT TO DISMISS ONONDAGA’S LAND RIGHTS ACTION: On October 19, 2012, one week after oral argument on Columbus Day, the Circuit gave these excuses when it affirmed the dismissal: “Three specific factors determine when ancestral land claims are foreclosed on equitable grounds: 1. The length of time at issue between on historic injustice and the present day; 2. The disruptive nature of claims long delayed; and 3. The degree to which these claims upset the justifiable expectations of individuals and entities far removed from the events giving rise to the the plaintiffs’ injury.” When we compare these now somewhat discredited excuses, it is clear that nothing in the Constitution says that treaties are no long valid simply because they are old; that “disruption” is not sufficient to break treaty promises; and that white settlers moving in does not disestablish a reservation. UNITED STATE COLONIAL INDIAN LAW REMAINS FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED AND UNFAIR TO INDIANS: As promising as this decision is, deeply racist problems remain in US law.Left unsaid by Gorsuch was his, and the court’s, unquestioned acceptance of “plenary power”, by which the federal government claims to have complete authority over Indian nations, including the right unilaterally break treaty promises.There is no legitimate basis for this, but it remains US law. Downloads ⬇︎ Download Joe Heath's PowerPoint Further Videos The McGirt Decision and Federal Indian Law by Joe Heath McGirt v Oklahoma: Plenary Power & the Doctrine of Christian Discovery by Steve Newcomb & Joe Heath Expanded analysis of Johnson v. M’Intosh by Steven Newcomb"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/law/resources/event/mother-earths-pandemic-resources/",
    "title": "Mother Earth‘s Pandemic Resources",
    "publishedAt": "2020-08-13T14:54:46Z",
    "description": "Resources mentioned durined the sessions.",
    "updatedAt": "2022-01-28T16:13:13Z",
    "tags": [
      "Law",
      "Event",
      "Conference",
      "Education",
      "Resources",
      "featured"
    ],
    "textContent": "Subscribe to the Indigenous Values Initiative YouTube Channel{: .btn .btn--danger .btn--large} Session I Resources Session Videos - Watch the missed sessions on the Indigenous Values Initiative YouTube channel - Video Index - ⤓ Download the Study Guide as a PDF Texts - Thanksgiving Address: 11 languages - Basic Call to Consciousness, Akwesasne Notes, Oren Lyons, et. al. - Pagans in the Promised Land: Decoding the Doctrine of Christian Discovery - Steven Newcomb - Utopian Legacies: A History of Conquest & Oppression in the Western World - John Mohawk - Exiled in the Land of the Free: Democracy, Indian Nations, & the US Constitution - Oren Lyons, John Mohawk, Vine Deloria, et. el. - Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge and the Teachings of Plants - Robin Wall Kimmerer - The Woman’s Suffrage Movement - Sally Roesch Wagner, Intro - Gloria Steinem - Sisters in Spirit: Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Influence on EarlyAmerican Feminists - Sally Roesch Wagner - Who Are These People Anyway, Irving Powless - Clanology: Clan System of the Iroquois - Tom Porter - And Grandma Said...: Iroquois Teachings - Tom Porter - Apologies to the Iroquois - Edmund Wilson - 1491:New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus - Charles C Mann - American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World - David E Stannard - In the Absence of the Sacred: The Failure of Technology and the Survival of the Indian Nations - Jerry Mander - Indian Givers: How Native Americans Transformed the World - Jack Weatherford - Our History Is the Future: Standing Rock Versus the Dakota Access Pipeline, and the Long Tradition of Indigenous Resistance” by Nick Estes Films and Television - The Doctrine of Discovery: Unmasking the Domination Code - Sheldon P Wolfchild & Steven Newcomb, - Even the Rain - We Were Children Domination Code is now Streaming{: .btn .btn--warning .btn--x-large} Session II Resources 6:00-7:00 PM Legal dimensions of the Doctrine of Discovery Doctrine of Christian Discovery and Domination, by Joe Heath Resource: The Good, The Bad & The Ugly In Mcgirt V. Oklahoma Do rivers have rights? by Dana Lloyd The Doctrine of Domination by Steven Newcomb Towards Justice with Nature and Her Peoples, by Makayla Loeb 7:00-8:00 PM Mother Earth’s Pandemic in other contexts The Doctrine of Discovery in the Lithuanian Context by Eglutė Trinkauskaitė Social Change and Indigenous History and Wisdom by Rob Ruehl Glimpses into Black and POC Perspectives by Sarah Nahar Expanded Glimpses into Black and other POC Perspectives on the Doctrine of Discovery by Sarah Nahar Protecting Indigenous Relationships to Place during the Pandemic, Angela Mooney D’Arcy as aired. Protecting Indigenous Relationships to Place during the Pandemic, Angela Mooney D’Arcy as aired. ’Discovery,’ Disease, and Survival in Native California, by Abel Gomez Legal dimensions of the Doctrine of Discovery Resources from “Doctrine of Christian Discovery and Domination,” Joe Heath “The Doctrine of Domination,” Steve Newcomb - Original Free Nations - Indigenous Law Institute - Pagans in the Promised Land: Decoding the Doctrine of Christian Discovery - The Doctrine of Discovery: Unmasking the Domination Code, directed by Sheldon Wolfchild (Dakota). “Towards Justice with nature and her peoples,” Makayla Loeb - The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) More Resources on the law panel A Concept of Native Title by Leroy Littlebear (1982) The Murder of George Floyd and The Death of \"White\" Supremacy, Dismantling the Master's Narrative “Social Change and Indigenous History and Wisdom,” Rob Ruehl Resources on Social Change, Indigenous History and Wisdom Let's Change the Subject: Grounding Social Change in Indigenous History and Philosophy WORKS CITED Adams, David Wallace. Education for Extinction: American Indians and the Boarding School Experience, 1875-1928\\. UP of Kansas, 1995. Churchill, Ward. Kill the Indian, Save the Man: The Genocidal Impact of American Indian Residential Schools. City Light Books, 2004. Cordova, V. F. “Ethics: The We and the I.” American Indian Thought, edited by Anne Waters, Blackwell Publishing, 2004, pp. 173-81. Deloria, Vine, Jr. Custer Died for Your Sins: An Indian Manifesto. University of Oklahoma Press, 1988. ---. Spirit and Reason: The Vine Deloria, Jr., Reader, edited by Barbara Deloria, Kristen Foehner, and Sam Scinta, Fulcrum Publishing, 1999. Douglas, John E. et al. Crime Classification Manual: A Standard System for Investigating and Classifying Violent Crime. Wiley, 2013. Dunbar-Ortiz, Roxanne. An Indigenous Peoples’ History of the United States. Beacon Press, 2014. Eakin, Marshall. The History of Latin America: Collision of Cultures. St. Martin's Griffin, 2007. Galtung, Johan. “Cultural Violence.” Journal of Peace Research, vol. 27, no. 3, 1990, pp. 291-305. Gonyea, Wendy. “Who Are the Haudenosaunee?” Neighbor to Neighbor, Nation to Nation: Readings about the Relationship of the Onondaga Nation with Central New York, USA, edited and published by Neighbors of the Onondaga Nation, 2014, pp. 9-12. Gover, Kevin. “Keynote Remarks of Kevin Gover, Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs.” 175th Anniversary of the Establishment of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 8 September 2000, https://www.bia.gov/. Grande, Sandy. Red Pedagogy: Native American Social and Political Thought. Rowman and Littlefield, 2015. Jacques, Freida J. “Discipline of the Good Mind.” Neighbor to Neighbor, Nation to Nation: Readings about the Relationship of the Onondaga Nation with Central New York, USA, edited and published by Neighbors of the Onondaga Nation, 2014, pp. 13-14. Lyons, Oren. “Keepers of Life.” Moral Ground: Ethical Action for a Planet in Peril, edited by Kathleen Dean Moore and Michael P. Nelson, Trinity UP, 2010, pp. 42-44. ---. “Oren Lyons the Faithkeeper.” Interview with Bill Moyers. 1991. Madley, Benjamin. An American Genocide: The United States and the California Indian Catastrophe, 1846-1873\\. Yale UP, 2016. Mann, Charles C. 1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus. Vintage Books, 2011. Miller, Robert J. “American Indians, the Doctrine of Discovery, and Manifest Destiny.” Wyoming Law Review, vol. 11, no. 2 (2011): 329-349. ---. “The Doctrine of Discovery in American Indian Law.” Idaho Law Review, vol.42, no. 1 (2005): 1-122. Mohawk, John. Thinking in Indian: A John Mohawk Reader. Edited by Joseì Barreiro, Fulcrum, 2010. Pember, Mary Annette. Intergenerational Trauma: Understanding Natives’ Inherited Pain. Indian Country Today Media Network, 2016. Piccard, Ann. “Death by Boarding School: ‘The Last Acceptable Racism’ and the United States’ Genocide of Native Americans.” Gonzaga Law Review, vol. 41, no. 1, 2013, pp. 137-85. Rosen, Jack. Corey Village and the Cayuga World: Implications from Archaeology and Beyond. Syracuse UP, 2015. Smith, Andrea. “Boarding School Abuses, Human Rights, and Reparations.” Social Justice, vol. 31, no. 4, 2004, pp. 89-102. ---. Conquest: Sexual Violence and American Indian Genocide. Duke UP, 2005. Neighbors of the Onondaga Nation. Historical Timeline of the Haudenosaunee-U.S. History. Neighbors of the Onondaga Nation, n.d., Newcomb, Steven T. “The Evidence of Christian Nationalism in Federal Indian Law: The Doctrine of Discovery, Johnson v. M’Intosh, and Plenary Power.\" New York University Review of Law & Social Change, vol. 20, no. 2 (1992): pp. 303-342. Whitt, Laurie Anne, et al. “Indigenous Perspectives.” A Companion to Environmental Philosophy, edited by Dale Jamieson, Blackwell Publishing, 2001, pp. 3-20. Woolford, Andrew. “Discipline, Territory, and the Colonial Mesh: Indigenous Boarding Schools in the United States and Canada.” Colonial Genocide in Indigenous North America, edited by Alexander Laban Hinton, Andrew Woolford, and Jeff Benvenuto, Duke UP, 2015, pp. 29-48. ---. This Benevolent Experiment: Indigenous Boarding Schools, Genocide, and Redress in Canada and the United States. University of Nebraska Press, 2015. “Glimpses into Black and POC Perspectives,” Sarah Nahar - Contact senahar@syr.edu - Kelly Hayes - Mark Charles and in Unsettling Truths: The Ongoing, Dehumanizing Legacy of the Doctrine of Discovery. - Remove Racist Monument in Syracuse - On the development of whiteness: Paul Kivel’s Living in the Shadow of the Cross: Understanding and Resisting the Power and Privilege of Christian Hegemony - Northeast Farmers of Color - Critical Latinx Indigeneities. - Buddhist Peace Fellowship - Miki Kashtan - Friends of Sabeel (North America) “’Discovery,’ Disease, and Survival in Native California,” Abel Gomez COVID-19 Relief for Muwekma Ohlone Families \\| Created by Muwekma Ohlone Allies  Amah Mutsun Families COVID-19 Relief Fund \\| Created by Humunya Tribal Foundation  Works Cited Milliken, Randall, Laurence Shoup, and Beverly Ortiz. Ohlone/Costanoan Indians of the San Francisco Peninsula and their Neighbors, Yesterday and Today. National Park Service Gold Gate National Recreation Area, 2009.  Baldy, Cutcha Risling. We Are Dancing for You: Native Feminisms and the Revitalization of Women's Coming-of-Age Ceremonies. University of Washington Press, 2018.  Chamings, Andrew. “Murders of California Indigenous Women 7 Times Less Likely to Be Solved, Report Finds.” SFGate, San Francisco Chronicle, 4 Aug. 2020, sfgate.com.  Eagen, Siobhan. “Kumeyaay Nation Protests Border Wall Construction.” Golden Gate Xpress, 37 July 2020, Golden Gate Express.  Hackel, Steven W. Children of Coyote, Missionaries of Saint Francis Indian-Spanish Relations in Colonial California, 1769-1850. The University of North Carolina Press, 2012.  Milliken, Randall, Laurence Shoup, and Beverly Ortiz. Ohlone/Costanoan Indians of the San Francisco Peninsula and their Neighbors, Yesterday and Today. National Park Service Gold Gate National Recreation Area, 2009.  Miranda, Deborah. Bad Indians: A Tribal Memoir. Heyday, 2013.  ---. “Extermination of the Joyas: Gendercide in Spanish California.”GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies (2010) 16 (1-2): 253-284.  Morgado, Martin J. Junípero Serra's Legacy. Mount Carmel, 1987.  O’Connell, Gerard. “Pope Hails Junipero Serra as 'One of the Founding Fathers of the United States'.” America Magazine, 5 June 2017, America Magazine.  Sandos, James A. Converting California: Indians and Franciscans in the Missions. Yale University Press, 2008. Session III Resources Kings and Kingdoms: Doctrine and Domination It became necessary to format the public consciousness in a systematic manner, manufacturing consent for the rationalization and expansion of territorial dominion via political acts of allegiance to the Divine Right of States. It became necessary to manufacture the mythology of America. Watch Spirit Game: Pride of a Nation amazon, tubi Please sign the petition for the Iroquois Nationals Seas of Emergence video Berta Cáceres, Hondoran Doctrine of Discovery Advocate Tonya Gonnella Frichner, The “Preliminary Study” on the Doctrine of Discovery, 28 Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 339 (2010) (Download as PDF) Available at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pelr/vol28/iss1/11 Framework of Dominance: UN Preliminary Study on the Doctrine of Discovery Indigenous Peoples Forum on the Impact of the Doctrine of Discovery Purpose Goals and Objectives Kia Mau – Resisting Colonial Fictions by Tina Ngata"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/link/ASU-webinar-johnson-mintosh/",
    "title": "ILP Webinar: Unraveling the International Law of Colonialism: The 200th Anniversary of Johnson v M'Intosh--March 10 2023",
    "publishedAt": "2023-03-22T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Johnson v M’Intosh is an 1823 U.S. Supreme Court case about how the Discovery Doctrine was used to justify denying Native Americans and Indigenous Peoples’ legal rights to their ancestral lands. We have a great line-up of international scholars who will discuss its impact to Indigenous Peoples historically and focus on their modern-day resistance to this legal principle. This webinar was free and open to public",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "featured",
      "conference"
    ],
    "textContent": "Johnson v M’Intosh is an 1823 U.S. Supreme Court case about how the Discovery Doctrine was used to justify denying Native Americans and Indigenous Peoples’ legal rights to their ancestral lands. We have a great line-up of international scholars who will discuss its impact to Indigenous Peoples historically and focus on their modern-day resistance to this legal principle. This webinar was free and open to public",
    "externalUrl": "https://vimeo.com/810597464/87f452d487"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/link/brackeen-v-holland/",
    "title": "Brackeen v. Haaland, the Indian Child Welfare Act case now in the Supreme Court: Seen in Perspective",
    "publishedAt": "2022-11-07T14:54:46Z",
    "description": "The fracturing of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in its effort to decide Brakeen in 2021 demonstrates the deep confusion and contradiction (some say schizophrenia) that characterize the application of these fundamentally anti-Indigenous doctrines in their disguise as 'federal protection'.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "law"
    ],
    "textContent": "The issue in the Brackeen case is whether the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) is constitutional. Some observers are fearful the Supreme Court will use the case to attack the notion of \"tribal sovereignty\" by applying \"race theory\" to characterize Indigenous peoples, in contrast to an approach that sees Indigenous peoples as \"political\" entities quasi-separate from the US. A racial approach would collapse Native peoples into groups of Native persons within the US polity. The effort to bring about a collapse of Indigenous independent existence has been long underway. Indeed, this effort begins with the first Supreme Court decisions in the field --- the so-called \"Marshall trilogy,\" named after the chief justice who authored the opinions. A doctrinal matrix of federal anti-Indian law domination was laid down in these three early nineteenth-century cases. The decisions may be restated succinctly: In Johnson v. McIntosh, the court adopted the fifteenth-century doctrine of \"Christian discovery\" and declared that the United States holds title to all Native lands. It said that the Natives themselves are merely occupants. In Cherokee Nation v. State of Georgia, the court built on the Johnson decision to define Native Nations as \"wards\" under the control of a US \"guardian\". It denied that Native Nations have an international status. In Worcester v. Georgia, the court capped the previous two decisions with an assertion that the federal government has supreme power vis-a-vis the states over Native lands and peoples. It defined a domain of \"internal affairs\" of Native nations for \"their self-government so far as respected themselves only\" under \"exclusive\" federal control of lands. These three decisions continue to be cited in \"federal Indian law\" cases at all levels of the U.S. judicial system. Their anti-Indian orientations are, however, submerged in widespread wishful thinking that John Marshall somehow crafted a set of doctrines to \"protect\" Indigenous peoples against the US by declaring the US a \"trustee\" for them. As I make clear inmy recent book:Federal Anti-Indian Law: The Legal Entrapment of Indigenous Peoples (Praeger -- ABC-CLIO, 2002), the so-called \"trust doctrine\" is a perversion of normal trust law. It operates as a massive \"exception\" to the ordinary rules governing trust relationships. \"Exception\" in fact characterizes all the doctrines in the field. Read more at the direct link",
    "externalUrl": "https://blogs.umass.edu/derrico/2022/11/07/brackeen-v-haaland-the-indian-child-welfare-act-case-now-in-the-supreme-court-seen-in-perspective/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/link/history-consequences-doctrine-of-discovery/",
    "title": "Examining the History and Consequences of the Doctrine of Christian Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2022-01-07T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "We have just been awarded a Henry Luce Grant for a 3 year project examining the religious dimensions of the Doctrine of Christian Discovery.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "announcement"
    ],
    "textContent": "We have just been awarded a Henry Luce Grant for a 3 year project examining the religious dimensions of the Doctrine of Christian Discovery.",
    "externalUrl": "https://artsandsciences.syracuse.edu/news-all/news-from-2022/examining-the-history-and-consequences-of-the-doctrine-of-christian-discovery/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/link/letter-indian-residential-schools/",
    "title": "An Open Letter on 'Indian Residential Schools' by Betty Lyons",
    "publishedAt": "2021-02-02T14:54:46Z",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "Haudensoaunee",
      "soverignty",
      "TheyWereChildren",
      "featured"
    ],
    "externalUrl": "https://aila.ngo/an-open-letter-on-indian-residential-schools/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/link/religious-freedom/",
    "title": "Pagans in the Promised Land: a Primer on Religious Freedom",
    "publishedAt": "2021-09-02T14:54:46Z",
    "description": "Significant aspects of this research were published in the New York University Review of Law & Social Change (Vol. 20, Number 2, 1993), “The Evidence of Christian Nationalism in Federal Indian Law.” In United States law, early documents of “discovery” and conquest, issued by a number of fifteenth century popes, form the basis of denial of the rights of Indian nations and peoples. As a result,  the United States continues to deny that Indians have complete rights of sovereignty and territorial integrity, simply because Indians were not Christians at the time of Christendom’s arrival to the Western Hemisphere . By dehumanizing Indian people, and by considering their territories as being, with “ respect to Christians,” “inhabited only by brute animals,”  the Christian world created a system of colonization that has not yet ended.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "Indigenous",
      "Law",
      "sovereignty",
      "Religious Freedom"
    ],
    "textContent": "Significant aspects of this research were published in the New York University Review of Law & Social Change (Vol. 20, Number 2, 1993), “The Evidence of Christian Nationalism in Federal Indian Law.” In United States law, early documents of “discovery” and conquest, issued by a number of fifteenth century popes, form the basis of denial of the rights of Indian nations and peoples. As a result, the United States continues to deny that Indians have complete rights of sovereignty and territorial integrity, simply because Indians were not Christians at the time of Christendom’s arrival to the Western Hemisphere. By dehumanizing Indian people, and by considering their territories as being, with “respect to Christians,” “inhabited only by brute animals,” the Christian world created a system of colonization that has not yet ended.",
    "externalUrl": "https://aila.ngo/pagans-in-the-promised-land-a-primer-on-religious-freedom/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/link/truth-justification-cruelty-boarding-schools/",
    "title": "Truth and Justification: On the Cruelties Against Indigenous People",
    "publishedAt": "2021-09-23T14:54:46Z",
    "description": "And yet, all across Mother Earth, stories reverberate of Indigenous nations and peoples’ resistance and refusal in the face of the settler colonial state. We know that each day is a gift from the Creator and every day we start by giving thanks to the Creator, to our Earth, and to all of creation. We give gratitude to the children of Turtle Island who were sent to “Indian residential schools.” We give gratitude to those who died in those schools, including those who died running away from these institutes of death and destruction. We give gratitude to those who survived these “schools” and came home. One of the most important teachings of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy is the seven-generation principle. Everything we do is to make the world a better place for the seven generations to come. We say, “NYA•WEÑHA SKÄ•NOÑH”: Thank you for being well.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "Haudensoaunee",
      "sovereignty",
      "TheyWereChildren"
    ],
    "textContent": "And yet, all across Mother Earth, stories reverberate of Indigenous nations and peoples’ resistance and refusal in the face of the settler colonial state. We know that each day is a gift from the Creator and every day we start by giving thanks to the Creator, to our Earth, and to all of creation. We give gratitude to the children of Turtle Island who were sent to “Indian residential schools.” We give gratitude to those who died in those schools, including those who died running away from these institutes of death and destruction. We give gratitude to those who survived these “schools” and came home. One of the most important teachings of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy is the seven-generation principle. Everything we do is to make the world a better place for the seven generations to come. We say, “NYA•WEÑHA SKÄ•NOÑH”: Thank you for being well.",
    "externalUrl": "https://www.thenation.com/article/society/indigenous-residential-boarding-schools-canada/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/link/unraveling-international-law-colonialism/",
    "title": "Unraveling the International Law of Colonialism: The 200th Anniversary of Johnson v. M’Intosh",
    "publishedAt": "2023-02-17T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "Join us for a review and analysis of Johnson v. M’Intosh on the 200th anniversary of the decision, presented via webinar on March 10, 2023 7:30 am - 2:30 pm (MST) - Exact times will be announced You will be sent a link to the webinar before it begins.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "conference"
    ],
    "textContent": "Join us for a review and analysis of Johnson v. M'Intosh on the 200th anniversary of the decision, presented via webinar on March 10, 2023 7:30 am - 2:30 pm (MST) - Exact times will be announced You will be sent a link to the webinar before it begins.",
    "externalUrl": "https://na.eventscloud.com/ereg/index.php?eventid=722437"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/mexico-spain-colonial-abuse/",
    "title": "Mexico demands Spain apologize for colonial abuse of indigenous people",
    "publishedAt": "2019-03-26T03:47:22Z",
    "description": "In letter to Spanish king, President Obrador cites massacres and oppression during conquest of Mexico.",
    "tags": [
      "Indigenous-Peoples",
      "Spain",
      "Mexico",
      "News"
    ],
    "textContent": "“I have sent a letter to the king of Spain and another to the pope calling for a full account of the abuses and urging them to apologize to the indigenous peoples (of Mexico) for the violations of what we now call their human rights,” Lopez Obrador, 65, said in the video, which he posted to his social media accounts. Read More at the Guardian"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/monroe-doctrine/",
    "title": "Monroe Doctrine",
    "publishedAt": "2018-07-26T11:26:44Z",
    "description": "Excerpts from President James Monroe's seventh annual message to Congress, December 2, 1823.",
    "updatedAt": "2026-01-19T05:00:00Z",
    "tags": [
      "US",
      "President",
      "Doctrine",
      "treaty",
      "Law"
    ],
    "textContent": "Analysis by Steven T. Newcomb The Monroe Doctrine (1823) - Domination Translator Series - Part 6 Martin v. Waddell (1842) - Domination Translator Series - Part 7 President \"Teddy\" Roosevelt's Monroe Doctrine Corollary - Domination Translator Series - Part 8 Historic Documents The Monroe Doctrine Excerpts from President James Monroe's seventh annual message to Congress, December 2, 1823: At the proposal of the Russian Imperial Government, made through the minister of the Emperor residing here, a full power and instructions have been transmitted to the Minister of the United States at St. Petersburgh to arrange, by amicable negotiation, the respective rights and interests of the two nations on the northwest coast of this continent. A similar proposal has been made by His Imperial Majesty to the Government of Great Britain, which has likewise been acceded to. The Government of the United States has been desirous, by this friendly proceeding, of manifesting the great value which they have invariably attached to the friendship of the Emperor, and their solicitude to cultivate the best understanding with his Government. In the discussions to which this interest has given rise, and in the arrangements by which they may terminate the occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.... It was stated at the commencement of the last session that a great effort was then making in Spain and Portugal, to improve the condition of the people of those countries, and that it appeared to be conducted with extraordinary moderation. It need scarcely be remarked, that the result has been, so far, very different from what was then anticipated. Of events in that quarter of the globe, with which we have so much intercourse, and from which we derive our origin, we have always been anxious and interested spectators. The citizens of the United States cherish sentiments the most friendly, in favor of the liberty and happiness of their fellow men on that side of the Atlantic. In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy to do so. It is only when our rights are invaded, or seriously menaced, that we resent injuries, or make preparation for our defence. With the movements in this hemisphere, we are, of necessity, more immediately connected, and by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers. The political system of the allied powers is essentially different, in this respect, from that of America. This difference proceeds from that which exists in their respective governments. And to the defence of our own, which has been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure, and matured by the wisdom of their most enlightened citizens, and under which we have enjoyed unexampled felicity, this whole nation is devoted. We owe it, therefore, to candor, and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers, to declare, that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere, as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered, and shall not interfere. But with the governments who have declared their independence, and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration, and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling, in any other manner, their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition towards the United States. In the war between those new governments and Spain we declared our neutrality at the time of their recognition, and to this we have adhered, and shall continue to adhere, provided no change shall occur, which, in the judgement of the competent authorities of this government, shall make a corresponding change, on the part of the United States, indispensable to their security. The late events in Spain and Portugal, shew that Europe is still unsettled. Of this important fact, no stronger proof can be adduced than that the allied powers should have thought it proper, on any principle satisfactory to themselves, to have interposed, by force, in the internal concerns of Spain. To what extent such interposition may be carried, on the same principle, is a question, to which all independent powers, whose governments differ from theirs, are interested; even those most remote, and surely none more so than the United States. Our policy, in regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that quarter of the globe, nevertheless remains the same, which is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers; to consider the government de facto as the legitimate government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy; meeting, in all instances, the just claims of every power; submitting to injuries from none. But, in regard to these continents, circumstances are eminently and conspicuously different. It is impossible that the allied powers should extend their political system to any portion of either continent, without endangering our peace and happiness: nor can any one believe that our Southern Brethren, if left to themselves, would adopt it of their own accord. It is equally impossible, therefore, that we should behold such interposition, in any form, with indifference. If we look to the comparative strength and resources of Spain and those new governments, and their distance from each other, it must be obvious that she can never subdue them. It is still the true policy of the United States to leave the parties to themselves, in the hope that other powers will pursue the same course. Transcript of Monroe Doctrine (1823) Back to Law."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/native-american-law-in-the-modern-era/",
    "title": "Native American Law in the Modern Era",
    "publishedAt": "2018-08-01T11:37:35Z",
    "description": "Albany Government Law Review Volume 10 Issues 1&2 2016-2017",
    "updatedAt": "2022-01-28T14:10:10Z",
    "tags": [
      "Law",
      "US-Law",
      "Onondaga-Nation",
      "Haudenosaunee-Confederacy",
      "Anishinaabe",
      "Land"
    ],
    "textContent": "Albany Government Law Review Volume 10 Issues 1&2 2016-2017 Volume 10, Issue 1: Native American Law in the Modern Era Indian Title: Unraveling the Racial Context of Property Rights, or How to Stop Engaging in Conquest Joseph William Singer 10 Alb. Govt. L. Rev. 1 (2017) Indians, Race, and Criminal Jurisdiction in Indian Country Alex Tallchief Skibine 10 Alb. Govt. L. Rev. 49 (2017) Anishinaabe law and \"The Round House\" Matthew L.M. Fletcher 10 Alb. Govt. L. Rev. 88 (2017) The Doctrine of Christian Discovery: Its Fundamental Importance in United States Indian Law and the Need for its Repudiation and Removal. ⤓ PDF Download Joseph J. Heath, Esq. 10 Alb. Govt. L. Rev. 112 (2017) The Anglocentric Supremacy of the Marshall Court Neyooxet Greymorning 10 Alb. Govt. L. Rev. 191 (2017) Self-Determination For Whom?: Native American Sovereign Immunity & Disability Rights Michael I. Fiske 10 Alb. Govt. L. Rev. 271 (2017) Treaties are More than a Piece of Paper: Why Words Matter Gwen N. Westerman, PhD 10 Alb. Govt. L. Rev. 293 (2017) Recognition, Constitution Building and the Indian Nations of North and Northwest United States 1775-1795: The Importance of Indian Nations to the Framing of the US Constitution Sam McMullan 10 Alb. Govt. L. Rev. 318 (2017) Telling Stories in Council and Court: Developing A Reflective Tribal Governance Leah K. Jurss 10 Alb. Govt. L. Rev. 157 (2017) Tribal Nations, Indian Gaming, and the Rigged Economy Peter J. Herne 10 Alb. Govt. L. Rev. 239 (2017) - Back to Law."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/news-article-episcopal-church-repudiates-doctrine-of-discovery/",
    "title": "News Article: Episcopal Church repudiates Doctrine of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2018-07-26T11:20:59Z",
    "description": "In a first-of-its-kind action in the Christian world, the national Episcopal Church has passed a landmark resolution repudiating the Doctrine of Discovery and urging the U.S. government to endorse the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.",
    "tags": [
      "Repudiations",
      "Episcopal",
      "Christianity",
      "News"
    ],
    "textContent": "Episcopal Church repudiates Doctrine of Discovery By Gale Courey Toensing Posted: Jul 26, 2009 Originally Published by Indian Country Today Media Network ANAHEIM, Calif. – In a first-of-its-kind action in the Christian world, the national Episcopal Church has passed a landmark resolution repudiating the Doctrine of Discovery and urging the U.S. government to endorse the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Organizers of the bill hope it will lead to the overturning of a 19th century U.S. Supreme Court ruling and Congress’ assumption of plenary power over Indian nations they say are illegitimate and immoral, and continue to strip American Indian nations of their inherent sovereignty. The resolution, called “Repudiate the Doctrine of Discovery,” was passed unanimously by the Episcopal House of Bishops and by an overwhelming majority of the House of Delegates during the church’s 76th General Convention July 8 – 17 in Anaheim. “It’s a historic event,” said Steven Newcomb, Shawnee/Lenape. Newcomb is the indigenous law research coordinator for the Sycuan Education Department, co-founder and co-director of the Indigenous Law Institute, and a columnist for Indian Country Today. Newcomb’s work on the Doctrine of Discovery in his many essays and his 2008 book “Pagans in the Promise Land” is the spark that ignited individuals in the Episcopal Church to pursue the resolution. Newcomb expressed his “deep appreciation” for John Dieffenbacher-Krall, Brenda Hamilton, and John Chaffee “who powerfully advocated for passage of the adopted resolution. “Through the official action of an important religious institution in the United States, the document raises the visibility of the Doctrine of Christian Discovery, while providing a means of educating people about that doctrine and its continuing effects on indigenous nations and peoples. The resolution is also important because of its focus on and endorsement of the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.” The resolution is also timely: The U.N. Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues has called for a study of the Doctrine of Discovery and its historic and continuing effects on indigenous people to be completed by the forum’s convening in 2010. “The Episcopalian Church’s resolution will no doubt factor into that study,” Newcomb said. The Doctrine of Discovery was a principle of international law developed in a series of 15th century papal bulls and 16th century charters by European monarchs. It was essentially a racist philosophy that gave white Christian Europeans the green light to go forth and claim the lands and resources of non-Christian peoples and kill or enslave them – if other Christian Europeans had not already done so. The doctrine institutionalized the competition between European countries in their ever-expanding quest for colonies, resources and markets, and sanctioned the genocide of indigenous people in the “New World.” The resolution renounces the doctrine “as fundamentally opposed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and our understanding of the inherent rights that individuals and peoples have received from God,” and promises to share the document with its churches, governments within its boundaries, and the U.N. It resolves to eliminate the doctrine within the church’s contemporary politics, programs and structures, and urges the U.S. government to do the same. It asks Queen Elizabeth to publicly repudiate the Doctrine of Discovery, and encourages all Episcopal churches to support indigenous peoples in their ongoing efforts for their inherent sovereignty and fundamental human rights as peoples to be respected. Johnson v. M’Intosh, an 1823 U.S. Supreme Court case, held that because of the Doctrine of Discovery American Indians have a mere right of occupancy to their lands. The ruling is foundational to federal Indian law. Dieffenbacher-Krall, the executive director of the Maine Indian Tribal State Commission and originator of the resolution movement, said the ultimate goal is to overturn Johnson v. M’Intosh, and dismantle Congress’ claim to plenary power over Indian nations. “This is illegitimate, this is immoral, this is evil. U.S. law shouldn’t be based on this. I want to see an all out effort to overturn Johnson v. M’Intosh just as the NAACP legal defense fund and many civil rights activists worked strategically to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson,” he said, referring to the 1896 Supreme Court ruling that upheld a “separate but equal” decision by a lower court that allowed Louisiana to operate separate railroad cars for African-Americans. The high court decision provided cover for southern states to impose racist Jim Crow laws for more than five decades until segregation was tossed out in 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education. A longtime social justice activist, Dieffenbacher-Krall said his growing awareness and understanding of the doctrine’s history made action irresistible. “It’s not like I had a St. Paul on the road to Damascus moment, but sometime in the winter, spring or summer of 2006, I really became aware of the Doctrine of Discovery in connection to Congress’ claim of plenary power over American Indian nations. “So where’s the social justice behind Congress saying, ‘We’ll just do whatever we want with the Maliseets or Navajo or Hopi because we’re the U.S. and you’re not?’ I felt that because I have an uncommon knowledge for a white person about some of this stuff that I might have a role to play working in my church to make people aware of this.” Working with the Wabanaki tribes in Maine, reading Newcomb’s articles and later contacting him helped strengthen Dieffenbacher-Krall’s determination to act, and in October 2007, Maine’s Episcopal Church responded by passing a resolution calling on Queen Elizabeth and the Archbishop of Canterbury to rescind the 1496 charter given to John Cabot and his sons to go forth and claim possession of all the lands in the “New World” that weren’t already claimed by Spain and Portugal. Dieffenbacher-Krall also worked with Chaffee, a professor of Chinese history at Binghamton University and member of the Episcopalian diocese in Central New York, to pass its own similar resolution in November 2008, and with Hamilton, a Maine social worker, who worked with Chaffee to shepherd the national church’s resolution through the process in Anaheim. Chaffee crafted the resolution that was adopted at the general convention. The resolution has “a substantial practical value,” Chaffee said, because it could potentially “provide important legal ammunition in terms of pending and future legal cases that might be brought by Native Americans. I’m very happy to be just a small part of that whole process.” Hamilton was honored to be able to participate. In an e-mail update to her colleagues during the convention, she wrote, “My testimony rebutted the comment I have often heard about this issue, ‘What, are we trying to rewrite history?’ I said that to stand in any of the colonial churches of New England was a reminder that those churches stood on a history of the Doctrine of Discovery and genocide, thus there needed to be recognition of that both by the Episcopal Church and its colonial forbears in the Church of England.”"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/news/education/domination-murder-george-floyd/",
    "title": "Domination and the Murder of George Floyd",
    "publishedAt": "2020-05-25T13:07:09Z",
    "description": "In CounterPunch, Shawnee/Lenape scholar Steve Newcomb connects anti-blackness and racism to the domination and dehumanization of the Doctrine of Discovery.",
    "tags": [
      "Black-Lives-Matter",
      "Indigenous-Knowledges",
      "News",
      "Education"
    ],
    "textContent": "→ Domination and the Murder of George Floyd - CounterPunch.org by Steve Newcomb Ways to support Black Lives Matter"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/oneida-indian-nation-v-county-of-oneida/",
    "title": "Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida",
    "publishedAt": "2018-08-27T11:49:27Z",
    "description": "We have used the term “laches” here, as did the district court and this Court in Cayuga, as a convenient shorthand for the equitable principles at stake in this case, but the term is somewhat imprecise for the purpose of describing those principles.",
    "updatedAt": "2026-01-19T05:00:00Z",
    "tags": [
      "Law",
      "US-Law",
      "Indigenous-Peoples",
      "Haudenosaunee-Confederacy",
      "Oneida-Nation"
    ],
    "textContent": "Analysis by Steven T. Newcomb The Haudenosaunee Cases: Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida (Aug. 9th 2010) - Domination Translator Series - Part 12 Key Excerpt:   “We have used the term laches here, as a convenient shorthand for the equitable principles at stake in this case, but the term is somewhat imprecise for the purpose of deciding those principles... The Oneidas assert that the invocation of a purported laches defense is improper here because the defendants have not established the necessary elements of such a defense.  This omission is not ultimately important, as the equitable defense recognized in Sherrill and applied in Cayuga does not focus on the elements of traditional laches.” Download Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, 617 F. 3d 114, August 9, 2010 (⤓ PDF Download). PDF via CourtListner.com Back to Law."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/online-resources/",
    "title": "Online Resources",
    "publishedAt": "2018-07-24T09:19:59Z",
    "updatedAt": "2022-01-28T21:20:02Z",
    "tags": [
      "Resource",
      "Education",
      "UN",
      "United-Nations",
      "Indigenous-Peoples"
    ],
    "textContent": "Links to Related Web Sites Films Now Streaming: The Doctrine of Discovery: Unmasking the Domination Code United Nations UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs  Division for Social Policy and Development Indigenous Sites Official site for the Onondaga Nation, People of the Hills. Kanatsiohareke Mohawk Community Welcome To Ganondagan American Indian Law Alliance Comites de Defensa del Barrio (CDB's) Indigenous Peoples Forum on the Doctrine of Discovery Nahuacalli, Embassy of Indigenous Peoples Xinachtli: Nahuacalli Educator's Alliance Dismantling the Doctrine of Discovery RED : Continental Comunicaciones - Communications : Medios - Media ABYA YALA Others Indigenous Values Initiative American Indian Law Alliance NOON - Neighbors of the Onondaga Nation Syracuse Post Standard pictorial essay on the Onondaga Dismantling the Doctrine of Discovery: A movement of Anabaptist people of faith Women of Italian and Syracuse Heritage, CNY Then and Now Project Sullivan-Clinton Campaign Derryveagh Evictions Staked Plains Christian Hegemony Network Important Links Preliminary study of the impact on Indigenous peoples of the international legal construct known as the Doctrine of Discovery / submitted by the Special Rapporteur Tonya Gonella Frichner (Onondaga Nation), Executive Director American Indian Law Alliance Conference Room Paper on the Doctrine of Discovery 11th Session of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues Presented by the Haudenosaunee the American Indian Law Alliance and the Indigenous Law Institute. (⤓ Main PDF Download) // (⤓ Alt PDF Download from UN.org) American History: \"Growth of a Nation\" Brown University Committee on Slavery and Justice Home The girl who silenced the world for 5 minutes, Support the Power of Dignity CowJews and Indians Reflection on Christian Theology and Polity, the Christian Doctrine of Discovery, and the Indigenous Voice, Disciples of Christ (⤓ PDF Download) Nuns Blast Catholic Churchs 'Doctrine Of Discovery' That Justified Indigenous Oppression Idolatrías e Inquisición en los Andes, España y Portugal - Idolatrica.com Database of Indigenous Slavery in the Americas Five Ways Pope Francis Can Overcome the Irony that Threatens Laudato Si’ - Rural America In 1492 Columbus Sailed The Ocean Blue - Ridged Valley Reflections (⤓ PDF Download) Religious Groups Ask Pope Francis to Stand with Indigenous People \\- Loretto Community and (⤓ PDF Download) LCWR Doctrine of Discovery Repudiation Deeper dimensions in effort to reject Doctrine of Discovery \\- National Catholic Reporter Honoring Onondaga's Oren Lyons, Le Moyne grapples with Jesuit history \\- National Catholic Reporter Disastrous doctrine had papal roots Gonzalez: Indians want Pope Francis to rescind doctrine - NY Daily News Pope should rescind 'Doctrine of Discovery' Aboriginal Affairs Page Indigenous Sovereignty and the Being of the Occupier: Manifesto for a White Australian Philosophy of Origins Onondaga Nation members felt disrespected during Pope Francis visit in NYC \\- syracuse.com Then & Now Sullivan Clinton Campaign Staked Plains & Palo Duro Canyon Then & Now Nuns to pope: Revoke 15th-century doctrine that allows Christians to seize native land - The Washington Post Churches, indigenous groups protest canonization of missionary priest Doctrine of Discovery: A scandal in plain sight The call to rescind the Doctrine of Discovery For books and articles visit the Bibliography"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/onondaga-nation-land-rights/",
    "title": "Onondaga Nation Land Rights Complaint",
    "publishedAt": "2019-03-10T14:54:46Z",
    "description": "The Onondaga People wish to bring about a healing between themselves and all others who live in this region that has been the homeland of the Onondaga Nation since the dawn of time.",
    "tags": [
      "Law",
      "US-Law",
      "Indigenous-Peoples",
      "Haudenosaunee-Confederacy",
      "Onondaga-Nation"
    ],
    "textContent": "The Onondaga People wish to bring about a healing between themselves and all others who live in this region that has been the homeland of the Onondaga Nation since the dawn of time. The Nation and its people have a unique spiritual, cultural, and historic relationship with the land, which is embodied in Gayanashagowa, the Great Law of Peace. This relationship goes far beyond federal and state legal concepts of ownership, possession or legal rights. The people are one with the land, and consider themselves stewards of it. It is the duty of the Nation’s leaders to work for a healing of this land, to protect it, and to pass it on to future generations. The Onondaga Nation brings this action on behalf of its people in the hope that it may hasten the process of reconciliation and bring lasting justice, peace, and respect among all who inhabit the area. The land rights action petitions the federal court to declare that New York violated federal law when it took Onondaga Land. The land area includes the Onondaga Nation’s historic territory, which encompasses not only Syracuse and Onondaga Lake, but stretches south past Binghamton and north past Watertown. Learn more about the Onondaga Land Rights Complaint Back to Law"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/onondaga-nation-v-ny/",
    "title": "Onondaga Nation v. NY",
    "publishedAt": "2018-08-27T11:54:22Z",
    "description": "This appeal is decided on the basis of the equitable bar on recovery of ancestral lands in Sherrill, and this Court’s cases of Cayuga and Oneida. Three specific factors determine when ancestral land claims are foreclosed on equitable grounds:  (1) the length of time between an historic injustice and the present day;  (2) the disruptive nature of claims long delayed; and  (3) the degree to which these claims upset the justifiable expectations of individuals far removed from the events giving rise to the plaintiffs’ injury.",
    "updatedAt": "2026-01-19T05:00:00Z",
    "tags": [
      "Law",
      "US-Law",
      "Indigenous-Peoples",
      "Haudenosaunee-confederacy",
      "Onondaga-Nation"
    ],
    "textContent": "Analysis by Steven T. Newcomb The Haudenosaunee Cases: Onondaga Nation v. N.Y. (Argued Oct. 12, 2012, decided October 19, 2012) - Domination Translator Series - Part 13 Key Excerpt:   “This appeal is decided on the basis of the equitable bar on recovery of ancestral lands in Sherrill, and this Court’s cases of Cayuga and Oneida. Three specific factors determine when ancestral land claims are foreclosed on equitable grounds:  (1) the length of time between an historic injustice and the present day;  (2) the disruptive nature of claims long delayed; and  (3) the degree to which these claims upset the justifiable expectations of individuals far removed from the events giving rise to the plaintiffs’ injury.” Download Onondaga Nation v. NY, 500 Fed. Appx. 87. (⤓ PDF Download) PDF via CourtListner.com Back to Law."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/ottawa-v-logan/",
    "title": "Ottawa v. Logan",
    "publishedAt": "2018-08-27T11:43:56Z",
    "description": "the Indian tribes who have a right to those lands are quietly to enjoy them, hunting, planting and dwelling thereon so long as they please, without any molestation from the United States",
    "tags": [
      "Law",
      "US",
      "US-Law",
      "Treaty"
    ],
    "textContent": "Excerpt: 1795 Treaty or Greenville & 1805 Treaty of Fort Industry:  “the Indian tribes who have a right to those lands are quietly to enjoy them, hunting, planting and dwelling thereon so long as they please, without any molestation from the United States...“ BUT THEN: “We hold that, because the Tribe, under these treaties, retained at most a right of occupancy to the lands in Ohio, and that this right was extinguished by abandonment, any related fishing rights it may have preserved were similarly extinguished when the Tribe removed west of the Mississippi.”  Id. At 634 (Emphasis added.) Back to Law. \\ United States Court of Appeals,Sixth Circuit. OTTAWA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sean LOGAN, Director, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Defendant-Appellee. No. 08-3621.     Decided: August 18, 2009 Before KENNEDY, NORRIS, and COLE, Circuit Judges.ARGUED:  Matthew C. Blickensderfer, Frost Brown Todd LLC, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellant.  Sharon A. Jennings, Office of the Ohio Attorney General, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee.   ON BRIEF:  Matthew C. Blickensderfer, Frost Brown Todd LLC, Cincinnati, Ohio, Richard D. Rogovin, Frost Brown Todd LLC, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant.  Sharon A. Jennings, Damian W. Sikora, Office of the Ohio Attorney General, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee. OPINION In this action for a declaratory judgment, the Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma (“the Tribe”) seeks to establish that, under various treaties, it retains the right to fish in Lake Erie, and that the state of Ohio, through the Director of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, defendant Sean Logan (“the State”), lacks the authority to regulate this activity.   We hold that, because the Tribe, under these treaties, retained at most a right of occupancy to the lands in Ohio, and this right was extinguished upon abandonment, any related fishing rights it may have reserved were similarly extinguished when the Tribe removed west of the Mississippi.   We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. I. The facts of this case are a matter of historical record.   The Tribe, through a series of treaties executed during the late 18th and early 19th centuries, was displaced from northern Ohio to Kansas and then later to Oklahoma, where its members currently reside.   Invoking several of these treaties, the Tribe now seeks to begin a commercial fishing enterprise on Lake Erie. The Tribe's claim that it has the right to operate this enterprise without regard to Ohio's commercial fishing regulations, and the state's rejection of that claim, resulted in this lawsuit. The treaties at issue in this case are several-but not all-of those by which the United States, over a period of several decades, dealt with the Tribe and ultimately removed it from northern Ohio. They are:  (1) the Treaty of Greenville, Aug. 3, 1795, 7 Stat. 49 (hereinafter “Treaty of Greenville”);  (2) the Treaty of Fort Industry, which actually consists of two separate treaties:  the Connecticut Land Company Treaty, July 4, 1805, Gales & Seaton, 1 American State Papers:  Indian Affairs 696 (1832), available at http://​earlytreaties. ​unl.​edu/​treaty.​00044.​html (hereinafter “CLC Treaty”), and the United States Treaty, July 4, 1805, 7 Stat. 87 (hereinafter “U.S. Treaty”);  (3) the Treaty of Detroit, Nov. 17, 1807, 7 Stat. 105 (hereinafter “Treaty of Detroit”);  (4) the Treaty of Maumee Rapids, Art. 1, Sept 29, 1817, 7 Stat. 160 (hereinafter “Treaty of Maumee Rapids”);  and (5) the Treaty of 1831, Aug. 30, 1831, 7 Stat. 359 (hereinafter “Treaty of 1831”).   We briefly summarize those treaties. By the Treaty of Greenville, which brought to an end a conflict between the United States and a number of Indian 1 tribes residing in Ohio and Indiana, the tribes ceded to the United States more than one half of the present state of Ohio. Under the treaty, the United States “relinquish\\[ed\\] their claims to all other Indian lands” (with a few irrelevant exceptions) in Ohio. Treaty of Greenville arts. 3 & 4.   The eastern boundary of the Indian territory began at the mouth of the Cuyahoga River on Lake Erie, and generally ran south to the site of Fort Laurens, for just over 70 miles.   The southern border of the lands reserved to the tribes began there and runs west-southwest into modern-day Indiana.   To the northwest of this boundary was the land to which the United States relinquished its claims, which in Ohio consisted largely of Royce Areas 2 53, 54, 66, 87, 88, 99, and all of the smaller Royce Areas encompassed in them.   See Charles C. Royce, Indian Land Cessions in the United States, Royce Map of Ohio, reprinted in II 18th Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology-1896-97 (1899) (hereinafter “Royce, Land Cessions”).   The treaty is silent as to any northern border for the land to which the United States relinquished its claims, and the parties dispute whether the Indian lands encompassed part of Lake Erie. The Indian tribes later ceded some of the land relinquished to them by the Greenville Treaty in the Treaty of Fort Industry, which, as noted above, actually is comprised of two treaties:  the CLC Treaty and the U.S. Treaty, both signed on July 4, 1805.   The CLC Treaty conveyed Royce Area 53 to the Connecticut Land Company, and the U.S. Treaty similarly conveyed Royce Area 54 to the United States.   CLC Treaty;  U.S. Treaty art.   II. Taken together, these treaties ceded away all of the land the Indian tribes had retained under the Treaty of Greenville to the east of a line running north and south drawn 120 miles west of the Pennsylvania border.   The Tribe does not argue that either of these treaties created fishing rights in Lake Erie, but instead contends that they “did not extinguish the Ottawas' fishing rights reserved under the Treaty of Greenville.” At this point various Indian tribes, including the Ottawa, still retained possession of a significant portion of Ohio, but the expansion of our young republic was to continue at the expense of the tribes.   In the Treaty of Detroit, signed in 1807, the Indian tribes ceded Royce Area 66 to the United States.   The portion of Royce Area 66 lying in Ohio was a relatively small right triangle of land, bordered on the north (for our purposes) by the Michigan-Ohio border, on the west by a line running directly north from the mouth of the Auglaize River to the border of Michigan, and on the southeast hypotenuse by the middle of the Maumee River,3 from its mouth on Lake Erie upriver to the mouth of the Auglaize River.   Treaty of Detroit art.   I. The legal description used in the conveyance included a portion of Lake Erie bordering the present state of Michigan, but not Ohio. The treaty further provided that “\\[i\\]t is further agreed and stipulated, that the said Indian nations shall enjoy the privilege of hunting and fishing on the lands ceded as aforesaid, as long as they remain the property of the United States.”   Treaty of Detroit art.   V. The Tribe argues that this is evidence both that it retained fishing rights to Lake Erie in the Treaty of Greenville, and also that it continued to retain these rights in the Treaty of Detroit. Ten years later, in 1817, the Wyandot Indian tribe ceded Royce Area 87 to the United States through the Treaty of Maumee Rapids, bringing U.S. ownership of the modern-day state of Ohio nearly to completion.   Royce Area 87 includes most of the Indian territory in Ohio lying west of Royce Areas 53 and 54, and south of the Miami River.4  Six other tribes, including the Ottawas, “accede \\[d\\]” to the cession.   Treaty of Maumee Rapids, art. 3. Also by the treaty, the Ottawa, Pottawatomie, and Chippewa tribes ceded to the United States Royce Area 88, a conveyance not at issue in this appeal. Finally, in the Treaty of 1831, the United States purchased the small tracts of land reserved to the Ottawas in the Treaties of Detroit and Maumee Rapids.   Treaty of 1831, preamble.   In addition, members of the Tribe living on those tracts agreed “to remove west of the Mississippi” river.   The Treaty of 1831 was the first removal treaty entered into between the United States and the Ottawa tribe, and effectively removed the Tribe from Ohio, leaving only a handful of Ottawas on some small plots of land.   More removal treaties followed, and by the end of the decade, the Ottawas had conveyed all of their lands in Ohio to the United States.   Although a few Ottawas remained in Ohio for some time, to our knowledge all of them eventually departed, and the Tribe does not suggest otherwise.   By 1839, the main tribal organization had transferred to Kansas.   The Tribe argues that, even though it was effectively removed from Ohio by the Treaty of 1831, the treaty's language was insufficiently explicit to extinguish the fishing rights the Indians retained under the Treaty of Detroit.   Moreover, because the Treaty of 1831 expressly limits itself to purchasing rights established in the Treaties of Detroit and Maumee Rapids, it has no effect on the fishing rights established in the Treaty of Greenville. Relying on the treaties described above, the Tribe brought suit in the district court against the State, seeking a declaratory judgment that, among other things,5 the Tribe could carry out its plan to fish commercially in Lake Erie, with only minimal regulatory intrusion by the State.   The State first moved to dismiss based on its interpretation of the treaties discussed above, and the district court denied this motion.   The State then moved for summary judgment based on laches.   The district court requested supplemental briefing on interpretation of the relevant treaties, and the parties complied.   The district court granted the State's motion for summary judgment based on laches for all claims except that regarding fishing rights on Lake Erie. For that claim, it granted summary judgment to the State based on its interpretation of the above treaties.  Id. at 14-23.   The Tribe appeals only the latter decision. II. We review a district court's decision granting a motion for summary judgment de novo.  Keweenaw Bay Indian Cmty. v. Naftaly, 452 F.3d 514, 521 (6th Cir.2006). This is a deceptively straightforward case.   There are numerous treaties at issue here, but essentially, under the Treaty of Greenville the United States acquired Indian lands south of the treaty's east-west line and relinquished its claims to Indian lands north of the line.   By the remaining treaties at issue here the Ottawas and other Indian tribes ceded that land to the United States in a piecemeal fashion.   The gist of the Tribe's argument is that under the Treaty of Greenville, it reserved fishing rights to the Lake, and none of the subsequent treaties ceded away those rights.   The Treaty of Greenville is therefore the keystone of the Tribe's position in this case, without which the remainder of its arguments collapse. The United States Supreme Court has had occasion to explain its view of the Treaty of Greenville with some precision.   In Williams v. City of Chicago, 242 U.S. 434, 37 S.Ct. 142, 61 L.Ed. 414 (1917), the Court addressed a claim by the Pottawatomie Tribe that, pursuant to several treaties between itself and the United States, it owned a portion of land within the city of Chicago.   The Pottawatomies, like the Ottawas, had initially resided on land in this area reserved to them in the Treaty of Greenville, but through a series of subsequent treaties had ceded that land to the United States.  Id. at 436, 37 S.Ct. 142.   The Pottawatomie's claim proceeded on the theory that it had never conveyed to the United States its interest in the lakebed of Lake Michigan, so that when a portion of the lakebed was filled in in order to expand downtown Chicago, that filled-in portion of the lake still belonged to the Indians.  Id. They sought to exercise their claimed rights by either excluding non-Indians from the landfilled areas, or selling the land to the United States.  Id. at 436-37, 37 S.Ct. 142.   The Court offered this brief and apposite analysis: By the Treaty of Greenville the United States stipulated with the Pottawatomies and other Indians that generally in respect of a large territory westward of a line passing through Ohio, “The Indian tribes who have a right to those lands, are quietly to enjoy them, hunting, planting, and dwelling thereon so long as they please, without any molestation from the United States;  but when those tribes, or any of them, shall be disposed to sell their lands, or any part of them, they are to be sold only to the United States;  and until such sale, the United States will protect all the said Indian tribes in the quiet enjoyment of their lands against all citizens of the United States, and against all other white persons who intrude upon the same.”   We think it entirely clear that this treaty did not convey a fee simple title to the Indians;  that under it no tribe could claim more than the right of continued occupancy;  and that when this was abandoned all legal right or interest which both tribe and its members had in the territory came to an end. Id. at 437-38, 37 S.Ct. 142. It seems to us that Williams narrows our inquiry by placing two propositions beyond dispute:  (1) the Indian tribes retained only a right of continued occupancy to territories reserved to them under the Treaty of Greenville, and (2) in the event that the tribes abandoned the territory, “all legal right or interest” they had to it is extinguished.   In the case at bar, the Tribe concedes that it is bound by the first proposition:  under the Treaty of Greenville it had only a right of occupancy to the lands of northwestern Ohio. In addition, the Tribe does not dispute that it abandoned northwestern Ohio when it was removed west of the Mississippi via the Treaty of 1831.   Its claim, therefore, rests on demonstrating that its alleged fishing rights somehow survive, despite the Williams Court having ruled that, upon abandonment, “all legal right or interest which both the tribe and its members had in the territory came to an end.”   Id. at 438, 37 S.Ct. 142. The Tribe attempts to do so by distinguishing between the fishing rights it seeks to exercise here, and the “land claim” at issue in Williams.   But the Tribe suggests no reason why this difference matters, and we can see none.   Whether one views fishing rights as either subsumed into the general right of occupancy, or instead as a stand-alone stick in the proverbial bundle of title, those rights were extinguished along with the right of occupancy when the Tribe abandoned the territory.   If fishing rights are merely a feature of the larger right of occupancy, they would be extinguished upon abandonment along with the right of occupancy.   Cf. Williams, 242 U.S. at 438, 37 S.Ct. 142.   But even if we were to assume, for the sake of argument, that the fishing rights stand on their own as some kind of independent property right, we would nevertheless be compelled to conclude that, if abandonment extinguished rights to land that the Treaty of Greenville specifically granted to the tribes, then so would it extinguish alleged fishing rights that are not mentioned in the treaty at all.   Moreover, the right to fish is merely the kind of “legal right or interest” examined by the Supreme Court in Williams;  they too “came to an end” when the Tribe relocated to Kansas. All of the subsequent treaties relevant to this case regarded land to which the tribes held the right of continued occupancy under the Treaty of Greenville.   In each treaty, the Tribe ceded more and more land to the United States, in exchange for monetary compensation and the exception of occasional reservations of smaller portions of land.   None of these treaties granted the Tribe stronger property rights than it had held previously.   Accordingly, we conclude that, whatever fishing rights the Tribe may have retained under the Treaties of Fort Industry, Detroit, Maumee Rapids, and 1831, those rights were the same as, or lesser than, the rights it retained under the Treaty of Greenville, and therefore, applying the Williams rationale, were extinguished when the Tribe abandoned the land and removed west of the Mississippi.6 ,7 Id. III. The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed.   APPENDIX A CONCURRENCE Today we apply the Williams rationale and conclude that whatever fishing rights the Tribe retained under the Treaty of Greenville were extinguished when the Tribe abandoned northwestern Ohio. I write separately only to express my view that the Williams decision need not have been dispositive had the Tribe provided sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to the nature of the Tribe's usufructuary rights, i.e., hunting, fishing and gathering rights.   The Williams Court held that the Treaty of Greenville only “conveyed to the tribes a right of continued occupancy to the lands located in the treaty-reserved territories and that all legal right or interest the tribe had in the land came to an end when it abandoned the territory.”   Williams v. City of Chicago, 242 U.S. 434, 438, 37 S.Ct. 142, 61 L.Ed. 414 (1917).   The majority reasons that under Williams, whatever the nature of the Tribe's fishing rights, those rights were extinguished when occupancy ended.   I, however, am not convinced that we are fully bound by Williams in all cases dealing with usufructuary rights under the Treaty of Greenville.   To the extent that our decision may be read to advance that proposition, I disagree. I am not persuaded that Williams compels the conclusion that regardless of the nature of the Tribe's fishing rights, all of the Tribe's usufructuary rights were automatically abrogated when the Tribe abandoned the territory.   Supreme Court precedent explains that treaty-reserved non-exclusive rights of use are not dependent on title or the right of occupancy.   See Kennedy v. Becker, 241 U.S. 556, 562, 36 S.Ct. 705, 60 L.Ed. 1166 (1916);  United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371, 381, 25 S.Ct. 662, 49 L.Ed. 1089 (1905).   Therefore, usufructuary rights may exist even where a tribe no longer has the right to occupy the land associated with those rights.   See Minn. v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, 526 U.S. 172, 201-202, 119 S.Ct. 1187, 143 L.Ed.2d 270 (1999) (holding that tribe held nonexclusive-usufructuary rights, which were not linked to land ownership, were not extinguished when the tribe ceded the land on which those rights were associated).   To determine whether the Greenville Treaty language abrogates the Tribe's usufructuary rights when their occupancy ended, the Supreme Court instructs us “to look beyond the written words of the Treaty to the larger context that frames the Treaty, including ‘the history of the treaty, the negotiations, and the practical construction adopted by the parties.’ ”  Minn., 526 U.S. at 196, 119 S.Ct. 1187 (quoting Choctaw Nation v. United States, 318 U.S. 423, 432, 63 S.Ct. 672, 87 L.Ed. 877 (1943) and citing El Al Israel Airlines, Ltd. v. Tsui Yuan Tseng, 525 U.S. 155, 167, 119 S.Ct. 662, 142 L.Ed.2d 576 (1999)).   We must also interpret treaty terms as the Tribe would have understood them.  Id. Here, we could have, as the Tribe argued, distinguished Williams because there the Court did not conduct an inquiry into each Indian tribe's understanding of the Treaty's terms when reaching its decision.   In particular, the Williams Court did not analyze the historical record and the parties' understanding of fishing rights.   So, even if the Williams Court found that the Pottawatomie Tribe's usufructuary rights were inextricably linked to their right of occupancy, and that such rights were abrogated when the Pottawatomie Tribe left the territory, we could have reached the opposite conclusion with respect to the Tribe.   It is conceivable that, based on the Tribe's understanding of the Greenville Treaty and the historical record, their understanding of the Treaty language differed from the Pottawatomie Tribe's.   But that leaves a question before us:  does the historical record suggest that the Tribe's fishing rights were a distinct bundle of rights separate from its right to occupy the land associated with those rights.   If the Tribe's fishing rights were a separate bundle of property rights, we would not be bound by Williams. However, we cannot reach this issue because the historical record provided by the parties includes scant evidence of the Tribe's understanding of the Treaty terms or usufructuary rights.   We have some evidence that some Tribe members were reluctant to leave the territory, and that some may have remained in Ohio for a time after the majority of the Tribe left the area.   (ROA Vol. 1, pp. 456-57;  459;  464-65.)   There is also evidence that the remaining Tribe members continued to hunt on land ceded by treaty.  (ROA Vol. 1, p. 465.)   But none of this evidence touches upon the Tribe's fishing rights, nor does the Tribe make any effort to make a connection between this evidence and the Tribe's understanding of their usufructuary rights.   Further, none of the expert evidence examines the Tribe's understanding of the Tribe's fishing rights in relation to the their right to occupy the ceded land.   Given this dearth of evidence, it is impossible to parse the Tribe's right to occupancy from their usufructuary rights, or to raise a genuine issue of material fact on the issue.   Thus, I believe, on the record before us, we are bound by Williams. FOOTNOTES 1.   We recognize that the word “Indian,” when used to describe the members of the Ottawa and other Native American tribes, may seem to some people an offensive term.   However, the parties to this dispute both employ this term, as do the historical materials at issue here, and so we feel comfortable that our use of it in this opinion will not be interpreted as a slight to the people who inhabited this land before the arrival of European settlers. 2.   The areas referred to as “Royce areas” throughout this opinion are so named after Charles C. Royce, who created complete maps of the distinct pieces of land relinquished by the Indians to the United States in each respective treaty.   Each “Royce Area” on a “Royce Map” corresponds to a distinct parcel of land ceded to the United States in a distinct treaty.   See Appendix A. 3.   In the early 19th century this river was known also as the “Miami River” or “Miami of the Lake,” and is referred to as such in several treaties, including the Treaty of Detroit.   Treaty of Detroit art.   I. These names are interchangeable and so we use the modern nomenclature for clarity. 4.   The Treaties of Maumee Rapids and Detroit each left the Indians with some very small portions of land encompassed by Royce Areas 66 and 87.   However, because the tribes subsequently entered into removal treaties from the entire area, these minor reservations are not relevant to our analysis in this case. 5.   Not at issue here are the Tribe's additional requests for declaratory judgment regarding their alleged rights to hunt in Ohio and fish in its inland waterways, also without being subject to regulation by the state of Ohio. The Tribe does not challenge the district court's ruling on those issues, and so we do not review that decision.We also stress that, although this case raises a host of difficult issues of first impression in this circuit-and the country-we seek to decide this case on the narrowest possible grounds and express no opinion as to any issues except those which are discussed below. 6.   Abandonment is not to be confused with laches, an issue we decline to address today.   Abandonment of rights stems from a physical removal from the area where those rights were exercised, with no expectation of exercising the rights again, as occurred here as well as in Williams.   Laches arises from an extended failure to exercise a right to the detriment of another party, and we express no opinion as to whether laches could apply to defeat the rights at issue here. 7.   Although it does not bear on our decision, we also note in passing that victory for the Tribe in its fishing rights claim could have implications beyond rights to fish on Lake Erie. At oral argument counsel for the Tribe acknowledged that, should it prevail, the Tribe could conceivably seek to prevent private parties, both commercial and noncommercial, from interfering with its fishing rights, by enjoining them from fishing Lake Erie, seeking to abrogate commercial fishing deeds to portions of the Lake, or even requiring private parties to remove physical items, such as docks, from the lake.   Furthermore, counsel also acknowledged that prevailing in this case could open the door to claims broader than fishing rights, such as a right to mine the significant salt deposits lying beneath the lakebed of Lake Erie. NORRIS, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which KENNEDY, J., joined.  COLE, J. (pp. 640-42), delivered a separate concurring opinion.   Via: OTTAWA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA v. LOGAN at FindLaw.com Back to Law."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/papal-bulls/",
    "title": "Papal Bulls",
    "publishedAt": "2018-07-30T17:45:04Z",
    "tags": [
      "Papal-Bulls",
      "Catholic",
      "featured",
      "main"
    ],
    "textContent": "Papal Bulls that create the foundation of the Doctrine of Discovery   Papal Bull Dum Diversas 18 June, 1452 English Quotations from Dum Diversas and the Latin original via google books The Bull Romanus Pontifex (Nicholas V), January 8, 1455 The Bull Inter Caetera (Alexander VI), May 4, 1493 Expansion of Papal Bulls Treaty of Tordesillas, June 7, 1494 Patent Granted by King Henry VII to John Cabot and his Sons, March 5, 1496 The Requerimiento, 1513 Sublimis Deus (Sublimis Dei) A Brief Overview Sublimis Deus, Pastorale Officium and Non IndecensVidetur – A Historical Dive Into the Vatican’s Failure to Rescind the Doctrine of Discovery Joint Statement of the Dicasteries for Culture and Education and for Promoting Integral Human Development on the “Doctrine of Discovery”, 30.03.2023 Responses to the Joint Statement of the Dicastries"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/papal-bulls/sublimis-deus/",
    "title": "Sublimis Deus (Sublimis Dei)",
    "publishedAt": "2022-08-01T20:54:46Z",
    "description": "On the limits of Sublimis Deus (also called Sublimis Dei).",
    "tags": [
      "Catholic",
      "featured",
      "Papal-Bulls"
    ],
    "textContent": "A Brief Overview Every few years, when the Doctrine of Discovery gets traction, someone raises the old chestnut of Sublimis Deus as apparent proof that the Catholic church did already rescind the Doctrine and therefore it's not necessary. I should probably do a blog post that I can just repost. Whenever Sublimis Deus (also called Sublimis Dei) is raised in this fashion I see it as a kind of red flag for groups that aren't really ready to reckon with history, or be accountable to history, but rather be absolved of their role in history. There are numerous issues with citing Sublimis Deus in this manner. 1. It was effectively rescinded nearly exactly a year later in June 1538 through the letter Non Indecens Videtur. This is because the conquistadors complained about being ex-communicated for killing, raping and robbing Natives (which was the punishment accorded by Sublimis Deus) - and so King Charles V of Spain (who was also the Holy Roman Emperor) lobbied on their behalf to have it rescinded, claiming it to be damaging to the important task of colonization and spreading the word of God. So Sublimis Deus was only in place for a year and rescinding it was a relatively simple affair - as opposed to however many decades/centuries of trying to get Inter Caetera, Romanus Pontifex, Dum Diversas, the Treaty of Tordesillas or any of the other relevant Papal Laws rescinded. Ironic huh. Just goes to show how easy rescinding a papal law is when they want. Also interesting that whenever people raise it in this fashion, they rarely acknowledge that it was rescinded just one year later. 2. As Steve Newcomb points out, it was not retrospective, and by the time Sublimis Deus was published, mass slaughter and dispossession had already taken place. 3. It did not address the (assumed) \"responsibility\" of the Church, Monarchs or their explorers and armies, to convert Natives, which of course they continued to do violently. 4. If you look at the date, it was just 13 years before the 1550 royal debates of Valladolid, ordered by the Holy Roman Emperor an King of Spain, Charles V where De Las Casas (who was in fact one of the monks that petitioned Paul III for Sublimis Deus) and de Sepulveda argued about the relative rights of Native peoples. The parameters of the debate were: A) Native peoples are inhuman, savages, enemies of Christ and should have war waged against them and be exterminated (de Sepulveda) OR B) Native peoples are human, but are lesser humans, like women, or children, and should therefore be converted to Christ and brought under the \"wing\" of more civilised and advanced (ie white) races (De Las Casas). These were both Catholic monks. So not only were they arguing that native peoples could be dispossessed, enslaved and harmed, but that they could also be righteously slaughtered because they're not actually human and are enemies of Christ. They were able to be cast as enemies of Christ because Pope Paul did NOT actually rescind the previous bulls, so they still stood (and still stand)... but even over the year within which Sublimis Deus was in effect June 1537-June 1538, European thugs like Pizarro and De Salazar were still invading, killing, & enslaving Native peoples on behalf of the Catholic church and Monarchs of Europe because they were deemed 'enemies of Christ' and the previous papal bulls still compelled them to do that to enemies of Christ. 5. It's self evident that Sublimis Deus did nothing to halt the Catholic church, or the monarchs of Europe, from expanding their empires around the world, continuing to enslave, slaughter, rape, torture, dispossess and displace Native peoples for the following centuries. The other argument offered by the church against rescinding the papal bulls is that they \"mean nothing\" and are irrelevant. Of course, if they mean nothing to the church but clearly mean something to Indigenous Peoples then rescinding them should be a simple matter, and not rescinding them is an abuse of privilege and power. So there, anyone raises Sublimis Deus to you, smack em with that. Sublimis Deus, Pastorale Officium and Non Indecens Videtur by Tina Ngata{: .btn .btn--primary} On the Papal Bull Sublimis Deus by Steven T. Newcomb{: .btn .btn--inverse} original published on Facebook."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/patent-cabot-henry-vii/",
    "title": "Patent Granted by Henry VII to John Cabot",
    "publishedAt": "2018-07-23T15:32:15Z",
    "description": "By this public document, Henry VII indicated his official, royal support for Cabot's enterprise.",
    "tags": [
      "Law",
      "England",
      "US"
    ],
    "textContent": "Patent Granted by King Henry VII to John Cabot and his Sons March 5, 1496 By this public document, Henry VII indicated his official, royal support for Cabot's enterprise. As an agent of the English Crown, Cabot was empowered to investigate, claim and possess lands \"which before this time were unknown to all Christians\" - which meant he could not intrude on Spanish and Portuguese discoveries. The king would receive one fifth of the value of merchandise brought back to Bristol, though he had invested no money of his own. For John Cabot and his Sons. The King, to all to whom, etc. Greeting: Be it known and made manifest that we have given and granted as by these presents we give and grant, for us and our heirs, to our well beloved John Cabot, citizen of Venice, and to Lewis, Sebastian and Sancio, sons of the said John, and to the heirs and deputies of them, and of any one of them, full and free authority, faculty and power to sail to all parts, regions and coasts of the eastern, western and northern sea, under our banners, flags and ensigns, with five ships or vessels of whatsoever burden and quality they may be, and with so many and such mariners and men as they may wish to take with them in the said ships, at their own proper costs and charges, to find, discover and investigate whatsoever islands, countries, regions or provinces of heathens and infidels, in whatsoever part of the world placed, which before this time were unknown to all Christians. We have also granted to them and to any of them, and to the heirs and deputies of them and of any one of them, and have given licence to set up our aforesaid banners and ensigns in any town, city, castle, island or mainland whatsoever, newly found by them. And that the before-mentioned John and his sons or their heirs and deputies may conquer, occupy and possess whatsoever such towns, castles, cities and islands by them thus discovered that they may be able to conquer, occupy and possess, as our vassals and governors lieutenants and deputies therein, acquiring for us the dominion, title and jurisdiction of the same towns, castles, cities, islands and mainlands so discovered; in such a way nevertheless that of all the fruits, profits, emoluments, commodities, gains and revenues accruing from this voyage, the said John and sons and their heirs and deputies shall be bound and under obligation for their every voyage, as often as they shall arrive at our port of Bristol, at which they are bound and holden only to arrive, all necessary charges and expenses incurred by them having been deducted, to pay to us, either in goods or money, the fifth part of the whole capital gained, we giving and granting to them and to their heirs and deputies, that they shall be free and exempt from all payment of customs on all and singular the goods and merchandise that they may bring back with them from those places thus newly discovered. And further we have given and granted to them and to their heirs and deputies, that all mainlands, islands, towns, cities, castles and other places whatsoever discovered by them, however numerous they may happen to be, may not be frequented or visited by any other subjects of ours whatsoever without the licence of the aforesaid John and his sons and of their deputies, on pain of the loss as well of the ships or vessels daring to sail to these places discovered, as of all goods whatsoever. Willing and strictly commanding all and singular our subjects as well by land as by sea, that they shall render good assistance to the aforesaid John and his sons and deputies, and that they shall give them all their favour and help as well in fitting out the ships or vessels as in buying stores and provisions with their money and in providing the other things which they must take with them on the said voyage. In witness whereof, etc. Witness ourself at Westminster on the fifth day of March. By the King himself, etc. Reproduced from H.P. Biggar, ed., The Precursors of Jacques Cartier 1497-1534: A Collection of Documents relating to the Early History of the Dominion of Canada (Ottawa: Government Printing Bureau 1911) 7-10. Original document housed in the Public Record Office, London. Photo of John Cabot Charter via heritage.nf.ca. Thanks to Dave Ratcliffe for finding this image. Back to law"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/pdf-archive/",
    "title": "PDF Archive Index",
    "publishedAt": "2026-06-25T01:21:28Z",
    "description": "Browse the Doctrine of Discovery PDF archive index with downloadable documents, reports, teaching resources, and reference materials for research and education.",
    "textContent": "PDF Archive ⤓"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/podcast/religionlab/letter-law-podcast/",
    "title": "The Letter of the Law",
    "publishedAt": "2024-02-16T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "In this season of  Sacred & Profane , we explore how religions have shaped the climate crisis — and how they offer ways to imagine a different future. Scholars and climate activists increasingly point to European colonization of the Americas as a kind of tipping point in not only human history, but climate history as well. Colonialism created a legal and cultural framework that prioritized private ownership of land and resources, giving rise to extractive industries that have weakened and destroyed ecosystems across the world. We’re joined by Philip Arnold and Sandy Bigtree of the  Skä-noñh Great Law of Peace Center.  They have a podcast of their own,  Mapping the Doctrine of Discovery ,  which explores the impact of a series of proclamations by Catholic popes that have become the basis for land ownership in countries across the world — including right here in the United States.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "audio",
      "featured",
      "Podcast",
      "religionlab"
    ],
    "textContent": "In this season of Sacred & Profane, we explore how religions have shaped the climate crisis --- and how they offer ways to imagine a different future. Scholars and climate activists increasingly point to European colonization of the Americas as a kind of tipping point in not only human history, but climate history as well. Colonialism created a legal and cultural framework that prioritized private ownership of land and resources, giving rise to extractive industries that have weakened and destroyed ecosystems across the world. We're joined by Philip Arnold and Sandy Bigtree of the Skä-noñh Great Law of Peace Center. They have a podcast of their own, Mapping the Doctrine of Discovery, which explores the impact of a series of proclamations by Catholic popes that have become the basis for land ownership in countries across the world --- including right here in the United States.",
    "externalUrl": "https://religionlab.virginia.edu/podcast/the-letter-of-the-law/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/podcast/s01/S01e00-podcast-launch/",
    "title": "Episode 0 - Introduction to Mapping the Doctrine of Discovery Podcast",
    "publishedAt": "2022-02-22T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "⤓ Download a transcript of Episode 0 as a PDF // → Subscribe We begin this episode with a land acknowledgement . Our hosts Prof. Philip P. Arnold and Sandy Bigtree (Mohawk Nation) begin by explaining the need for and importance of this podcast and how they hope it will be a helpful educational resource for college classrooms. To begin mapping The Doctrine of Discovery our hosts start by discussing the iconic, Christopher Columbus. A man who literally embodies the Doctrine of Discovery. His voyage was funded by the Roman Catholic Church and the Crowns of Europe. A series of papal bulls provided the theological and legal justifications for the European settler-colonizers to feel comfortable participating in Enslavement, Exploitation, and Extraction (Steven T. Newcomb’s Pagans in the Promised Land helps to explain this helpful summary of the Papal Bulls).",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "audio",
      "Podcast",
      "S01"
    ],
    "textContent": "⤓ Download a transcript of Episode 0 as a PDF // → Subscribe) We begin this episode with a land acknowledgement. Our hosts Prof. Philip P. Arnold and Sandy Bigtree (Mohawk Nation) begin by explaining the need for and importance of this podcast and how they hope it will be a helpful educational resource for college classrooms. To begin mapping The Doctrine of Discovery our hosts start by discussing the iconic, Christopher Columbus. A man who literally embodies the Doctrine of Discovery. His voyage was funded by the Roman Catholic Church and the Crowns of Europe. A series of papal bulls provided the theological and legal justifications for the European settler-colonizers to feel comfortable participating in Enslavement, Exploitation, and Extraction (Steven T. Newcomb’s Pagans in the Promised Land helps to explain this helpful summary of the Papal Bulls).",
    "externalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/season1/episode-0/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/podcast/s01/S01e05/",
    "title": "S01E05 - The Doctrine of Discovery in the context of Abya Yala with Tupac Enrique Acosta",
    "publishedAt": "2022-10-23T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Tupac Enrique Acosta, (Izkaloteka Mexica Azteca), TONATIERRA, One of the original conveners of the gathering of Tlahtokan Aztlan in 1984 in the O’otham Jeved Territories [Arizona] that sent a message to Pope John Paul II calling for the Vatican State to re-examine the fallacious principles of the Papal Bulls of Alexander VI purporting to grant “Domain” over the territories and Nations of Indigenous Peoples. This letter received a response via the Vatican Secretary of State in May 1984 from the office of the Bishop of Phoenix, which was incoherent, illogical, and paternalistic. Subsequently to 1984, TONATIERRA has been consistently advancing the DISMANTLING of the Doctrine of Discovery in a series of coordinated community campaigns led by Indigenous Peoples from the local-regional, continental-global contexts of geo-political reference, operating as Secretariat of the Continental Commission Abya Yala.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "audio",
      "Podcast",
      "S01"
    ],
    "textContent": "Tupac Enrique Acosta, (Izkaloteka Mexica Azteca), TONATIERRA, One of the original conveners of the gathering of Tlahtokan Aztlan in 1984 in the O’otham Jeved Territories [Arizona] that sent a message to Pope John Paul II calling for the Vatican State to re-examine the fallacious principles of the Papal Bulls of Alexander VI purporting to grant “Domain” over the territories and Nations of Indigenous Peoples. This letter received a response via the Vatican Secretary of State in May 1984 from the office of the Bishop of Phoenix, which was incoherent, illogical, and paternalistic. Subsequently to 1984, TONATIERRA has been consistently advancing the DISMANTLING of the Doctrine of Discovery in a series of coordinated community campaigns led by Indigenous Peoples from the local-regional, continental-global contexts of geo-political reference, operating as Secretariat of the Continental Commission Abya Yala.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay1/s1e5/",
    "externalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/season1/episode-05/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/podcast/s01/s01e01/",
    "title": "S01E01 - The Legal Framework of the Doctrine of Christian Discovery in Practice with Joe Heath",
    "publishedAt": "2022-03-22T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "⤓ Download a transcript of Episode 1 as a PDF // → Subscribe We begin this episode with a  land acknowledgement . Our hosts Prof.  Philip P. Arnold and Sandy Bigtree (Mohawk Nation)  begin by introducing our guest, Joseph J. Heath, General Counsel for Onondaga Nation. He has an interesting career from the  Attica Prison Rebellion  to working with  Onondaga Nation . The show begins by Arnold, Bigtree, and Heath answering the question, What is the Doctrine of Discovery? Heath responds: “The Doctrine of Discovery is an excuse for colonialism. It is European white Christian colonialism which has inflicted white Christian supremacy all over the globe” (00:04:31). After offering a definition of the Doctrine of Christian Discovery, Heath turns his attention to the way sin which it becomes the basis of “U.S. Federal Indian Law” and U.S. Property Law. In his analysis he traces an arc from  Johnson v. M’Intosh  in 1823 to the  Onondaga Nation Land rights action  in 2005 and its dismissal in 2010. Having traced a brief legal history of the Doctrine of Discovery the episode turns to the work of Steven T. Newcomb (Shawnee/Lenape) who recommended clarifying the Doctrine of Discovery by calling it the Doctrine of Christian Discovery and Domination to more accurately reflect its usage and development especially in light of Chief Justice John Marshall (1755-1835) legal ruling and his land speculation. Marshall like many of the other found fathers was a land speculator. Again following Newcomb, Heath points out that the early U.S. economy was driven by two primary elements, enslavement and land theft (land speculation). The basis of US Federal Indian Law and US property law is the Doctrine of Discovery because of this is pure artifice.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "audio",
      "Podcast",
      "S01"
    ],
    "textContent": "⤓ Download a transcript of Episode 1 as a PDF // → Subscribe)) We begin this episode with a land acknowledgement. Our hosts Prof. Philip P. Arnold and Sandy Bigtree (Mohawk Nation) begin by introducing our guest, Joseph J. Heath, General Counsel for Onondaga Nation. He has an interesting career from the Attica Prison Rebellion to working with Onondaga Nation. The show begins by Arnold, Bigtree, and Heath answering the question, What is the Doctrine of Discovery? Heath responds: \"The Doctrine of Discovery is an excuse for colonialism. It is European white Christian colonialism which has inflicted white Christian supremacy all over the globe\" (00:04:31). After offering a definition of the Doctrine of Christian Discovery, Heath turns his attention to the way sin which it becomes the basis of \"U.S. Federal Indian Law\" and U.S. Property Law. In his analysis he traces an arc from Johnson v. M'Intosh in 1823 to the Onondaga Nation Land rights action in 2005 and its dismissal in 2010. Having traced a brief legal history of the Doctrine of Discovery the episode turns to the work of Steven T. Newcomb (Shawnee/Lenape) who recommended clarifying the Doctrine of Discovery by calling it the Doctrine of Christian Discovery and Domination to more accurately reflect its usage and development especially in light of Chief Justice John Marshall (1755-1835) legal ruling and his land speculation. Marshall like many of the other found fathers was a land speculator. Again following Newcomb, Heath points out that the early U.S. economy was driven by two primary elements, enslavement and land theft (land speculation). The basis of US Federal Indian Law and US property law is the Doctrine of Discovery because of this is pure artifice.",
    "externalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/season1/episode-01/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/podcast/s01/s01e02/",
    "title": "S01E02 -The Doctrine Of Christian Discovery As An Ideological And Legal Framework with Steven T. Newcomb",
    "publishedAt": "2022-06-23T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "⤓ Download a transcript of Episode 2 as a PDF // → Subscribe Steven T. Newcomb emphasizes that what undergirds the Doctrine of Discovery is a Christian theological logic of domination and dehumanization. This theological rationale creates a system of domination. In order to understand this theory of domination and dehumanization Newcomb argues it is insufficient to look only at the law and theological dimensions we must also look at the rhetorical and cognitive dimensions of this system of domination. Some of the earliest people to appreciate Newcomb’s work was Birgil Kills Straight who is an Oglala Lakota headman and ceremonial person and the founder of the Indigenous Law Institute, Tonya Gonella Frichner of the Onondaga Nation, along with Tupac Enrique Acosta who is Izkaloteka Mexica Azteca).",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "audio",
      "Podcast",
      "S01"
    ],
    "textContent": "⤓ Download a transcript of Episode 2 as a PDF // → Subscribe)) Steven T. Newcomb emphasizes that what undergirds the Doctrine of Discovery is a Christian theological logic of domination and dehumanization. This theological rationale creates a system of domination. In order to understand this theory of domination and dehumanization Newcomb argues it is insufficient to look only at the law and theological dimensions we must also look at the rhetorical and cognitive dimensions of this system of domination. Some of the earliest people to appreciate Newcomb’s work was Birgil Kills Straight who is an Oglala Lakota headman and ceremonial person and the founder of the Indigenous Law Institute, Tonya Gonella Frichner of the Onondaga Nation, along with Tupac Enrique Acosta who is Izkaloteka Mexica Azteca).",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay1/s1e2/",
    "externalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/season1/episode-02/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/podcast/s01/s01e03/",
    "title": "S01E03 - The Doctrine of Discovery in the Mesoamerican Context with Davíd Carrasco",
    "publishedAt": "2022-06-22T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "After discussing how the Zócalo provides a snapshot of colonization, Arnold shifts the conversation to the History of Religions as a theory and method for understanding the Doctrine of Christian Discovery. Arnold asks how can Mircea Eliade and Charles H. Long help to make sense of the doctrine? For Carrasco, Eliade anticipated, the current moment of a cultural awakening to what Black, Indigenous, and other Persons of Color have been doing and how they have been reshaping history (C.f. Mircea Eliade, “New Humanisms”). Building on the discussion of Eliade’s work both Arnold and Carrasco highlight how the History of Religions attunes scholars to the presence of human diversity and interrelated relationship with the landscape. Two important concepts they draw from Eliade’s work is  presence  and  habitation . Both of which highlight how spaces and stories shape perception of the world. Charles H. Long’s work expands upon the work of Eliade by bringing students stories into the classroom and taking their background and perspective seriously. In  Significations , Long underscores how colonialism is always justified not only through law but also through religion and religious frameworks. Building on Long’s work Arnold has developed a  theology of conquest . For Arnold and Long part of what is happening in the act of colonization is that the colonizer is attempting to enact a second creation of the world. In light of the physical and epistemological violence of the colonial project, Indigenous peoples had to find new resources to make a better world out of the tragedy and violence of colonialism to move into a new world beyond after colonialism.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "audio",
      "Podcast",
      "S01"
    ],
    "textContent": "After discussing how the Zócalo provides a snapshot of colonization, Arnold shifts the conversation to the History of Religions as a theory and method for understanding the Doctrine of Christian Discovery. Arnold asks how can Mircea Eliade and Charles H. Long help to make sense of the doctrine? For Carrasco, Eliade anticipated, the current moment of a cultural awakening to what Black, Indigenous, and other Persons of Color have been doing and how they have been reshaping history (C.f. Mircea Eliade, \"New Humanisms\"). Building on the discussion of Eliade's work both Arnold and Carrasco highlight how the History of Religions attunes scholars to the presence of human diversity and interrelated relationship with the landscape. Two important concepts they draw from Eliade's work is presence and habitation. Both of which highlight how spaces and stories shape perception of the world. Charles H. Long's work expands upon the work of Eliade by bringing students stories into the classroom and taking their background and perspective seriously. In Significations, Long underscores how colonialism is always justified not only through law but also through religion and religious frameworks. Building on Long's work Arnold has developed a theology of conquest. For Arnold and Long part of what is happening in the act of colonization is that the colonizer is attempting to enact a second creation of the world. In light of the physical and epistemological violence of the colonial project, Indigenous peoples had to find new resources to make a better world out of the tragedy and violence of colonialism to move into a new world beyond after colonialism.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay1/s1e3/",
    "externalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/season1/episode-03/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/podcast/s01/s01e04/",
    "title": "S01E04 - Haudenosaunee Influence on the Women’s Rights Movement with Sally Roesch Wagner",
    "publishedAt": "2022-08-23T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "⤓ Download a transcript of Episode 4 as a PDF // → Subscribe As Gloria Steinem says, Matilda Joslyn Gage was a woman ahead of her time. Wagner sees Gage as a prophet and a visionary who was misunderstood in her own time and forced out of the women’s movement because she was speaking to the future– refusing to be satisfied with only half measures on the march to equality. Wagner suggests that Gage’s iconic work, Woman, Church and State (1893), is to be understood as women against church and state. In the book she envisions the end of patriarchy and capitalism—this going beyond the vote. She saw voting as one of the tools for challenging the fourfold oppression of women (church, family, capitalism, and the state).",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "audio",
      "Podcast",
      "S01"
    ],
    "textContent": "⤓ Download a transcript of Episode 4 as a PDF // → Subscribe)) As Gloria Steinem says, Matilda Joslyn Gage was a woman ahead of her time. Wagner sees Gage as a prophet and a visionary who was misunderstood in her own time and forced out of the women’s movement because she was speaking to the future– refusing to be satisfied with only half measures on the march to equality. Wagner suggests that Gage’s iconic work, Woman, Church and State (1893), is to be understood as women against church and state. In the book she envisions the end of patriarchy and capitalism—this going beyond the vote. She saw voting as one of the tools for challenging the fourfold oppression of women (church, family, capitalism, and the state).",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay1/s1e4/",
    "externalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/season1/episode-04/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/podcast/s02/s02305/",
    "title": "S02E05: Dissecting the Doctrine of Discovery: Indigenous Rights, White Supremacy, and the United Nations with Betty Lyons",
    "publishedAt": "2023-07-25T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // → Subscribe Our conversation focuses on the  dismantling of the Doctrine of Discovery  and the profound implications it has had on Indigenous Peoples worldwide. The Doctrine of Discovery  a theological and legal justification that has served as the basis for enslavement, exploitation, and extraction, as  Steven T. Newcomb  succinctly summarizes. The colonization and oppression of Indigenous Peoples, in the name of the Doctrine of Discovery, is not something that happened just in the past; it happens today. Betty speaks candidly about the complacency she has witnessed at the United Nations when it comes time to confront this doctrine. She highlights the inherent power structures that this doctrine supports and the difficulty of dismantling them, particularly when they significantly benefit those in power.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "audio",
      "johnson",
      "mintosh",
      "Podcast",
      "S02"
    ],
    "textContent": "⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // → Subscribe)) Our conversation focuses on the dismantling of the Doctrine of Discovery and the profound implications it has had on Indigenous Peoples worldwide. The Doctrine of Discovery a theological and legal justification that has served as the basis for enslavement, exploitation, and extraction, as Steven T. Newcomb succinctly summarizes. The colonization and oppression of Indigenous Peoples, in the name of the Doctrine of Discovery, is not something that happened just in the past; it happens today. Betty speaks candidly about the complacency she has witnessed at the United Nations when it comes time to confront this doctrine. She highlights the inherent power structures that this doctrine supports and the difficulty of dismantling them, particularly when they significantly benefit those in power.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay1/s2e5/",
    "externalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/season2/episode-05/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/podcast/s02/s02e01/",
    "title": "S02E01 - The Backstory of Johnson v. M'Intosh with Lindsay Robertson",
    "publishedAt": "2023-07-05T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // → Subscribe  The episode begins with Prof. Robertson providing the context for  Johnson v. M’Intosh , Chief Justice John Marshall and the  Marshall trilogy , which is  Johnson v M’Intosh ,  21 US (8 Wheat) 543 (1823),  Cherokee Nation v Georgia , 30 US (5 Pet) 1 (1831) and  Worcester v Georgia ,  31 US (6 Pet) 515 (1832). Early in Prof. Robertson’s career, he was looking to do a history, and he knew these three cases so he began looking into them and began wondering what was the history and story behind the cases. As he dug into the archives, he realized that there were significant gaps in the archive. An Archives at the Historical Society of Pennsylvania helped him get into touch with Jasper Brinton, whose ancestor had been secretary of the land companies at the center of the case. It turns out that the family had preserved the documents and had an incredible archive of the materials necessary to write a history of the Johnson decision.  The United Illinois and Wabash Land Companies Collection  is available online and thanks to Brinton, Robertson, and the librarians at the University of Oklahoma this open-access resource is available for free online. We encourage you to please avail yourself of it as you listen to the episode.",
    "tags": [
      "johnson",
      "mintosh",
      "link",
      "audio",
      "Podcast",
      "S02"
    ],
    "textContent": "⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // → Subscribe))  The episode begins with Prof. Robertson providing the context for Johnson v. M'Intosh, Chief Justice John Marshall and the Marshall trilogy, which is Johnson v M'Intosh, 21 US (8 Wheat) 543 (1823), Cherokee Nation v Georgia, 30 US (5 Pet) 1 (1831) and Worcester v Georgia, 31 US (6 Pet) 515 (1832). Early in Prof. Robertson's career, he was looking to do a history, and he knew these three cases so he began looking into them and began wondering what was the history and story behind the cases. As he dug into the archives, he realized that there were significant gaps in the archive. An Archives at the Historical Society of Pennsylvania helped him get into touch with Jasper Brinton, whose ancestor had been secretary of the land companies at the center of the case. It turns out that the family had preserved the documents and had an incredible archive of the materials necessary to write a history of the Johnson decision. The United Illinois and Wabash Land Companies Collection is available online and thanks to Brinton, Robertson, and the librarians at the University of Oklahoma this open-access resource is available for free online. We encourage you to please avail yourself of it as you listen to the episode.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay1/s2e1/",
    "externalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/season2/episode-01/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/podcast/s02/s02e02/",
    "title": "S02E02 – The International Dimensions of Johnson v. M’Intosh with Robert J. Miller",
    "publishedAt": "2023-07-05T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // → Subscribe The episode begins with Miller offering a definition of the Doctrine of Discovery as the foundation of international law and the legal justification “justification for European Americans to acquire legal title and sovereignty and jurisdiction over the Indigenous nations around the entire world.” Using this powerful and brief definition Miller goes on to discuss the Ten Legal Elements of the Doctrine of Discovery based on his careful reading of Johnson v. M’Intosh . As Miller explains how the ten elements function inn international law, Bigtree reminds us that these 10 elements are also connected to a genocidal project of Christianizing the world.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "audio",
      "johnson",
      "mintosh",
      "Podcast",
      "S02"
    ],
    "textContent": "⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // → Subscribe)) The episode begins with Miller offering a definition of the Doctrine of Discovery as the foundation of international law and the legal justification \"justification for European Americans to acquire legal title and sovereignty and jurisdiction over the Indigenous nations around the entire world.\" Using this powerful and brief definition Miller goes on to discuss the Ten Legal Elements of the Doctrine of Discovery based on his careful reading of Johnson v. M'Intosh. As Miller explains how the ten elements function inn international law, Bigtree reminds us that these 10 elements are also connected to a genocidal project of Christianizing the world.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay1/s2e2/",
    "externalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/season2/episode-02/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/podcast/s02/s02e03/",
    "title": "S02E03 - Johnson v M'intosh and Federal Anti-Indian Law with Peter d'Errico",
    "publishedAt": "2023-07-13T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // → Subscribe Moving into a discussion of Chief Justice John Marshall’s cases, including Johnson v M’Intosh , Arnold compares and contrasts d’Errico’s perspective to Lindsay Robertson (S2E1) , and Robert J. Miller (S2E2). In d’Errico’s analysis, “ Johnson v. M’Intosh sets the premise that native peoples do not and cannot have title to the land once a Christian discoverer has come onto the scene.” In Cherokee v. Georgia , the Cherokee nation appeals to the Supreme Court, arguing that the courts have a duty to help protect them against Georgia, and Marshall is faced with a dilemma because both the Cherokee nation and the US claim title to Cherokee lands. Ultimately Marshall ignores the Cherokee Nation’s argument and concludes that the Cherokee Nation does not own land; they do not have standing to bring the case, and he ignores the treaties completely. Johnson’s argument in Cherokee v. Georgia raises questions for d’Errico about Johnson’s so-called brilliance in legal argumentation.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "audio",
      "johnson",
      "mintosh",
      "Podcast",
      "S02"
    ],
    "textContent": "⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // → Subscribe)) Moving into a discussion of Chief Justice John Marshall's cases, including Johnson v M'Intosh, Arnold compares and contrasts d'Errico's perspective to Lindsay Robertson (S2E1), and Robert J. Miller (S2E2). In d'Errico's analysis, \"Johnson v. M'Intosh sets the premise that native peoples do not and cannot have title to the land once a Christian discoverer has come onto the scene.\" In Cherokee v. Georgia, the Cherokee nation appeals to the Supreme Court, arguing that the courts have a duty to help protect them against Georgia, and Marshall is faced with a dilemma because both the Cherokee nation and the US claim title to Cherokee lands. Ultimately Marshall ignores the Cherokee Nation's argument and concludes that the Cherokee Nation does not own land; they do not have standing to bring the case, and he ignores the treaties completely. Johnson's argument in Cherokee v. Georgia raises questions for d'Errico about Johnson's so-called brilliance in legal argumentation.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay1/s2e3/",
    "externalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/season2/episode-03/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/podcast/s02/s02e04/",
    "title": "S02E04 - The Doctrine of Discovery In The Social Psyche with Tina Ngata",
    "publishedAt": "2023-07-18T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Ngata highlights two helpful international elements of the Doctrine of Discovery . The first is the international legal principle, and the second is an entrenched ideological concept embedded in the social psyche. She emphasizes that the international legal dimension is not just between settler-colonial nations. Still, it is also present in the Indigenous nation to settler-colonial nation relationships and Indigenous national relationships with each other. As an ideological concept, the Doctrine of Discovery is deeply embedded in the present moment. It takes deliberate work to confront the ideological power of the Doctrine of Discovery.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "audio",
      "johnson",
      "mintosh",
      "Podcast",
      "S02"
    ],
    "textContent": "Ngata highlights two helpful international elements of the Doctrine of Discovery. The first is the international legal principle, and the second is an entrenched ideological concept embedded in the social psyche. She emphasizes that the international legal dimension is not just between settler-colonial nations. Still, it is also present in the Indigenous nation to settler-colonial nation relationships and Indigenous national relationships with each other. As an ideological concept, the Doctrine of Discovery is deeply embedded in the present moment. It takes deliberate work to confront the ideological power of the Doctrine of Discovery.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay1/s2e4/",
    "externalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/season2/episode-04/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/podcast/s02/s02e06/",
    "title": "S02E06: Reimagining Religion: On Connectivity and Unity with Brian Konkol",
    "publishedAt": "2023-08-03T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // → Subscribe In our latest podcast episode, we embark on an enlightening journey with Rev. Dr. Brian Konkol , Dean of Hendricks Chapel at Syracuse University and professor of practice. Konkol, with his unique global perspective and methodology of accompaniment, offers a fresh outlook on Christianity, focusing on its potential to foster connectivity and unity rather than division.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "audio",
      "Christianity",
      "theology",
      "Podcast",
      "S02"
    ],
    "textContent": "⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // → Subscribe)) In our latest podcast episode, we embark on an enlightening journey with Rev. Dr. Brian Konkol, Dean of Hendricks Chapel at Syracuse University and professor of practice. Konkol, with his unique global perspective and methodology of accompaniment, offers a fresh outlook on Christianity, focusing on its potential to foster connectivity and unity rather than division.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay1/s2e6/",
    "externalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/season2/episode-06/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/podcast/s02/s02e07/",
    "title": "S02E07: Exploring the Doctrine of Discovery, Indigenous Struggles, and the Pursuit of Balance Part 1 Oren Lyons",
    "publishedAt": "2023-08-10T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // → Subscribe Introduction We begin this episode with a  land acknowledgement . Show Notes This episode is an engaging conversation with Onondaga Nation Turtle Clan Faithkeeper Oren Lyons, a stalwart in Indigenous, environmental, and human rights initiatives. We traverse the terrain of Indigenous rights, the Doctrine of Discovery, and The Haudenosaunee’s pivotal role at the United Nations.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "audio",
      "Christianity",
      "theology",
      "Podcast",
      "S02"
    ],
    "textContent": "⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // → Subscribe)) Introduction We begin this episode with a land acknowledgement. Show Notes This episode is an engaging conversation with Onondaga Nation Turtle Clan Faithkeeper Oren Lyons, a stalwart in Indigenous, environmental, and human rights initiatives. We traverse the terrain of Indigenous rights, the Doctrine of Discovery, and The Haudenosaunee's pivotal role at the United Nations.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay1/s2e7/",
    "externalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/season2/episode-07/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/podcast/s02/s02e08/",
    "title": "S02E08: Exploring the Doctrine of Discovery, Indigenous Struggles, and the Pursuit of Balance Part 2 with Oren Lyons",
    "publishedAt": "2023-08-14T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Our guest is Onondaga Nation Turtle Clan Faithkeepr Oren Lyons.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "audio",
      "Christianity",
      "theology",
      "Podcast",
      "S02"
    ],
    "textContent": "⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // → Subscribe)) Introduction We begin this episode with a land acknowledgement. Show Notes In the most recent episode of our podcast, we delved into the past and present implications of the Doctrine of Discovery and its profound impact on Indigenous nations and the natural world. Onondaga Nation Turtle Clan Faithkeeper Oren Lyons outlined the complicated recent history of Indigenous struggles for justice and the natural world. He highlighted the urgency of seeking to address our climate crisis especially as the ice is melting.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay1/s2e8/",
    "externalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/season2/episode-08/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/podcast/s03/S03305/",
    "title": "S03E05: Land is Kin: Indigenous Rights and Sovereignty with Dana Lloyd",
    "publishedAt": "2023-12-06T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // → Subscribe Introduction In this podcast episode, hosts Phil Arnold and Sandy Bigtree interview Dr. Dana Lloyd, author of the book “ Land is Kin: Sovereignty, Religious Freedom, and Indigenous Sacred Sites .” Dr. Lloyd discusses her research on the intersection of law and religion in settler colonial contexts, specifically focusing on the United States and Israel-Palestine. She examines the case of Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association, a landmark Supreme Court case on Native American sacred sites, and explores the tensions between the sacredness of land and property rights. Dr. Lloyd also discusses the importance of indigenous sovereignty and the challenges faced by indigenous peoples in navigating the legal system. The conversation highlights the ongoing impact of the Doctrine of Discovery and the need for a deeper understanding of indigenous perspectives and values.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "audio",
      "Indigenous",
      "law",
      "Lyng",
      "podcast",
      "Podcast",
      "S03"
    ],
    "textContent": "⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // → Subscribe)) Introduction In this podcast episode, hosts Phil Arnold and Sandy Bigtree interview Dr. Dana Lloyd, author of the book \"Land is Kin: Sovereignty, Religious Freedom, and Indigenous Sacred Sites.\" Dr. Lloyd discusses her research on the intersection of law and religion in settler colonial contexts, specifically focusing on the United States and Israel-Palestine. She examines the case of Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association, a landmark Supreme Court case on Native American sacred sites, and explores the tensions between the sacredness of land and property rights. Dr. Lloyd also discusses the importance of indigenous sovereignty and the challenges faced by indigenous peoples in navigating the legal system. The conversation highlights the ongoing impact of the Doctrine of Discovery and the need for a deeper understanding of indigenous perspectives and values.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay2/s3e5/",
    "externalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/season3/episode-05/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/podcast/s03/S03E02/",
    "title": "S03E02: White Evangelical Racism and its Influence on American Politics an Interview with Anthea Butler",
    "publishedAt": "2023-11-07T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // → Subscribe In this episode of the Mapping the Doctrine of Discovery podcast, hosts Phil Arnold and Sandy Bigtree interview Anthea Butler , The Geraldine R. Segal Professor in American Social Thought and Chair of Religious Studies at the University of Pennsylvania. They discuss the role of evangelical Christians in manipulating voting structures and policies, as well as the connection between evangelicalism and racism. Butler explains that evangelicals often use morality as a shield to impose their own beliefs on others, rather than living by those beliefs themselves. She also discusses the evangelical desire to bring about the Kingdom of God on Earth and their opposition to government intervention. The conversation touches on the history of evangelicalism, the influence of whiteness, and the need to challenge dominant narratives through civic engagement and education.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "audio",
      "Christianity",
      "theology",
      "podcast",
      "Podcast",
      "S03"
    ],
    "textContent": "⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // → Subscribe)) In this episode of the Mapping the Doctrine of Discovery podcast, hosts Phil Arnold and Sandy Bigtree interview Anthea Butler, The Geraldine R. Segal Professor in American Social Thought and Chair of Religious Studies at the University of Pennsylvania. They discuss the role of evangelical Christians in manipulating voting structures and policies, as well as the connection between evangelicalism and racism. Butler explains that evangelicals often use morality as a shield to impose their own beliefs on others, rather than living by those beliefs themselves. She also discusses the evangelical desire to bring about the Kingdom of God on Earth and their opposition to government intervention. The conversation touches on the history of evangelicalism, the influence of whiteness, and the need to challenge dominant narratives through civic engagement and education.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay2/s3e2/",
    "externalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/season3/episode-02/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/podcast/s03/S03E03/",
    "title": "S03E03: Indigenous Advocacy and Climate Change: A Conversation with Evie Reyes-Aguirre",
    "publishedAt": "2023-11-30T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // → Subscribe In this episode of the Mapping the Doctrine of Discovery Podcast, hosts Phil Arnold and Sandy Bigtree interview Eve Reyes-Aguirre, an Indigenous community organizer and advocate for human rights, women’s rights, Indigenous peoples’ rights, and environmental rights. Reyes-Aguirre discusses the work of Tonatierra, an embassy for Indigenous peoples, in bringing awareness to the doctrine of discovery and advocating for its dismantling. She emphasizes the importance of recognizing the ongoing impact of the doctrine on Indigenous peoples and the need to move towards superseding it. Reyes-Aguirre also highlights the common challenges faced by Indigenous peoples globally and the importance of spiritual and ceremonial connections in the work of dismantling the doctrine. The conversation also touches on the displacement of Indigenous peoples and the environmental and social consequences of extractive industries. The hosts and guest discuss the need for education and awareness, particularly among younger generations, to address the root causes of the doctrine of discovery and work towards a more just and sustainable future.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "audio",
      "Christianity",
      "Indigenous",
      "podcast",
      "Podcast",
      "S03"
    ],
    "textContent": "⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // → Subscribe)) In this episode of the Mapping the Doctrine of Discovery Podcast, hosts Phil Arnold and Sandy Bigtree interview Eve Reyes-Aguirre, an Indigenous community organizer and advocate for human rights, women's rights, Indigenous peoples' rights, and environmental rights. Reyes-Aguirre discusses the work of Tonatierra, an embassy for Indigenous peoples, in bringing awareness to the doctrine of discovery and advocating for its dismantling. She emphasizes the importance of recognizing the ongoing impact of the doctrine on Indigenous peoples and the need to move towards superseding it. Reyes-Aguirre also highlights the common challenges faced by Indigenous peoples globally and the importance of spiritual and ceremonial connections in the work of dismantling the doctrine. The conversation also touches on the displacement of Indigenous peoples and the environmental and social consequences of extractive industries. The hosts and guest discuss the need for education and awareness, particularly among younger generations, to address the root causes of the doctrine of discovery and work towards a more just and sustainable future.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay2/s3e3/",
    "externalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/season3/episode-03/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/podcast/s03/S03E04/",
    "title": "S03E04: Beekeeping, Mushrooms and Sculptures: A Glimpse into Traditional Lithuanian Life with Eglutė Trinkauskaitė",
    "publishedAt": "2023-12-04T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // → Subscribe In this episode of the Mapping the Doctrine of Discovery podcast, hosts Phil Arnold and Sandy Bigtree interview Eglutė Trinkauskaitė, a faculty member in humanistic studies at the Maryland Institute College of Art. Trinkauskaite discusses ancient Baltic religion and the challenges of studying and reconstructing it due to the loss of historical records. She also explores the impact of Christianity on Baltic religion and the process of conversion in the Baltic region. Trinkauskaite shares her personal experiences with Lithuanian traditions, such as mushroom picking and the use of bathhouses, and discusses the cultural and spiritual significance of these practices. The conversation also touches on the challenges faced by indigenous religious traditions, such as Romuva, in gaining recognition and acceptance in Lithuania.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "audio",
      "Christianity",
      "Europe",
      "podcast",
      "Podcast",
      "S03"
    ],
    "textContent": "⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // → Subscribe)) In this episode of the Mapping the Doctrine of Discovery podcast, hosts Phil Arnold and Sandy Bigtree interview Eglutė Trinkauskaitė, a faculty member in humanistic studies at the Maryland Institute College of Art. Trinkauskaite discusses ancient Baltic religion and the challenges of studying and reconstructing it due to the loss of historical records. She also explores the impact of Christianity on Baltic religion and the process of conversion in the Baltic region. Trinkauskaite shares her personal experiences with Lithuanian traditions, such as mushroom picking and the use of bathhouses, and discusses the cultural and spiritual significance of these practices. The conversation also touches on the challenges faced by indigenous religious traditions, such as Romuva, in gaining recognition and acceptance in Lithuania.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay2/s3e4/",
    "externalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/season3/episode-04/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/podcast/s03/s03e01/",
    "title": "S03E01: The Hidden Roots of White Supremacy and the Doctrine of Christian Discovery an interview with Robert P. Jones",
    "publishedAt": "2023-11-02T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // → Subscribe In this episode of the Mapping the Doctrine of Discovery podcast, hosts Phil Arnold and Sandy Bigtree interview Robert P. Jones , the President and Founder of Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) . Jones discusses his background as a scholar and writer, and how he has evolved to incorporate personal narratives into his work. He also talks about his new book, “The Hidden Roots of White Supremacy and the Path Toward a Shared American Future,” which explores the history of white supremacy in American Christianity. Jones emphasizes the importance of truth-telling and cross-cultural conversations in addressing the legacy of white supremacy and working towards a more equitable future. The hosts also discuss the significance of shifting from Columbus Day to Indigenous People’s Day and the need for a broader understanding of American history that includes the contributions and perspectives of Indigenous and African-American peoples.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "audio",
      "Christianity",
      "theology",
      "podcast",
      "Podcast",
      "S03"
    ],
    "textContent": "⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // → Subscribe)) In this episode of the Mapping the Doctrine of Discovery podcast, hosts Phil Arnold and Sandy Bigtree interview Robert P. Jones, the President and Founder of Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI). Jones discusses his background as a scholar and writer, and how he has evolved to incorporate personal narratives into his work. He also talks about his new book, \"The Hidden Roots of White Supremacy and the Path Toward a Shared American Future,\" which explores the history of white supremacy in American Christianity. Jones emphasizes the importance of truth-telling and cross-cultural conversations in addressing the legacy of white supremacy and working towards a more equitable future. The hosts also discuss the significance of shifting from Columbus Day to Indigenous People's Day and the need for a broader understanding of American history that includes the contributions and perspectives of Indigenous and African-American peoples.",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay2/s3e1/",
    "externalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/season3/episode-01/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/podcast/special/s01/",
    "title": "Betty Lyons: Understanding the Doctrine of Christian Discovery Podcast",
    "publishedAt": "2024-02-19T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // Listen to the podcast on  Megaphone ,  Spotify  or  Apple . ",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "audio",
      "featured",
      "Podcast",
      "Special"
    ],
    "textContent": "⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // Listen to the podcast on Megaphone, Spotify or Apple. ",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay1/s01/",
    "externalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/special/s01/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/podcast/special/s02/",
    "title": "Robert P. Jones: White Supremacy’s Roots Podcast",
    "publishedAt": "2024-02-19T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // Listen to the podcast on  Megaphone ,  Spotify  or  Apple . ",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "audio",
      "featured",
      "Podcast",
      "Special"
    ],
    "textContent": "⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // Listen to the podcast on Megaphone, Spotify or Apple. ",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay1/s02/",
    "externalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/special/s02/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/podcast/special/s03/",
    "title": "Robert J. Miller: Property & Sovereignty Podcast",
    "publishedAt": "2024-02-19T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // Listen to the podcast on  Megaphone ,  Spotify  or  Apple . ",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "audio",
      "featured",
      "Podcast",
      "Special"
    ],
    "textContent": "⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // Listen to the podcast on Megaphone, Spotify or Apple. ",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay1/s03/",
    "externalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/special/s03/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/podcast/special/s04/",
    "title": "Gustavo Melo Cerqueira & Danielle N. Boaz: Religious Racism Podcast",
    "publishedAt": "2024-02-19T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // Listen to the podcast on  Megaphone ,  Spotify  or  Apple . ",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "audio",
      "featured",
      "Podcast",
      "Special"
    ],
    "textContent": "⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // Listen to the podcast on Megaphone, Spotify or Apple. ",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay1/s04/",
    "externalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/special/s04/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/podcast/special/s05/",
    "title": "Steven Newcomb & JoDe Goudy: on the Limits of U.S. Law Podcast",
    "publishedAt": "2024-02-19T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // Listen to the podcast on  Megaphone ,  Spotify  or  Apple . ",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "audio",
      "featured",
      "Podcast",
      "Special"
    ],
    "textContent": "⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // Listen to the podcast on Megaphone, Spotify or Apple. ",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay1/s05/",
    "externalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/special/s05/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/podcast/special/s06/",
    "title": "Eve Reyes-Aguirre: Environment & Creation Podcast",
    "publishedAt": "2024-02-19T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // Listen to the podcast on  Megaphone ,  Spotify  or  Apple . ",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "audio",
      "featured",
      "Podcast",
      "Special"
    ],
    "textContent": "⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // Listen to the podcast on Megaphone, Spotify or Apple. "
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/podcast/special/s07/",
    "title": "João Chaves: The Doctrine of Christian Discovery's Influence in the Americas Podcast",
    "publishedAt": "2024-02-19T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // Listen to the podcast on  Megaphone ,  Spotify  or  Apple . ",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "audio",
      "featured",
      "Podcast",
      "Special"
    ],
    "textContent": "⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // Listen to the podcast on Megaphone, Spotify or Apple. ",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay1/s07/",
    "externalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/special/s07/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/podcast/special/s08/",
    "title": "Mitch Randall: Countering Conversion Podcast",
    "publishedAt": "2024-02-19T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // Listen to the podcast on  Megaphone ,  Spotify  or  Apple . ",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "audio",
      "featured",
      "Podcast",
      "Special"
    ],
    "textContent": "⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // Listen to the podcast on Megaphone, Spotify or Apple. ",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/podcast/essay1/s08/",
    "externalUrl": "https://podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org/special/s08/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/presbyterian-church-usa-repudiates-the-doctrine-of-discovery/",
    "title": "Presbyterian Church (USA) Repudiates the Doctrine of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2018-07-27T11:25:48Z",
    "description": "A conversation on the doctrine of discovery will always entail a discussion of Native American or Indigenous lands. Moreover, because the doctrine has been a central part of U.S. law regarding tribal lands, the Presbyterian Church has played a major role historically in the implementation of the doctrine.",
    "tags": [
      "Presbyterian",
      "Reformed",
      "Repudiations",
      "christianity",
      "PDF",
      "Faith-Communities"
    ],
    "textContent": "Doctrine of Discovery: A Review of Its Origins and Implications for Congregations in the PC(USA) and Support for Native American Sovereignty. A conversation on the doctrine of discovery will always entail a discussion of Native American or Indigenous lands. Moreover, because the doctrine has been a central part of U.S. law regarding tribal lands, the Presbyterian Church has played a major role historically in the implementation of the doctrine.   Download the Doctrine of Discovery Report to the 223rd General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church-2018 ⤓ PDF. via: Presbyterian Mission"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/quaker-indian-committee-disavows-doctrine-of-discovery-affirms-declaration/",
    "title": "Quaker Indian Committee disavows Doctrine of Discovery, affirms Declaration",
    "publishedAt": "2018-07-26T11:18:05Z",
    "description": "Inspired by the actions of the Episcopal Church, a Quaker group has disavowed the Christian Doctrine of Discovery and voiced its support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.",
    "tags": [
      "quakers",
      "Friends",
      "Repudiations",
      "christianity",
      "News"
    ],
    "textContent": "Quaker Indian Committee disavows Doctrine of Discovery, affirms Declaration By Gale Courey Toensing Story Updated: Dec 17, 2009 Originally Published by: Indian Country Today Media Network PHILADELPHIA – Inspired by the actions of the Episcopal Church, a Quaker group has disavowed the Christian Doctrine of Discovery and voiced its support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Indian Committee of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends issued a Minute – analogous to a resolution – at its September meeting. The committee “renounces the Doctrine of Discovery, the doctrine at the foundation of the colonization of Indigenous lands, including the lands of Pennsylvania. We find this doctrine to be fundamentally inconsistent with the teaching of Jesus, with our understanding of the inherent rights that individuals and peoples have received from God, and inconsistent with Quaker testimonies of Peace, Equality, and Integrity,” the Minute reads. The Doctrine of Discovery was a principle of international law developed in a series of 15th century papal bulls and 16th century charters by European monarchs. It was a racist philosophy that gave white Christian Europeans the green light to go forth and claim the lands and resources of non-Christian peoples and kill or enslave them – if other Christian Europeans had not already done so. The doctrine institutionalized the competition between European countries in their ever-expanding quest for colonies, resources and markets, and sanctioned the genocide of indigenous people in the “New World” and elsewhere. As a spiritual corollary of the renunciation, the Indian Committee also expressed its support for the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which was adopted by the General Assembly Sept. 13, 2007. The Declaration presents indigenous rights within a framework of human rights. Only the U.S., Canada, New Zealand and Australia – countries with large populations of indigenous peoples with huge aboriginal land claims – voted against the Declaration’s adoption. Australia has since adopted it. The action by PYM’s Indian Committee was initiated by Elizabeth Koopman, who said she was inspired by the Episcopal Church’s resolution, called “Repudiate the Doctrine of Discovery.” The resolution passed unanimously by the Episcopal House of Bishops and by an overwhelming majority of the House of Delegates during the church’s 76th General Convention held July 8 – 17 in Anaheim. Within weeks, Koopman had amassed a packet of materials, including her own writings, on the Doctrine of Discovery, and sent it out to her circle of Friends. “Friends have had a long relationship with Indian country,” Koopman said. “But Quakers were colonizers under Charles II’s Doctrine of Discovery when William Penn came here. We have been a people who have been of good intention and not always of such good works.” But there is a growing understanding of the history and its ramifications, Koopman said. “Our Committee understands now a history that none of us ever fully appreciated and we understand that we are the beneficiaries of a very unjust policy.” Koopman, who has lived in Maine and now lives near Philadelphia, said she has discussed these issues with and read the writings of Steven Newcomb, indigenous law research coordinator in the education department of the Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation, Indian Country Today columnist, and author of “Pagans in the Promised Land: Decoding the Doctrine of Christian Discovery.” She also has had lengthy conversations with her longtime friends Wayne Newell, a Passamaquoddy elder and teacher, and John Dieffenbacker Krall, the executive director of the Maine Indian Tribal-State Commission. It was Dieffenbacker-Krall who started what has become a movement to have predominantly non-Catholic Christian churches renounce the Doctrine of Discovery. He spearheaded the effort that led Maine’s Episcopal Church to pass a resolution in 2007, calling on Queen Elizabeth and the Archbishop of Canterbury to rescind the 1496 charter given to John Cabot and his sons to go forth and claim possession of all the lands in the “New World” that weren’t already claimed by Spain and Portugal. That action led to a similar resolution in New York state and ultimately to the national resolution last summer. A movement to persuade the Catholic Church to repeal the papal bulls has been in the works for years. Oren Lyons, Faithkeeper of the Onondaga Nation (Haudenosaunee), co-signed a letter in 2005 urging Pope Benedict XVI, to revoke the papal bulls. There has been no response from the Vatican. Koopman was surprised to receive a phone call from Lyons, whom she has never met, in early December before he, Newcomb and others in the indigenous community were leaving for the Parliament of the World’s Religions meeting in Melbourne, Australia, Dec. 3 – 9. “We had a long conversation and I sent him a copy of the materials and, meanwhile, people are taking (the Minute) to other monthly meetings and we’re hoping it will get to the Yearly Meetings in the different areas,” Koopman said. The circle is definitely widening, Koopman agreed. “A lot of people are coming to this light. I think something’s happening and I feel it’s going to be good if we let these moments be beginnings and not endings. You can’t say, ‘I’m sorry, now it’s over.’ It has to be a beginning: ‘I know this now, I embrace this now and I will use this to move forward in better ways.’” Haudenosaunee delegation advocates Doctrine disavowal A delegation of Haudenosaunee people at the Parliament of World Religions in Melbourne, Australia, plans to persuade the meeting to pass a resolution repudiating the Christian Doctrine of Discovery – and they have received help from Maine. The Rev. Dr. Richard Tardiff, co-chairman of the Committee on Indian Relationships of the Episcopal Diocese of Maine, wrote to Oren Lyons, Faithkeeper of the Onondaga Nation, Nov. 30 offering the committee’s support for the delegation’s efforts. The Episcopal Church passed a resolution, called Repudiate the Doctrine of Discovery at the church’s 76th General Convention July 8 – 17 in Anaheim. But the movement was spearheaded by John Dieffenbacker-Krall, a member of the Committee headed by Tardiff and the executive director of the Maine Indian Tribal State Commission. Writing to Lyons as the leader of the delegation, Tardiff said, “I understand that the Haudenosaunee delegation intends to ask the people gathered at the event to pass a resolution similar to the Repudiate the Doctrine of Discovery resolution adopted by the Episcopal Church. On behalf of the Committee on Indian Relations, an officially sanctioned group operating within the Episcopal Diocese of Maine, I offer my wholehearted support of your effort to expand international awareness of the evil Christian Doctrine of Discovery.” The Doctrine, which espouses the inherent superiority of one religion – Christianity – over all other religions, is antithetical to the Council for a Parliament of World Religions’ mission, Tardiff wrote. “Not only has the Doctrine of Discovery resulted in religion conflict, but it has also served as the underpinning of international law justifying the taking of indigenous lands and property across the world,” he wrote. The Parliament of the World’s Religions is an interfaith organization that was formed in 1893. Since 1988, the organization has met roughly every five years in various places around the world. According to its Web site, the organization was created “to cultivate harmony among the world’s religious and spiritual communities and foster their engagement with the world and its guiding institutions in order to achieve a just, peaceful and sustainable world.” When the Indian Committee decided to sponsor the resolution, Tardiff said, it was motivated by the belief that “as Episcopalians we must decisively speak out about the moral bankruptcy of the Doctrine of Discovery and clearly state that it has no religious, ethical, moral, legal or political legitimacy.” He said the church has been “astounded” by the positive international reaction to its resolution. If the PWR adopts a similar resolution, Tardiff anticipates an even greater response. Among the key topics at the PWR – the environment, poverty, building peace with justice – is reconciling with the world’s indigenous peoples. “The Parliament offers the opportunity to continue with the reconciliation process that the Australian government began by apologizing to indigenous people for the wrongs committed against them. Using this Australian context, the Parliament will provide an opportunity for indigenous peoples around the world to voice their own concerns and aspirations,” according to the Web site. In addition to Lyons, the delegation to the Dec. 3 – 9 event included Tonya Gonnella Frichner, Esq., Onondaga Nation, the North American Representative to the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and president and founder of the American Indian Law Alliance; Steven Newcomb, Shawnee Lenape, the indigenous law research coordinator in the education department of the Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation, the author of “Pagans in the Promised Land: Decoding the Doctrine of Christian Discovery,” and Indian Country Today columnist; Jake Swamp, a former chief of the Akwesasne Mohawk Nation and a renowned educator and leader; Joanne Shenandoah, Oneida Indian Nation, award-winning singer-songwriter; Doug George-Kanentiio, Akwesasne Mohawk, an editor, columnist and author; scholars Philip Arnold and Mary McDonald. Major speakers scheduled to appear at the Parliament included His Holiness the Dalai Lama and President Jimmy Carter."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/rejecting-the-christian-doctrine-of-discovery-and-forging-a-new-relationship-with-north-americas-indigenous-people/",
    "title": "Rejecting the Christian Doctrine of Discovery and Forging a New Relationship with North America’s Indigenous People",
    "publishedAt": "2018-07-27T15:08:43Z",
    "description": "Pope Nicholas V first articulated the Doctrine of Discovery in the papal bull Dum Diversas in 1452. The Doctrine of Discovery consists of the idea that Christians have a right sanctioned by God to take non-Christian lands and property and assert political control over the indigenous inhabitants.",
    "tags": [
      "Episcopal",
      "Episcopalians",
      "Sermon",
      "Faith-Communities"
    ],
    "textContent": "Rejecting the Christian Doctrine of Discovery and Forging a New Relationship with North America’s Indigenous People A Sermon Preached by John Dieffenbacher-Krall at St. David’s Episcopal Church, Barneveld, NY in the Central Diocese of NY July 12, 2009 Good morning. I appreciate Father Taylor offering me the opportunity to preach this morning. Before beginning my sermon, I want to acknowledge the warmth and friendliness that I have experienced in every single communication with Father Taylor. As St. Paul says in First Corinthians, without love, I am nothing. St. David's strikes me as a congregation striving to live out Christ's call to us to love one another, a difficult task indeed. My mother-in-law Jane Dieffenbacher has urged me to attend a Sunday service at St. David's every summer that our family visits here. I must confess that one of my greatest passions, fly fishing on the West Canada Creek, has deterred me from previously worshiping with you. But I relish this opportunity to preach today as something is happening at our Church's General Convention that unites the Dioceses of Maine and Central New York in a special way. Our two dioceses passed resolutions at our respective diocesan conventions, Maine in October 2007 and Central New York in November 2008, which denounced the Christian Doctrine of Discovery and committed us to submit resolutions calling for the same action at General Convention. Many of you are sitting in your pews wondering the Doctrine of Discovery? Pope Nicholas V first articulated the Doctrine of Discovery in the papal bull Dum Diversas in 1452\\\\. The Doctrine of Discovery consists of the idea that Christians have a right sanctioned by God to take non-Christian lands and property and assert political control over the indigenous inhabitants. For example, the papal bull Dum Diversas grants the king of Portugal the Pope's blessing to go to the western coast of Africa, and to ... \"'capture, vanquish and subdue the Saracens, pagans and other enemies of Christ, and put them into perpetual slavery and to take all their possessions and their property.'\" Before we judge the papal edict too harshly, we need to know of the Anglican connection to this Doctrine of Discovery. In 1496, King Henry VII granted a patent to John Cabot and his sons to possess all lands in the New World not previously discovered by Portugal or Spain. It reads in part: And that the before-mentioned John and his sons or their heirs and deputies may conquer, occupy and possess whatsoever such towns, castles, cities and islands by them thus discovered that they may be able to conquer, occupy and possess, as our vassals and governors lieutenants and deputies therein, acquiring for us the dominion, title and jurisdiction of the same towns, castles, cities, islands and mainlands so discovered; Both Pope Nicholas V's Papal Bull and King Henry VII's Royal Charter sanction evil, horrific acts counter to our Christian faith and nearly any other accepted moral code or religious tenet based on people's religious identity. Under the Doctrine of Discovery, if land in Africa or the New World has already been claimed by other Christian explorers on behalf of Christian monarchs, hands off. On the other hand, if the people residing in newly \"discovered\" lands comprise heathens, do with them what you will if they don't instantly capitulate to your will. Are you shocked? Does this sound unbelievable? How could the most powerful religious leader of the world bless conquest and genocide in the name of God? No justification exists for such actions, decrees, or thoughts. Yet how could we as educated 21st Century people know little to nothing about this evil doctrine that provided the legal and religious justification for the European invasion of the Western Hemisphere and other places around the world? I have a possible answer – history. Sure, just like slavery, or the legal and political disenfranchisement of women, or the Japanese internment camps during World War II, or witch hunts, or the many other sinful actions of our predecessors, this happened long ago. Certainly no decent, thinking, Christian person in the year 2009 would assert that one people because of their religion could dispossess another people of their lands, resources, and freedom. Before administering the salve of history and distant predecessors to our consciences, I have another shock for you – the Christian Doctrine of Discovery functions as the basis for US law as it pertains to the Indigenous People of this land. The most important Indian related case ever decided by the US Supreme Court, Johnson v. M'Intosh, cites the Christian Doctrine of Discovery as justification for Congress' plenary power over Indian Nations. The brilliant Native American scholar Steve Newcomb writes in FIVE HUNDRED YEARS OF INJUSTICE: The Legacy of Fifteenth Century Religious Prejudice 1992, \"Writing for the unanimous court, Chief Justice John Marshall observed that Christian European nations had assumed \"ultimate dominion\" over the lands of America during the Age of Discovery, and that--upon \"discovery\"--the Indians had lost \"their rights to complete sovereignty, as independent nations,\" and only retained a right of \"occupancy\" in their lands. In other words, Indian nations were subject to the ultimate authority of the first nation of Christendom to claim possession of a given region of Indian lands.\" The precedent set by Johnson v. M'Intosh and the cases following it live with us today. Though Federal Courts recognize some degree of sovereignty for the 500 plus Indian Nations found within the borders of the US, Congress through its plenary power can remove portions or all of Tribal Governments' powers at any time with the affected Indian Nation having little legal recourse. Justice demands that we reject Congressional plenary power over Indian Nations replaced by relationships based on mutual benefit and respect for the sovereignty of each party. How do we overturn something as deeply ingrained as the Christian Doctrine of Discovery resting on a US Supreme Court decision issued in 1823? What did African Americans do to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson, the 1896 US Supreme Court decision that permitted separate but equal facilities for black and white Americans? First, we must understand the Doctrine of Discovery and declare its illegitimacy in every forum we can. Let's start with our Episcopal Church. As I preach, delegates to General Convention are considering Resolution D035\\\\. It states in part, \"That the 76th General Convention repudiates and renounces the Doctrine of Discovery as fundamentally opposed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and our understanding of the inherent rights that individuals and peoples have received from God, and that this declaration be proclaimed among our churches and shared with the United Nations and all the nations and peoples located within the Episcopal Church's boundaries.\" The resolution also calls upon Queen Elizabeth II to \"disavow, and repudiate publicly, the claimed validity of the Christian Doctrine of Discovery.\" Finally, it encourages \"each diocese within the Episcopal Church be encouraged to reflect upon its own history, in light of these actions and encourage all Episcopalians to seek a greater understanding of the Indigenous Peoples within the geo-political boundaries claimed by the United States and other nations located within the Episcopal Church's boundaries, and to support those peoples in their ongoing efforts for their inherent sovereignty and fundamental human rights as peoples to be respected.\" The passage of the resolution will represent a victory for the rights of Indigenous Peoples. Sadly, Indigenous Peoples all over the world are struggling to have larger, more powerful nation states that surround them recognize the inherent sovereignty of their indigenous neighbors. As the Wabanaki, the Indigenous People who reside in Maine and Eastern Canada, say, the US did not confer sovereignty or the right of self-government on the Maliseets, Micmacs, Passamaquoddy Tribe, or Penobscot Nation. These Wabanaki Nations' authority to govern originates from GheChe'Nawais, their conception of God. No nation, even our beloved US, should have the power to impose its will on another people based on a perverted understanding of Christianity. Just as emulating Christ demands sacrifice from his followers, supporters of Tribal Sovereignty must be willing to risk some of their privilege and comfort to support the cause of Indigenous justice. White politicians easily spread resentment, hatred, racism, and even violence against our Indigenous brothers and sisters. Political success is often achieved by vilifying the local Indians. We must confront and denounce any and all people in authority who do this. We don't have to look very far for examples of Indian scapegoating and vilification. Only a few miles to the south right here in Oneida County, as well as in Madison County, the Oneida Nation struggles to place some 13,000 acres of land into Federal trust. At New York State's northern border with Canada, a political standoff has reached its sixth week as the Mohawk People have demanded the Canadian Government abandon its plans to arm officials at the Cornwall Island Customs House located on Mohawk land. The Rhodes Scholar, NY Knicks basketball star, and former US Senator Bill Bradley offers an insightful approach about how we should address our nation's relationship with Indigenous People in his memoir Time Present, Time Past, saying \"I know that an American living now is not responsible for wrongs committed more than one hundred years ago, but the nation itself is responsible. When governments commit crimes, they must make amends to those who are the victims of crimes. If they fail to do so, they live with guilt. Confronting the dark pages of our history is essential to getting beyond them. Americans cannot naively espouse ideals that our own historic actions refute. Failure to come to terms with having broken treaties and destroyed hundreds of thousands of people undermines our moral authority. How liberating it would be to escape the hypocrisy and become a society that lives by its professed ideals.\" Amen."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/repudiations/canadian-lawmakers-repuidation/",
    "title": "Canadian Lawmakers call on Pope to Apologize",
    "publishedAt": "2018-12-31T14:54:46Z",
    "description": "Read the Canadian lawmakers letter to the pope.",
    "tags": [
      "Christian",
      "Catholic",
      "Repudiations",
      "Canada"
    ],
    "textContent": "In 2018 Canadian Lawmakers Requested an official apology from the Pope \"Request for an Official Papal Apology.\""
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/repudiations/faith-communities/baptist-world-alliance/",
    "title": "Baptist World Alliance General Council Resolution 2023.1: Dignity and Justice for Indigenous Peoples",
    "publishedAt": "2023-07-08T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "Baptist World Alliance's statement repudiating the Doctrine of Discovery.",
    "tags": [
      "Christian",
      "Baptist",
      "World",
      "Repudiations",
      "Faith-Communities"
    ],
    "textContent": "The Baptist World Alliance General Council, meeting in Stavanger, Norway, July 2-5, 2023 repuidated the Doctrien of Discovery in their General Council Resolution 2023.1: Dignity and Justice for Indigenous Peoples. Read the Resolution (PDF){: .btn .btn--primary .btn--x-large}"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/repudiations/faith-communities/bym/",
    "title": "Quaker Colonialism: Reflections on the Past and Actions for the Future Reflections on the Past",
    "publishedAt": "2023-06-22T12:33:09Z",
    "description": "We understand that the majority of early Friends who settled on this continent were from Western Europe and held a Western European worldview of their relationship to land, including that of property rights. This perspective, based on the Doctrine of Discovery, supported Christian, European conquest of those who were not European and Christian. It was also based on European legal principles of land ownership. Friends have accepted and adhered to this framework for 400 years.",
    "tags": [
      "Quaker",
      "Friends",
      "Baltimore",
      "Repudiations",
      "Faith-Communities"
    ],
    "textContent": "Quaker Colonialism: Reflections on the Past and Actions for the Future Reflections on the Past We understand that the majority of early Friends who settled on this continent were from Western Europe and held a Western European worldview of their relationship to land, including that of property rights. This perspective, based on the \"Doctrine of Discovery,\" supported Christian, European conquest of those who were not European and Christian. It was also based on European legal principles of land ownership.  Friends have accepted and adhered to this framework for 400 years.  Although many Friends who arrived in our area served by Baltimore Yearly Meeting were of modest means and saw the country as a land of opportunity for them, unattainable in their homelands, many were also wealthy members of a ruling class.  These Friends were 'granted' land by a sovereign, who they accepted had the power to do so under that Doctrine of Discovery. For example, William Penn was granted a vast expanse of land by a sovereign. Friends were, then as they are now, members of society, deeply entrenched in the prevailing definition of how lives were rightly ordered. Many were insensitive to the culture of those who were already living here. For some, this was a matter of language, for others it was a willful disrespect and disregard for a system which had worked for Indigenous tribes for centuries. We cannot know all the reasons for Friendly complicity regarding our system of land ownership, a concept the Indigenous Peoples didn't share. The fact remains that we have benefitted from the imposition of that system.  Some Friends recognized the vulnerability, poverty, and marginalization of Native peoples caused by non-Native violence and rapaciousness. However, many early Friends who sought to ameliorate such inequities did not comprehend their own biases. They felt they were acting with integrity but were unable or unwilling to see how their leadings and actions were framed within those biases.  When Friends were asked to provide boarding schools as a means to help 'civilize' Indigenous children, many Friends believed they could do this with compassion. However, their inherent prejudice and their attitude assured them that these children were part of a primitive society that was savage and ignorant of a better way of life, based on Western European practices and beliefs. Other Friends, who did not participate directly in the running of these schools, benefited from the unpaid labor of the students who were forced to work during 'outing' periods on Quaker farms and homes.  We are as a society only recently paying attention to the voices of Indigenous people who are sharing how the experiences of isolation and indoctrination affected them, and the lasting impact on their lives after their release from these schools. Many Indigenous students became adults who were not accepted as either truly Indigenous or members of the majority (white) culture. Cascading effects included lack of self-identity or family-sustainability, homelessness, and alienation. The traumas endured under the boarding school system reverberate through generations for many families. Indigenous communities further explain that the current adoption system echoes the family break-up patterns of the boarding school system. Again, action rationalized as being in the 'best interest' of a child is imposing outside values with a sense of paternalistic superiority, undermining Indigenous culture and community. Indigenous leaders are demanding to be accorded dignity and rights in the present. An Apology and Statement of Action. Baltimore Yearly Meeting Friends admit and deplore the many harms done toIndigenous Peoples by Friends as well as other European settlers in what is now commonly known as America. We commit to listening carefully to Indigenous voices going forward and following their guidance. Friends and Meetings without direct involvement share complicity and culpability in the unfair advantage accrued due to failure to counteract social bias, prejudice, acquisition of land through faulty treaties, and broken promises to protect Indigenous Peoples from the onslaught of immigrants invading their territory. Such advantage has accumulated through history resulting in disproportional benefit in present situations of Friends individually and collectively in our Monthly Meetings, and in BYM as a whole. We express our sorrow as a religious community for our history of participation in cultural erasure, abuse, patronization and subjugation of Indigenous Peoples. We commit to work together with descendants bearing the burden of those harms towards revelation of avenues to atone for past wrongs and achieve right relations going forward. We understand that repair can be achieved only in gracious, respectful community with Indigenous peoples. Our attention must be ongoing, directed toward eliminating social disparity and disproportionate advantage resulting from our historic behavior.  We understand that trust must grow slowly, personally, and communally for all parties."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/repudiations/faith-communities/canadian-quakers/",
    "title": "Canadian Friends Service Committee (Quakers)",
    "publishedAt": "2021-08-31T15:54:46Z",
    "description": "Read the Canadian Friends Service Committee statement repudiating the Doctrine of Discovery.",
    "tags": [
      "Protestant",
      "Quakers",
      "Friends",
      "Christian",
      "PDF",
      "Repudiations",
      "Canada",
      "Faith-Communities"
    ],
    "textContent": "In 2013 the Canadian Friends Service Committee Repudiated the Doctrine of Discovery Canadian Friends Service Committee Doctrine of Discovery article Read the full statement from Canadian Yearly Meeting FAQ"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/repudiations/faith-communities/christian-reformed-church/",
    "title": "Christian Reformed Church",
    "publishedAt": "2016-07-01T15:08:34Z",
    "description": "Read the Christian Reformed Church statement repudiating the Doctrine of Discovery.",
    "tags": [
      "Evangelical",
      "Protestant",
      "Christian",
      "PDF",
      "Repudiations",
      "Faith-Communities"
    ],
    "textContent": "Synod 2016 responded to a study report on the Doctrine of Discovery by labelling the doctrine as heresy and lamenting the pain it has caused. Synod Repudiates Doctrine of Discovery Christian Reformed Church Doctrine of Discovery Task Force Document (PDF)"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/repudiations/faith-communities/church-brethren/",
    "title": "The Church of the Brethern has repuidated the Doctrine of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2023-07-08T04:00:00Z",
    "description": "The Church of the Brethern has repuidated the Doctrine of Discovery",
    "tags": [
      "Christian",
      "Baptist",
      "World",
      "Repudiations",
      "Faith-Communities"
    ],
    "textContent": "The Church of the Brethern has repuidated the Doctrine of Discovery and more information about the statement will be available when the 2023 Annual Conference booklet is published. Annual Conference Preliminary Statement NB 6. Resolution – With Actions and in Truth: A Lament of the Doctrine of Discovery Action of the 2023 Annual Conference: Annual Conference adopted Standing Committee’s recommendation that the Resolution – With Actions and in Truth: A Lament of the Doctrine of Discovery be adopted with two amendments incorporated in the final resolution. The following text from Page 181, Lines 17-30 incorporates the amendments to the text in the 2023 Annual Conference booklet: Recommendations 1. That the Church of the Brethren commit to ongoing advocacy, dialogue, education, and relationship-building regarding rights of Indigenous peoples. 2. That invitations be extended to facilitators of the Blanket Exercise from Kairos Canada to host sessions for Church of the Brethren leadership and staff and to present at relevant church events, such as Annual Conference. 3. That attendance of Church of the Brethren leaders and staff at the National Native American Boarding School Healing Coalition’s conference be funded. Attendees may include Dine’ members from the community in Lybrook, N.M., Intercultural Ministries staff, and other denominational leaders. 4. That the Church of the Brethren consult with Indigenous organizations and tribes to develop opportunities for congregations, districts, and the denomination to consider some form of reparation following the leadership of Native nations or organizations. learn more{: .btn .btn--primary .btn--x-large}"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/repudiations/faith-communities/community-of-christ/",
    "title": "Community of Christ",
    "publishedAt": "2021-08-29T14:54:46Z",
    "description": "Read the Community of Christ statement repudiating the Doctrine of Discovery.",
    "tags": [
      "Evangelical",
      "Protestant",
      "Christian",
      "PDF",
      "Repudiations",
      "Faith-Communities"
    ],
    "textContent": "In 2016 the Community of Christ Repudiated the Doctrine of Discovery Renunciation of the Doctrine of Discovery (PDF)"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/repudiations/faith-communities/evangelical-church-canada/",
    "title": "Evangelical Church in Canada",
    "publishedAt": "2021-08-30T14:54:46Z",
    "description": "Read the Evangelical Church in Canada statement repudiating the Doctrine of Discovery.",
    "updatedAt": "2022-01-28T12:24:36Z",
    "tags": [
      "Evangelical",
      "Protestant",
      "Christian",
      "PDF",
      "Repudiations",
      "Canada",
      "Faith-Communities"
    ],
    "textContent": "In 2011 the Evangelical Church in Canada Repudiated the Doctrine of Discovery A Resolution Encouraging Right Relationships with Indigenous Peoples (PDF)"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/repudiations/faith-communities/evangelical-covenant-church-repuidates/",
    "title": "Evangelical Covenant Church Repudiates the Doctrine of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2021-07-01T14:54:46Z",
    "description": "Read the Evangelical Covenant Churches statement repudiating the Doctrine of Discovery.",
    "tags": [
      "Evangelical",
      "Protestant",
      "Christian",
      "PDF",
      "Repudiations",
      "Faith-Communities"
    ],
    "textContent": "Evangelical Covenant Church statement Delegates at the Covenant Annual Connection voted overwhelmingly (84%) on Friday (June 25) to approve a resolution acknowledging the damage done to Indigenous peoples in the Americas by taking their land and rights and lamenting the church’s complicity in the continuing effects of that history. read more... Download the 2021 Evangelical Covenant Church in Sweden's statement (⤓ PDF) Read about the Evangelical Covenant Church joining the list of Protestant denominations rebuking Doctrine of Discovery in this article by Emily McFarlan Miller for RNS."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/repudiations/faith-communities/evangelical-lutheran-church-canada/",
    "title": "Evangelical Lutheran Church In Canada In Mission For Others",
    "publishedAt": "2022-06-27T15:54:46Z",
    "description": "Read the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada in Mission For Others's statement repudiating the Doctrine of Discovery.",
    "tags": [
      "Protestant",
      "Presbyterian",
      "Christian",
      "Repudiations",
      "Canada",
      "Faith-Communities"
    ],
    "textContent": "The 2015 ELCIC Resolution on the Doctrine of Discovery ⤓ Download The Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada: Doctrine of Discovery Further Resources Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada: Indigenous Rights and Relationships Resources"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/repudiations/faith-communities/mennonite-usa/",
    "title": "Mennonite Church (USA)",
    "publishedAt": "2021-08-30T15:54:46Z",
    "description": "Read the Mennonite statement repudiating the Doctrine of Discovery.",
    "tags": [
      "Mennonite",
      "Protestant",
      "Christian",
      "PDF",
      "Repudiations",
      "Faith-Communities"
    ],
    "textContent": "The Doctrine of Discovery is a philosophical and legal framework dating back to the 15th century that gives “Christian governments” legal rights over indigenous lands and domination of indigenous people. This doctrine was firmly supported by the Christian Church using a biblical framework to justify the various acts against indigenous people. Because bibilical justification was given by the church and Christians benefitted from the use of enslavement, extraction of resources and extinction – the destruction of indigenous people and their way of life, we firmly believe it is the church that must now work against it’s continued use, be able to acknowledge it’s destructive force and benefits received and work toward right relationships with indigenous people here in the United States and around the world. One of the goals under Transformative Peacemaking in the next several years is to educate the wider church about the Doctrine of Discovery. At the 2017 Mennonite Church USA Convention in Orlando we hope to present a resolution denouncing the use of the Doctrine of Discovery. Another of our goals is to find ways to partner with the MCC office in Washington to explore how we can be voice in stopping the use of this doctrine. Resources Dismantling the Doctrine of Discovery working group website “Lament in response to the Doctrine of Discovery” worship resources “The Doctrine of Discovery: In the Name of Christ” a 43 minute documentary in three parts describing the history of the Doctrine of Discovery, living the doctrine, and undoing the doctrine. Menno Snapshots blog series by Sarah Augustine Part One: My comissioning Part Two: Walking culture Part Three: A story from my family Part Four: Agents of change Part Five: In spite of All of this “The rich man and Lazarus and the Doctrine of Discovery,” a sermon by Iris de León-Hartshorn Statement on Dakota Access Pipeline by Michelle Armster via Mennonite Church:\"Doctrine of Discovery Resource Page.\""
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/repudiations/faith-communities/presbyterians-canada/",
    "title": "The Presbyterian Church in Canada",
    "publishedAt": "2022-06-27T15:54:46Z",
    "description": "Read the Presbyterian Church in Canada's statement repudiating the Doctrine of Discovery.",
    "tags": [
      "Protestant",
      "Presbyterian",
      "Christian",
      "Repudiations",
      "Canada",
      "Faith-Communities"
    ],
    "textContent": "In 2019 the Presbyterian Church in Canada Repudiated the Doctrine of Discovery The Presbyterian Church in Canada Justice Ministries has prepared a report, including a theological reflection, regarding the Doctrine of Discovery and terra nullius as part of its 2019 report to General Assembly. The report includes a recommendation, in line with Call to Action 46ii of the Truth and Reconciliation Comission, that The Presbyterian Church in Canada should repudiate the Doctrine of Discovery. You can find resources regarding the Doctrine of Discovery, including links to videos, a webinar, some study questions and further reading below. ⤓ Download the full report to the 2019 General Assembly repudiating the Doctrine of Discovery Further Resources PCC Doctrine of Discovery Statement on Indigenous Justice Call to Action 46ii of the Truth and Reconciliation Comission Honouring the Children: Reconciliation and Residential Schools Fund Established"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/repudiations/faith-communities/quakers/",
    "title": "Quakers",
    "publishedAt": "2018-12-31T14:54:46Z",
    "description": "Read the Quakers statement repudiating the Doctrine of Discovery.",
    "tags": [
      "Quakers",
      "Friends",
      "Protestant",
      "Christian",
      "PDF",
      "Repudiations",
      "Faith-Communities"
    ],
    "textContent": "New York Yearly Meeting (2017): \"Doctrine of Discovery Factsheet.\" Boulder Friends Meeting (2016): \"Toward a Right Relationship with America's Native Peoples.\" Western Friend (2015): \"Interview with Paula Palmer, Quaker leader working to right the relationships between non-Natives and Natives.\" Quaker Indian Committee Disavows Doctrine of Discovery Related Baltimore Yearly Meeting Canadian Friends Service Committee (Quakers) Friends General Conference"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/repudiations/faith-communities/uniting-church-in-australia/",
    "title": "Uniting Church in Australia, Repuidates the Doctrine of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2022-09-04T15:54:46Z",
    "description": "Read the Uniting Church in Australia's statement repudiating the Doctrine of Discovery.",
    "tags": [
      "Protestant",
      "Presbyterian",
      "Christian",
      "Repudiations",
      "Australia",
      "Faith-Communities"
    ],
    "textContent": "Minute 15.22.03. Doctrine of Discovery a) repudiate the Doctrine of Discovery, and its theological foundations as a relic of colonialism, feudalism, and religious, cultural, and racial biases that have no place in the treatment of First Peoples; and b) affirm the World Council of Churches “Statement on the Doctrine of Discovery Impact on Indigenous Peoples”, and encourage its consideration in the Church and, in particular, in theological colleges. (Agreement) From Page 16 of Minutes of the 14th Assembly Further Resources Ray Minniecon, President’s National Ministers’ Conference, Darwin – 29 June 2017, Paper 3 The Doctrine of Discovery, (Powerpoint PDF), June 29 2017. John T. Squires Affirming the Sovereignty of First Peoples: undoing the Doctrine of Discovery, Blog, August 13, 2018. John T. Squires On Covenant, Reconciliation, and Sovereignty, Blog, October 13, 2018."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/requerimiento/",
    "title": "Requerimiento",
    "publishedAt": "2018-07-24T09:12:22Z",
    "description": "Spanish conquistadors read this document, composed in 1510, to Indians of the new world. It briefly explains Spain's assertion of its legal and moral right to rule over the inhabitants of Latin America. It also provides a rationale for a 'just war'.",
    "tags": [
      "Catholic",
      "Papal-Bulls"
    ],
    "textContent": "Requerimiento, 1513 [Document written by jurist Palacios Rubios, of the Council of Castille.] On the part of the King, Don Fernando, and of Doña Juana, his daughter, Queen of Castille and León, subduers of the barbarous nations, we their servants notify and make known to you, as best we can, that the Lord our God, Living and Eternal, created the Heaven and the Earth, and one man and one woman, of whom you and we, all the men of the world, were and are descendants, and all those who came after us. But, on account of the multitude which has sprung from this man and woman in the five thousand years since the world was created, it was necessary that some men should go one way and some another, and that they should be divided into many kingdoms and provinces, for in one alone they could not be sustained. Of all these nations God our Lord gave charge to one man, called St. Peter, that he should be Lord and Superior of all the men in the world, that all should obey him, and that he should be the head of the whole human race, wherever men should live, and under whatever law, sect, or belief they should be; and he gave him the world for his kingdom and jurisdiction. And he commanded him to place his seat in Rome, as the spot most fitting to rule the world from; but also he permitted him to have his seat in any other part of the world, and to judge and govern all Christians, Moors, Jews, Gentiles, and all other sects. This man was called Pope, as if to say, Admirable Great Father and Governor of men. The men who lived in that time obeyed that St. Peter, and took him for Lord, King, and Superior of the universe; so also they have regarded the others who after him have been elected to the pontificate, and so has it been continued even till now, and will continue till the end of the world. One of these Pontiffs, who succeeded that St. Peter as Lord of the world, in the dignity and seat which I have before mentioned, made donation of these isles and Tierra-firme to the aforesaid King and Queen and to their successors, our lords, with all that there are in these territories, as is contained in certain writings which passed upon the subject as aforesaid, which you can see if you wish. So their Highnesses are kings and lords of these islands and land of Tierra-firme by virtue of this donation: and some islands, and indeed almost all those to whom this has been notified, have received and served their Highnesses, as lords and kings, in the way that subjects ought to do, with good will, without any resistance, immediately, without delay, when they were informed of the aforesaid facts. And also they received and obeyed the priests whom their Highnesses sent to preach to them and to teach them our Holy Faith; and all these, of their own free will, without any reward or condition, have become Christians, and are so, and their Highnesses have joyfully and benignantly received them, and also have commanded them to be treated as their subjects and vassals; and you too are held and obliged to do the same. Wherefore, as best we can, we ask and require you that you consider what we have said to you, and that you take the time that shall be necessary to understand and deliberate upon it, and that you acknowledge the Church as the Ruler and Superior of the whole world, and the high priest called Pope, and in his name the King and Queen Doña Juana our lords, in his place, as superiors and lords and kings of these islands and this Tierra-firme by virtue of the said donation, and that you consent and give place that these religious fathers should declare and preach to you the aforesaid. If you do so, you will do well, and that which you are obliged to do to their Highnesses, and we in their name shall receive you in all love and charity, and shall leave you, your wives, and your children, and your lands, free without servitude, that you may do with them and with yourselves freely that which you like and think best, and they shall not compel you to turn Christians, unless you yourselves, when informed of the truth, should wish to be converted to our Holy Catholic Faith, as almost all the inhabitants of the rest of the islands have done. And, besides this, their Highnesses award you many privileges and exemptions and will grant you many benefits. But, if you do not do this, and maliciously make delay in it, I certify to you that, with the help of God, we shall powerfully enter into your country, and shall make war against you in all ways and manners that we can, and shall subject you to the yoke and obedience of the Church and of their Highnesses; we shall take you and your wives and your children, and shall make slaves of them, and as such shall sell and dispose of them as their Highnesses may command; and we shall take away your goods, and shall do you all the mischief and damage that we can, as to vassals who do not obey, and refuse to receive their lord, and resist and contradict him; and we protest that the deaths and losses which shall accrue from this are your fault, and not that of their Highnesses, or ours, nor of these cavaliers who come with us. And that we have said this to you and made this Requisition, we request the notary here present to give us his testimony in writing, and we ask the rest who are present that they should be witnesses of this Requisition. English translation by Marcelo J. Borges, Professor of History, Dickinson College. Archived from archive.org August 2018. . Preserved in Seville, Archivo General de Indias, Audiencia de Panamá, Leg. 233, lib. 1, ff. 49–50v. Full Requerimiento text in Spanish - Todos en Español   National Humanities Center Resource Toolbox, \"Requiremento: Pronoucement to be read by Spanish Conquerors to Defeated Indians (⤓ pdf download)\", in American Beginnings the European Presence in North America 1492-1690."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/resource/link/digital-wampum-haudenosaunee-resources/",
    "title": "Digital Testimony of the Haudenosaunee",
    "publishedAt": "2024-12-06T05:00:00Z",
    "description": "The Haudenosaunee are embarking on an historic project about the 500-year history of the Haudenosaunee, their relationship with Europe and America and their prophesies that, if heard, can help us navigate the oncoming changes due to climate change. This series of short films creates the space for the Haudenosaunee to tell their story as they strive to uphold the traditions and the legacy of their people while also protecting the central tenents of their people and their relationship and care for the Earth. The series will continue to grow over the year.",
    "tags": [
      "link",
      "journal",
      "featured",
      "land-theft",
      "doctrineofdiscovery",
      "race",
      "special-issue",
      "resource"
    ],
    "textContent": "The Haudenosaunee are embarking on an historic project about the 500-year history of the Haudenosaunee, their relationship with Europe and America and their prophesies that, if heard, can help us navigate the oncoming changes due to climate change. This series of short films creates the space for the Haudenosaunee to tell their story as they strive to uphold the traditions and the legacy of their people while also protecting the central tenents of their people and their relationship and care for the Earth. The series will continue to grow over the year.",
    "externalUrl": "https://www.digitalwampum.org/"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/resources-by-peter-derrico/",
    "title": "Resources by Peter d’Errico",
    "publishedAt": "2018-08-04T21:57:50Z",
    "description": "Replacing the Doctrine of Christian Discovery and Implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People",
    "tags": [
      "videos",
      "films",
      "Education",
      "resources",
      "PDF",
      "UN",
      "Law",
      "US-Law",
      "Resources"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"Replacing the Doctrine of Christian Discovery and Implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.\" \"Indigenous Lèse-majesté: Questioning U.S. Federal Indian Law\" (⤓ PDF Download) \"Seeing through the chimera of U.S. federal Indian 'trust' law\" (⤓ PDF Download). For more articles by Peter d'Errico view his profile on academia.edu  Film"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/resources/education/review-essay-domination-code/",
    "title": "REVIEW ESSAY The Doctrine of Discovery as a Doctrine of Domination",
    "publishedAt": "2020-05-25T13:07:09Z",
    "description": "In JSRNC, independent scholar Joy Greenberg reviewed Pagans in the Promised Land and The Doctrine of Discovery: Unmasking the Domination Code.",
    "tags": [
      "film-analysis",
      "Indigenous-Knowledges",
      "Reviews",
      "Resources",
      "Education"
    ],
    "textContent": "Greenberg, Joy, \"REVIEW ESSAY: The Doctrine of Discovery as a Doctrine of Domination,\" in JSRNC JSRNC 10.2 (2016), 236-244. doi: 10.1558/jsrnc.v10i2.28942. ⤓ download as a pdf or view on academia.edu. Watch The Doctrine of Discovery: Unmasking the Domination Code on Vimeo. The film is a collaborative effort between Dakota filmmaker and Director Sheldon Wolfchild and Co-Producer Steven Newcomb (Shawnee, Lenape)."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/resources/event/mother-earths-pandemic-session-videos/",
    "title": "Mother Earth‘s Pandemic: The Doctrine of Discovery Session Videos",
    "publishedAt": "2020-08-25T14:54:46Z",
    "description": "Complete list of all of the talks and bonus content",
    "tags": [
      "videos",
      "Law",
      "Event",
      "Conference",
      "Education",
      "Resources",
      "US-Law",
      "US-Indian-Law",
      "Indigenous-Peoples",
      "featured"
    ],
    "textContent": "Subscribe to the Indigenous Values Initiative YouTube Channel{: .btn .btn--danger .btn--large} Session I Thanksgiving Address and Friendship song by Tadodaho Sid Hill, Sr., Betty Lyons, and Sid Hill, Jr. God, Glory, Gold by Faithkeeper Oren Lyons Land Acknowledgement read by Blake Garland-Tirado Introduction to Mother Earth's Pandemic: The Doctrine of Discovery The Doctrine of Discovery's Impact Today by Betty Lyons NYA•WEÑHA SKÄ•NOÑH: Thank you for being well by Jake Edwards Introduction to the Haudenosaunee Confederacy by Jake Edwards Keynote God, Glory, Gold by Faithkeeper Oren Lyons The Spiritual Traditions of the New World by Oren Lyons Session II Doctrine of Christian Discovery and Domination, by Joe Heath Resource: The Good, The Bad & The Ugly In Mcgirt V. Oklahoma Do rivers have rights? by Dana Lloyd The Doctrine of Domination by Steven Newcomb Towards Justice with Nature and Her Peoples, by Makayla Loeb The Doctrine of Discovery in the Lithuanian Context by Eglutė Trinkauskaitė Social Change and Indigenous History and Wisdom by Rob Ruehl Resources on Social Change, Indigenous History and Wisdom Glimpses into Black and POC Perspectives by Sarah Nahar Expanded Glimpses into Black and other POC Perspectives on the Doctrine of Discovery by Sarah Nahar Protecting Indigenous Relationships to Place during the Pandemic, Angela Mooney D’Arcy as aired. Expanded Talk on Protecting Indigenous Relationships to Place During the Pandemic by Angela Mooney D'Arcy ’Discovery,’ Disease, and Survival in Native California, by Abel Gomez Session III Situating Mother Earth’s Pandemic The Doctrine of Discovery Panel on International work and the Doctrine of Discovery Reflections on the Doctrine of Discovery by Philip P. Arnold and Sandy Bigtree Why the Iroquois Nationals should be in the Olympics by Betty Lyons Reflections on the Doctrine of Discovery by Tink Tinker Two Row Wampum and Canandaigua Treaties explained by Jake Edwards The Closing by Jake Edwards Bonus Content The McGirt Decision and Federal Indian Law by Joe Heath McGirt v Oklahoma: Plenary Power & the Doctrine of Christian Discovery by Steve Newcomb & Joe Heath Expanded analysis of Johnson v. M’Intosh by Steven Newcomb The Spiritual Traditions of the New World by Oren Lyons Resources Mother Earth‘s Pandemic Resources ⤓ Download the Study Guide as a PDF"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/resources/law/preliminary-study-impact-doctrine-discovery-UN/",
    "title": "Preliminary study of the impact on indigenous peoples of the international legal construct known as the Doctrine of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2018-07-23T14:54:46Z",
    "description": "Preliminary study of the impact on indigenous peoples of the international legal construct known as the Doctrine of Discovery / submitted by the Special Rapporteur Tonya Gonella Frichner (Onondaga Nation), Executive Director American Indian Law Alliance",
    "tags": [
      "Haudenosaunee-Confederacy",
      "Onondaga-Nation",
      "Indigenous-Peoples",
      "Indian-Law",
      "UN",
      "United-Nations",
      "Resources",
      "Law"
    ],
    "textContent": "Preliminary study of the impact on Indigenous peoples of the international legal construct known as the Doctrine of Discovery (PDF ⤓) submitted by the Special Rapporteur Tonya Gonella Frichner (Onondaga Nation), Executive Director American Indian Law Alliance"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/resources/social-change-indigenous-history/",
    "title": "Let‘s Change the Subject: Grounding Social Change in Indigenous History and Philosophy",
    "publishedAt": "2020-09-01T14:54:46Z",
    "description": "This article begins by raising a problem: when social change and justice issues are addressed, rarely are Indigenous nations and peoples considered.",
    "tags": [
      "Education",
      "Resources",
      "Philosophy"
    ],
    "textContent": "This article begins by raising a problem: when social change and justice issues are addressed, rarely are Indigenous nations and peoples considered. This needs to change. Many of the injustices in the United States are connected to or emerge from racism supported by the Doctrine of Christian Discovery (DoCD). It is time for reformers to become more aware of the DoCD and its legacy in the United States. In connection with the DoCD is the boarding-school experience, its foundation in the Christian supremacist ideas articulated in the DoCD, and the intergenerational trauma the schools created for Indigenous peoples and their families. In light of these violent and unjust dimensions, the United States may be imagined as a large crime scene. Not only should reformers understand this history better, this article suggests that reformers should begin looking to Indigenous wisdom to help reconceptualize what lasting peace might look like in the United States. Watch the Video .embed-container { position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.25%; height: 0; overflow: hidden; max-width: 100%; } .embed-container iframe, .embed-container object, .embed-container embed { position: absolute; top: 0; left: 0; width: 100%; height: 100%; } Watch on YouTube Download ⤓ Download Let's Change the Subject as a PDF"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/rns-article-about-the-conference/",
    "title": "RNS article about the conference",
    "publishedAt": "2018-08-24T12:15:43Z",
    "description": "The way Steven T. Newcomb describes the Doctrine of Discovery these days is 'a claim of a right of Christian domination.' It was first expressed by Pope Nicholas V in the 1452 papal bull Dum Diversas, which — along with subsequent bulls Romanus Pontifex and Inter Caetera — created a theological justification for Christian rulers seizing the property and possessions of non-Christians",
    "tags": [
      "religion",
      "News",
      "RNS"
    ],
    "textContent": "The way Steven T. Newcomb describes the Doctrine of Discovery these days is “a claim of a right of Christian domination.” It was first expressed by Pope Nicholas V in the 1452 papal bull “Dum Diversas,” which — along with subsequent bulls “Romanus Pontifex” and “Inter Caetera” — created a theological justification for Christian rulers seizing the property and possessions of non-Christians. Read more @ Religion News Service"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/roman-catholic-organizations-repudiate-the-doctrine-of-discovery/",
    "title": "Roman Catholic Organizations Repudiate the Doctrine of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2021-06-22T11:31:27Z",
    "description": "Roman Catholic Organization Statements Repudiating the Doctrine of Discovery.",
    "updatedAt": "2023-10-10T04:00:00Z",
    "tags": [
      "Catholic",
      "Christian",
      "PDF",
      "Pax-Christi",
      "Loretto",
      "LCWR",
      "Repudiations",
      "Faith-Communities"
    ],
    "textContent": "Roman Catholic Church Statements Joint Statement of the Dicasteries for Culture and Education and for Promoting Integral Human Development on the “Doctrine of Discovery”, 30.03.2023 Roman Catholic Organization Statements Repudiating the Doctrine of Discovery. The Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) (⤓ PDF download) LCWR resolutions LCWR Dismantle Racism and White Supremacy 13 Religious Groups Ask Pope Francis to Stand with Indigenous People (⤓ PDF download) Letter to the Pope, Passionists International 2013 (⤓ PDF download) Pax Christi, Maine 2013 (⤓ PDF download) The Loretto Community, November 2013 Press Release (⤓ PDF download) \"Nuns Blast Catholic Church's Doctrine of Discovery that Justified Indigenous Oppression.\" (RNS & huffpost) Religious Groups Ask Pope Francis to Stand with Indigenous People \\- Loretto Community and (⤓ PDF Download) LCWR Doctrine of Discovery Repudiation"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/roosevelt-corollary/",
    "title": "Roosevelt Corollary",
    "publishedAt": "2018-07-26T11:24:53Z",
    "description": "Roosevelt asserted that European nations should not intervene in countries to the south of the US, however under certain conditions, United States intervention might be justified.",
    "updatedAt": "2026-01-19T05:00:00Z",
    "tags": [
      "US",
      "President",
      "Monroe",
      "Roosevelt",
      "Law"
    ],
    "textContent": "Analysis by Steven T. Newcomb The Monroe Doctrine (1823) - Domination Translator Series - Part 6 Martin v. Waddell (1842) - Domination Translator Series - Part 7 President \"Teddy\" Roosevelt's Monroe Doctrine Corollary - Domination Translator Series - Part 8 The Monroe Doctrine and the Roosevelt Corollary The Monroe Doctrine, put forth in 1823 by President James Monroe, called for an end to European intervention in the American continents (both north and south). This applied only to independent governments in the Americas however, not to areas that were colonies at that time. In what came to be known as the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, Roosevelt asserted that European nations should not intervene in countries to the south of the US, however under certain conditions, United States intervention might be justified. \"There are certain essential points which must never be forgotten as regards the Monroe Doctrine. In the first place we must as a nation make it evident that we do not intend to treat it in any shape or way as an excuse for aggrandizement on our part at the expense of the republics to the south. We must recognize the fact that in some South American countries there has been much suspicion lest we should interpret the Monroe Doctrine as in some way inimical to their interests, and we must try to convince all the other nations of this continent once and for all that no just and orderly government has anything to fear from us. There are certain republics to the south of us which have already reached such a point of stability, order, and prosperity that they themselves, though as yet hardly consciously, are among the guarantors of this doctrine. These republics we now meet not only on a basis of entire equality, but in a spirit of frank and respectful friendship, which we hope is mutual. If all of the republics to the south of us will only grow as those to which I allude have already grown, all need for us to be especial champion of the doctrine will disappear, for no stable and growing American republic wishes to see some great non-American military power acquire territory in its neigborhood. All that this country desires is that the other republics on this continent shall be happy and prosperous; and they cannot be happy and prosperous unless they maintain order within their boundaries and behave with a just regard for their obligations toward outsiders. (Fifth Annual Message, Washington, December 5, 1905.) Mem. Ed. XVII, 352-353; Nat. Ed. XV, 301-302. Theodore Roosevelt's Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine (1905) Theodore Roosevelt's Annual Message to Congress for 1904 Transcript of Theodore Roosevelt's Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine (1905) Back to Law."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/roots-of-peacemaking/",
    "title": "Roots of Peacemaking",
    "publishedAt": "2018-08-01T11:32:49Z",
    "description": "2009 event archive 'Roots of Peacemaking: Indigenous Values, Global Crisis' is the first in an ongoing series of events that include conferences, cultural exchanges and concerts.  This is a United Nation International Day of Peace event.  It  is the result of an ongoing collaboration between the Onondaga Nation and Syracuse University.",
    "tags": [
      "peace",
      "peacemaking",
      "Haudenosaunee-Confederacy",
      "Onondaga-Nation",
      "Event",
      "News"
    ],
    "textContent": "2009 event archive \"Roots of Peacemaking: Indigenous Values, Global Crisis\"  is the first in an ongoing series of events that include conferences, cultural exchanges and concerts.  This is a United Nation International Day of Peace event.  It  is the result of an ongoing collaboration between the Onondaga Nation and Syracuse University.   Syracuse is located on Onondaga Nation ancestral land, the Central Fire of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy ('People of the Longhouse').  Onondaga Lake is where the Peacemaker, Hiawantha, and the Tadadaho came together to plant the Tree of Peace to establish the Great Law of Peace.  Since that time a millennium ago the Haudenosaunee have organized themselves according to these principles.  Founding Fathers of the United States, including Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, were deeply impressed with the Haudenosaunee processes and incorporated many of these ideas into the United States Constitution.  Onondaga Lake is therefore the Indigenous birthplace of democracy.  Ironically it is also the most polluted lake in the United States.  These conflicting realities symbolize the hopes and challenges of Indigenous people, as well as all people in our world. The Indigenous Sustainability Studies Project (ISSP) is an inter-disciplinary, multi-cultural, international project is a collaboration between the Onondaga Nation, Syracuse University, SUNY-ESF, and Neighbors of the Onondaga Nation (NOON).  Other institutions and community groups will be added to this collaboration.  It is connected with Native American Studies in the College of Arts and Science at Syracuse University.  The ISSP is devoted to investigating the current critical state of Indigenous people, their traditions, and their environments and dedicated to promoting Indigenous cultural values in order that there be a better possibility for human communities throughout the world to flourish.  Initially the ISSP will promote an international awareness of the environmental and spiritual crises facing Indigenous people of the Haudenosaunee as well as around the world, through a series of high profile cultural events. International Day of Peace: Everyone understands the need for peace. In 1981, the United Nations established the International Day of Peace, a day recognized by the international community as devoted to the ideals of peace. The original UN resolution reads in part, \"to devote a specific time to concentrate the efforts of the United Nations and its Member States, as well as of the whole of mankind, to promoting the ideals of peace and to giving positive evidence of their commitment to peace in all viable ways.\" The resolution continues \"the International Day of Peace should be devoted to commemorating and strengthening the ideals of peace both within and among all nations and peoples.\" Through the years the day has been commemorated with summits, demonstrations and major governmental actions aiming to promote global peace. This year events will include the International Peace Day Concert (where?), Peace Day Parades, Peace Vigils, and Peace prize awards and events will take place in countries as far away as New Zealand, El Salvador, and Iran. The only major change in the resolution came in 2001, when September 21 was set as a firm date. The new resolution also calls for all countries to observe a ceasefire for the day. On top of the ceasefire, there is a call for a minute of silence at 12 noon around the world. Through the efforts of grassroots activists, these symbolic events can be turned into meaningful steps toward peace. -Brandon Gustafson Description of the artwork: This is an aerial view of Onondaga Lake embraced by the Everlasting Tree Wampum Belt.  The Belt stands for the permanence of the Iroquois Confederacy.  It is to protect the Grand Council by keeping the eyes of the 50 civil leaders free from dust or harmful thoughts.  The belt is displayed whenever the Grand Council sits.  It represents an everlasting Tree of Peace, growing high into the Spirit World for all nations to see.  Under this Tree the Peacemaker placed a general fire to burn forever, Onondaga, the Council Place of the Five Nations.  At this council the Peacemaker said, \"When you are in a state of great confusion, I will return and again plant The Tree of Peace, and it will become stronger than before, that in the end, the government and laws of the Confederacy will influence the entire world.\" Wampum Belts of the Iroquois , by Tehanetorens Roots Peacemaking 2009 (⤓ PDF Download) Past Roots of Peacemaking Events Jane Goodall, featured speaker 2006, Onondaga Lake Water Ceremony, Onondaga Lake Ceremony at Onondaga Lake, 2005 Including a visit from the Japanese"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/sask/",
    "title": "Saskatchewan Parks Utilize Doctrine of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2019-03-25T23:47:22Z",
    "description": "Doctrine of Discovery at the heart of the Saskatchewan Parks Case.",
    "tags": [
      "Law",
      "CA-Law",
      "Indigenous-Peoples",
      "idle-no-more",
      "saskatchewan",
      "canada",
      "News"
    ],
    "textContent": "\\[Hayden\\] King, an Anishinaabe writer and educator based at Ryerson University, said the case turns on the Doctrine of Discovery, which Canada used to assume control over Indigenous territory and continues to rely on to assert sovereignty. “We’re demanding that Canada – the successor state of the British Crown – as a colony repudiate the racist Doctrine of Discovery,” said Sylvia \\[McAdam\\] Read more about the case on aptnews Image Credit Back to News"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/sherrill-v-oneida-opinion-of-the-court/",
    "title": "City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York",
    "publishedAt": "2022-10-19T21:20:02Z",
    "description": "Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Doctrine of Discovery.",
    "tags": [
      "Law",
      "US",
      "Sherrill",
      "Oneida",
      "SCOTUS",
      "Ginsburg",
      "featured"
    ],
    "textContent": "544 U.S. 197 In March 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision in City of Sherrill, New York v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York. Sherrill is a case about land rights and sovereignty, and it raises the question what it means for an Indigenous nation to appeal to its colonizer to recognize its sovereignty over land that belonged to it before it was colonized. City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation is a case about whether the Oneida nation had sovereignty over reaquired land within its historic reservation. In 1997 and 1998, the Oneida used profits from its Turning Stone casino to purchase separate parcels of land in petitioner City of Sherrill, New York in an open market transaction. The Oneida purchased 17,000 acres of land, scattered across two counties in Upstate New York, where they operate commercial enterprises: a gasoline station, a convenience store, and a textile facility. These properties, once contained within the historic Oneida reservation, were last possessed by the Oneida as a tribal entity in 1805. Nevertheless, the Oneida claimed to have revived its sovereignty over these parcels of land, and therefore they claimed to be immune from taxation. The City of Sherrill levied property taxes anyway, which the Oneida refused to pay. In response, the city sought to foreclose and assume title to these properties. The Court's decision provides us with the historical background of this case. The Oneida Indian Nation of New York is a direct descendant of the Oneida Nation, whose homeland comprised some six million acres in what is known now as central New York State. In 1788, the State and the Oneida entered into a treaty whereby the State purchased all of the Oneida's lands, retaining a reservation of only three-hundred thousand acres for their own use. The Oneida does not contest the legitimacy of this treaty or the boundaries of the reservation. In 1790, Congress passed the first Indian Trade and Intercourse Act (commonly known as the Nonintercourse Act), barring sales of Indigenous land without the federal government's acquiescence. Four years later, in the 1794 Treaty of Canandaigua, the United States acknowledged the Oneida's three-hundred-thousand-acre reservation and guaranteed their \"free use and enjoyment\" of the reserved territory, and the Oneida agreed to never claim any other lands within the U.S. territory. Nevertheless, New York continued to purchase reservation lands from the Oneidas, and although the Washington administration objected, later administrations did not, and the federal government pursued a policy designed to open reservation lands to white settlers and to remove Indigenous peoples westward. Pressured by the removal policy, many Oneidas left New York, selling most of the remaining land as they left, and by 1920, the New York Oneidas retained only thirty-two acres in the State. The purchase of the reservation lands by New York State was recognized as illegal by the Court in a previous decision. The region was governed by the state and its county and municipal units since 1805, and almost all of its population was non-Indigenous. In our case, the Oneida resisted the payment of property taxes assessed by Sherrill on the ground that its acquisition of parcels of historic reservation land revived the Oneida's sovereignty piecemeal over each parcel, so that regulatory authority over the newly purchased properties no longer resides in Sherrill. The Court held that the Oneida is prevented from unilaterally reviving its sovereignty, in whole or in part, over the parcels at issue. \"The Oneidas long ago relinquished reins of government and cannot regain them through open-market purchases from current titleholders,\" writes Justice Ginsburg in her majority opinion which 8 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices signed. The Court offers two main reasons: 1. The distinct non-Indigenous character of central New York and its inhabitants; 2. The Oneida's long delay in seeking judicial relief against parties other than the United States. Ginsburg writes about the impracticability of returning to Indigenous control land that generations earlier passed into numerous private hands. The unilateral reestablishment of present and future Indigenous sovereign control, even over land purchased at the market price, would have disruptive practical consequences: Sherrill and the surrounding area are today overwhelmingly populated by non-Indigenous residents, and \"a checkerboard of state and tribal jurisdiction\" -- created unilaterally at the Oneida's behest -- would seriously burden the administration of State and local governments and would adversely affect landowners neighboring the tribal patches. Let us consider the Court's primary reasons for its ruling. The Court rejects the Oneida's claim to sovereignty because of the long time that has passed since they last owned the land, and since during this time -- two centuries -- the Oneida failed to seek U.S. courts' recognition of its sovereignty over it. What would it mean for an Indigenous nation to use its colonizer's legal system to protest against its colonization? First and foremost, it would mean acknowledging the state-sovereignty of the U.S. The Oneida's refusal to pay property taxes, on the other hand, is a more creative form of resistance; trying in this way to unilaterally revive sovereignty over the land avoids the problem of acknowledging the sovereignty of the U.S. through recognizing the court's jurisdiction. Indeed, it could be said to amount to a denial of U.S. sovereignty over the historic reservation. Alas, the Oneida was nevertheless trapped into the courtroom of Justice Ginsburg, because the City of Sherrill turned (not surprisingly) to legal channels. Paradoxically, contesting U.S. sovereignty has the effect of acknowledging it. Specifically in our case, when the Court focuses on the time that has passed since the wrong that was done to the Oneidas -- \"grave, but ancient, wrong,\" in Justice Ginsburg's words -- it presents us with an understanding of colonial invasion as an event. In the view of the Court, the wrong that was done to the Oneidas is grave, but ancient. It was done once and now it is over. It is not an ongoing wrong. But another view on colonial invention sees invasion as a structure, not an event. According to this view, the dispute in the City of Sherrill case is about the present, not about the past. Ginsburg's reasoning masks this trait of settler colonialism. Furthermore, if we see colonial invasion as an event that took place long ago, and is now irrelevant to our case due to the doctrine of latches, then the reference made by Ginsburg to the \"innocent purchasers\" who now reside in Sherrill makes it seem as if it is not the Oneidas who needs the protection of the Court against the violation of its sovereignty (since this violation had happened in ancient times), but the settlers who in the present need protection from Indigenous reposession of their lands. Justice Stevens' dissenting opinion critiques the majority opinion thus: In this case, the Tribe reacquired reservation land in a peaceful and lawful manner that fully respected the interests of innocent landowners -- it purchased the land on the open market. To now deny the Tribe its right to tax immunity -- at once the most fundamental of tribal rights and the least disruptive to other sovereigns -- is not only inequitable, but irreconcilable with the principle that only Congress may abrogate or extinguish tribal sovereignty. But as preferable as Stevens' outcome is to Ginsburg, it, too, affirms the doctrine of discovery, Congress's plenary power, and U.S. entitlement to Indigenous land. As political theorist Robert Nichols has argued, Native land became property only as it was stolen from Native peoples. Dispossession made land into property, and the doctrine of discovery legitimated dispossession. Through the doctrine of discovery, as it was applied to American lands by the Marshal court, Indigenous peoples in the United States \"came to possess a proprietary right that could only be fully actualized in the moment of its extinguishment, that is, by transferring it to another\" (Nichols, 117). For this reason, the Oneida's attempt to regain control -- property rights -- over those lands seem preposterous. Sovereignty and property rights remain tightly connected in City of Sherrill, and the doctrine of discovery, which is sited in the first footnote in Ginsburg's decision, remains unchallenged. “Under the “doctrine of discovery,” … “fee title to the lands occupied by Indians when the colonists arrived became vested in the sovereign–first the discovering European nation and later the original States and the United States.” Resources City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York 544 U.S. 197 (⤓ PDF Download) City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York 544 U.S. 197 via Cornell Legal Information Institute"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/sowip/",
    "title": "State of the World’s Indigenous Peoples",
    "publishedAt": "2018-07-26T11:00:54Z",
    "description": "It was also suggested the report be a key advocacy tool for raising awareness on indigenous peoples’ issues in general and in particular to raise the profile of the Permanent Forum.",
    "tags": [
      "UN",
      "UNPFII",
      "SOWIP",
      "Indigenous-Peoples",
      "United-Nations"
    ],
    "textContent": "At its first session, the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) requested the United Nations System produce such a report on the state of the world’s indigenous peoples (SOWIP). It was also suggested the report be a key advocacy tool for raising awareness on indigenous peoples’ issues in general and in particular to raise the profile of the Permanent Forum. In addition, the report should be of value for deliberations within the Economic and Social Council, the General Assembly and other bodies of the UN system. The first publication of The State of the World’s Indigenous Peoples was published in 2009 and its major focus was on: Poverty and Well-being; Culture; Environment; Contemporary Education;Health; Human Rights and Emerging Issues. The report was well received and according to press reports, the publication revealed alarming statistics on indigenous peoples’ poverty, health, education, employment, human rights, the environment and more. This was the first United Nations publication and provided much needed information on the status of indigenous peoples throughout the world. The Report on the State of the World’s Indigenous Peoples promotes awareness of indigenous peoples’ issues within the United Nations system, with States, academia and the broader public. Publications: State of the World’s Indigenous Peoples, Volume III, Education (⤓ PDF download) State of the World’s Indigenous Peoples, Volume II, Health (⤓ PDF download) State of the World’s Indigenous Peoples, Volume I (⤓ pdf download) Download Full Publication as PDF: English, Français, Español, Русский via: UNDESEA Division for Inclusive Social Development Indigenous Peoples."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/statement-on-the-historical-use-of-the-doctrine-of-christian-discovery-by-the-united-states-supreme-court-since-1823/",
    "title": "Statement on the Historical Use of the Doctrine of Christian Discovery by the United States Supreme Court Since 1823",
    "publishedAt": "2018-07-27T10:47:10Z",
    "description": "The purpose of this paper is to review the history of the use of the Doctrine of Christian Discovery in United States Supreme Court decisions since 1823. It is hopes that the historical perspective in this paper will be of assistance to readers and help them gain a better understanding as to how fundamental the Doctrine of Discovery is to all United State Indian law, particularly with regards to land rights",
    "tags": [
      "Repudiations",
      "Haudenosaunee-Confederacy",
      "Indigenous-Peoples",
      "United-Nations",
      "Onondaga-Nation",
      "redpaper",
      "Law",
      "Education",
      "Resources"
    ],
    "textContent": "Statement on the Historical Use of the Doctrine of Christian Discovery by the United States Supreme Court Since 1823 By Joseph J. Heath, Esq. Onondaga Nation General Counsel. May 24, 2014 This paper has been prepared for the May 24, 2014 conference, entitled: “Doctrine of Christian Discovery: After Repudiation, What Next?”. The purpose of this paper is to review the history of the use of the Doctrine of Christian Discovery in United States Supreme Court decisions since 1823. It is hopes that the historical perspective in this paper will be of assistance to readers and help them gain a better understanding as to how fundamental the Doctrine of Discovery is to all United State Indian law, particularly with regards to land rights. Download the Statement on the Historical use of The Doctrine of Christian Discovery by Joe Heath (⤓ PDF download)."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/study-group/",
    "title": "Study Group",
    "publishedAt": "2018-07-30T17:33:38Z",
    "description": "The Doctrine of Discovery has had profoundly negative impacts on Indigenous Peoples for the last 500+ years. Governments and various organizations have used the Doctrine of Discovery to justify the taking lands, the extermination of people and cultures, and the breaking of agreements and treaties. Since 2007 we have been reading, discussing and educating ourselves ourselves about Indigenous Peoples' history, worldviews, and struggles.",
    "tags": [
      "education",
      "listserv",
      "resources",
      "Resources"
    ],
    "textContent": "We are the Doctrine of Discovery Study Group The Doctrine of Discovery has had profoundly negative impacts on Indigenous Peoples for the last 500+ years. Governments and various organizations have used the Doctrine of Discovery to justify the taking lands, the extermination of people and cultures, and the breaking of agreements and treaties. Since 2007 we have been reading, discussing and educating ourselves ourselves about Indigenous Peoples' history, worldviews, and struggles. We currently have about 120 people locally, nationally and internationally on our listserv. They have an active interest in connecting the larger issues to the Doctrine of Discovery including climate change, the mistreatment of the earth, social and economic exploitation. Working with Indigenous Peoples locally and internationally we create forums to discuss and educate a wider public audience about this urgent issues. We share information about current developments and look for ways in which we can participate in a positive way through education, advocacy and outreach to create understanding and reconciliation. The group is loosely structured. They have an active interest in connecting the larger issues of the Doctrine of Discovery with specific events regarding Indigenous peoples locally and internationally. Our goals . . Ultimately we hope to influence the Pope to rescind the Papal Bulls as they established the precedence or defined the rules that underlie the Doctrine of Discovery. We hope that other religious denominations will follow the lead of the Anglican Church in the United States and adopt resolutions denouncing the Doctrine of Discovery.   To join the Doctrine of Discovery Working Group listserv Dr. Philip P. Arnold at info@indigenousvalues.org"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/sweden/",
    "title": "Uniting Church in Sweden Repudiates the Doctrine of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2020-01-06T19:33:09Z",
    "description": "Read the Uniting Church in Sweden statement repudiating the Doctrine of Discovery.",
    "tags": [
      "Sweden",
      "Christian",
      "PDF",
      "Uniting-Church",
      "Repudiations",
      "Faith-Communities"
    ],
    "textContent": "Equmeniakyrkan/Uniting Church in Sweden Download the 2013 Equmeniakyrkan/Uniting Church in Sweden's statement (⤓ PDF)"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/taking-on-the-doctrine-of-discovery-what-are-our-next-steps/",
    "title": "Taking on the Doctrine of Discovery, What are our Next Steps?",
    "publishedAt": "2018-07-30T17:49:47Z",
    "description": "We will first to learn about the devastating impacts of the Doctrine of Discovery first hand from the Haudenosaunee, to understand its history, and then to share strategies for addressing this 500+ year-old ongoing human rights violation.  Then we will hear from one another and the ways in which religious and faith communities are pushing back against the Doctrine of Discovery.",
    "tags": [
      "Event",
      "Conference",
      "Peace",
      "skanonhcenter"
    ],
    "textContent": "Details: Taking on the Doctrine of Discovery, What are our Next Steps? Date: August 18-19, 2018, Time:  9:00am-5:00pm on Saturday (with a banquet 6:00pm-9:00pm) and 9:00am-1:00pm on Sunday Place: Skä·noñh—Great Law of Peace Center, Liverpool NY in Onondaga Nation Territory Tickets: $100 per person Speakers: Coming Soon Sponsors: Indigenous Values Initiative, American Indian Law Alliance Schedule: View Tentative Schedule. Summary: We are excited to announce the conference “Taking on the Doctrine of Discovery, What Are Our Next Steps?” at the Skä·noñh—Great Law of Peace Center, Saturday and Sunday (18-19 August 2018).  A conference fee of $100 will cover the rental of the Center, lunches for both days and a dinner of traditional Haudenosaunee foods on Saturday night.  This event is organized and sponsored by the Indigenous Values Initiative. In 2014, before the Skä·noñh—Great Law of Peace Center had officially opened, we held a first conference titled “The Doctrine of Discovery: After Repudiation, What Next?”  About 40 delegates from different faith traditions attended.  This year’s conference builds on the 2014 meeting.  The Skä·noñh Center is now open and it is a good context from which to draw the values of the Haudenosaunee to affect positive change.  As with the previous meeting, we will first to learn about the devastating impacts of the Doctrine of Discovery first hand from the Haudenosaunee, to understand its history, and then to share strategies for addressing this 500+ year-old ongoing human rights violation.  Then we will hear from one another and the ways in which religious and faith communities are pushing back against the Doctrine of Discovery.  There will be a traditional foods banquet on the evening of Saturday the 18th followed by screening of the film “Spirit Game: Pride of a Nation” and panel discussion. View the Tentative Schedule for Taking on the Doctrine of Discovery, What are our Next Steps?](https://indigenousvalues.org/draft-schedule-for-taking-on-the-doctrine-of-discovery/) If you want to contribute a scholarship for others to attend the conference you can donate to the conference](https://indigenousvalues.org/give/). Next Steps"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/tee-hit-ton/",
    "title": "TEE-HIT-TON",
    "publishedAt": "2018-08-27T00:24:16Z",
    "description": "Every America schoolboy knows that the savage tribes of this continent were deprived of their ancestral ranges by force and that, even when the Indians ceded millions of acres by treaty in return for blankets, food and trinkets, it was not a sale but the conquerors’ will that deprived them of their land",
    "updatedAt": "2026-01-19T05:00:00Z",
    "tags": [
      "law",
      "US",
      "US-Law",
      "Law"
    ],
    "textContent": "Analysis by Steven T. Newcomb Tee Hit Ton Indians v. United States (1955) - Domination Translator Series - Part 9 Key Excerpt: “Every America schoolboy knows that the savage tribes of this continent were deprived of their ancestral ranges by force and that, even when the Indians ceded millions of acres by treaty in return for blankets, food and trinkets, it was not a sale but the conquerors’ will that deprived them of their land.”  ( Id., at 289-290.) Read the full The TEE-HIT-TON INDIANS, An Identifiable Group of Alaska Indians, Petitioner, v. The UNITED STATES Decision. Back to Law."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/the-biblical-basis-of-federal-indian-law-policy/",
    "title": "The Biblical Basis of Federal Indian Law Policy",
    "publishedAt": "2018-08-07T19:25:57Z",
    "description": "As bizarre as it may seem, today’s federal definitions of Indian title and Indian nationhood find their basis in the Old Testament covenant tradition. This tradition is premised on the idea of a “chosen people” who have a covenant (treaty) with their deity to take over and colonize certain lands that the deity promised them, in this case Indian lands.",
    "tags": [
      "US",
      "US-Law",
      "Christian",
      "Old-Testament",
      "land",
      "Law"
    ],
    "textContent": "As bizarre as it may seem, today’s federal definitions of Indian title and Indian nationhood find their basis in the Old Testament covenant tradition. This tradition is premised on the idea of a “chosen people” who have a covenant (treaty) with their deity to take over and colonize certain lands that the deity promised them, in this case Indian lands. Learn more about the Biblical basis for Federal \"Indian\" Law Policy From Steve Newcomb."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/the-bull-romanus-pontifex-nicholas-v/",
    "title": "The Bull Romanus Pontifex",
    "publishedAt": "2018-07-23T14:54:46Z",
    "description": "The Bull Romanus Pontifex (Nicholas V) January 8, 1455",
    "tags": [
      "Catholic",
      "Papal-Bulls"
    ],
    "textContent": "The Bull Romanus Pontifex (Nicholas V) January 8, 1455 \"Nicholas, bishop, servant of the servants of God. for a perpetual remembrance. The Roman pontiff, successor of the key-bearer of the heavenly kingdom and vicar of Jesus Christ, contemplating with a father's mind all the several climes of the world and the characteristics of all the nations dwelling in them and seeking and desiring the salvation of all, wholesomely ordains and disposes upon careful deliberation those things which he sees will be agreeable to the Divine Majesty and by which he may bring the sheep entrusted to him by God into the single divine fold, and may acquire for them the reward of eternal felicity, and obtain pardon for their souls. This we believe will more certainly come to pass, through the aid of the Lord, if we bestow suitable favors and special graces on those Catholic kings and princes, who, like athletes and intrepid champions of the Christian faith, as we know by the evidence of facts, not only restrain the savage excesses of the Saracens and of other infidels, enemies of the Christian name, but also for the defense and increase of the faith vanquish them and their kingdoms and habitations, though situated in the remotest parts unknown to us, and subject them to their own temporal dominion, sparing no labor and expense, in order that those kings and princes, relieved of all obstacles, may be the more animated to the prosecution of so salutary and laudable a work. We have lately heard, not without great joy and gratification, how our beloved son, the noble personage Henry, infante of Portugal, uncle of our most dear son in Christ, the illustrious Alfonso, king of the kingdoms of Portugal and Algarve, treading in the footsteps of John, of famous memory, king of the said kingdoms, his father, and greatly inflamed with zeal for the salvation of souls and with fervor of faith, as a Catholic and true soldier of Christ, the Creator of all things, and a most active and courageous defender and intrepid champion of the faith in Him, has aspired from his early youth with his utmost might to cause the most glorious name of the said Creator to be published, extolled, and revered throughout the whole world, even in the most remote and undiscovered places, and also to bring into the bosom of his faith the perfidious enemies of him and of the life-giving Cross by which we have been redeemed, namely the Saracens and all other infidels whatsoever, \\[and how\\] after the city of Ceuta, situated in Africa, had been subdued by the said King John to his dominion, and after many wars had been waged, sometimes in person, by the said infante, although in the name of the said King John, against the enemies and infidels aforesaid, not without the greatest labors and expense, and with dangers and loss of life and property, and the slaughter of very many of their natural subjects, the said infante being neither enfeebled nor terrified by so many and great labors, dangers, and losses, but growing daily more and more zealous in prosecuting this his so laudable and pious purpose, has peopled with orthodox Christians certain solitary islands in the ocean sea, and has caused churches and other pious places to be there founded and built, in which divine service is celebrated. Also by the laudable endeavor and industry of the said infante, very many inhabitants or dwellers in divers islands situated in the said sea, coming to the knowledge of the true God, have received holy baptism, to the praise and glory of God, the salvation of the souls of many, the propagation also of the orthodox faith, and the increase of divine worship. Moreover, since, some time ago, it had come to the knowledge of the said infante that never, or at least not within the memory of men, had it been customary to sail on this ocean sea toward the southern and eastern shores, and that it was so unknown to us westerners that we had no certain knowledge of the peoples of those parts, believing that he would best perform his duty to God in this matter, if by his effort and industry that sea might become navigable as far as to the Indians who are said to worship the name of Christ, and that thus he might be able to enter into relation with them, and to incite them to aid the Christians against the Saracens and other such enemies of the faith, and might also be able forthwith to subdue certain gentile or pagan peoples, living between, who are entirely free from infection by the sect of the most impious Mahomet, and to preach and cause to be preached to them the unknown but most sacred name of Christ, strengthened, however, always by the royal authority, he has not ceased for twenty-five years past to send almost yearly an army of the peoples of the said kingdoms with the greatest labor, danger, and expense, in very swift ships called caravels, to explore the sea and coast lands toward the south and the Antarctic pole. And so it came to pass that when a number of ships of this kind had explored and taken possession of very many harbors, islands, and seas, they at length came to the province of Guinea, and having taken possession of some islands and harbors and the sea adjacent to that province, sailing farther they came to the mouth of a certain great river commonly supposed to be the Nile, and war was waged for some years against the peoples of those parts in the name of the said King Alfonso and of the infante, and in it very many islands in that neighborhood were subdued and peacefully possessed, as they are still possessed together with the adjacent sea. Thence also many Guineamen and other negroes, taken by force, and some by barter of unprohibited articles, or by other lawful contract of purchase, have been sent to the said kingdoms. A large number of these have been converted to the Catholic faith, and it is hoped, by the help of divine mercy, that if such progress be continued with them, either those peoples will be converted to the faith or at least the souls of many of them will be gained for Christ. But since, as we are informed, although the king and infante aforesaid (who with so many and so great dangers, labors, and expenses, and also with loss of so many natives of their said kingdoms, very many of whom have perished in those expeditions, depending only upon the aid of those natives, have caused those provinces to be explored and have acquired and possessed such harbors, islands, and seas, as aforesaid, as the true lords of them), fearing lest strangers induced by covetousness should sail to those parts, and desiring to usurp to themselves the perfection, fruit, and praise of this work, or at least to hinder it, should therefore, either for the sake of gain or through malice, carry or transmit iron, arms, wood used for construction, and other things and goods prohibited to be carried to infidels or should teach those infidels the art of navigation, whereby they would become more powerful and obstinate enemies to the king and infante, and the prosecution of this enterprise would either be hindered, or would perhaps entirely fail, not without great offense to God and great reproach to all Christianity, to prevent this and to conserve their right and possession, \\[the said king and infante\\] under certain most severe penalties then expressed, have prohibited and in general have ordained that none, unless with their sailors and ships and on payment of a certain tribute and with an express license previously obtained from the said king or infante, should presume to sail to the said provinces or to trade in their ports or to fish in the sea, \\[although the king and infante have taken this action, yet in time it might happen that persons of other kingdoms or nations, led by envy, malice, or covetousness, might presume, contrary to the prohibition aforesaid, without license and payment of such tribute, to go to the said provinces, and in the provinces, harbors, islands, and sea, so acquired, to sail, trade, and fish; and thereupon between King Alfonso and the infante, who would by no means suffer themselves to be so trifled with in these things, and the presumptuous persons aforesaid, very many hatreds, rancors, dissensions, wars, and scandals, to the highest offense of God and danger of souls, probably might and would ensue -- We \\[therefore\\] weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso -- to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit -- by having secured the said faculty, the said King Alfonso, or, by his authority, the aforesaid infante, justly and lawfully has acquired and possessed, and doth possess, these islands, lands, harbors, and seas, and they do of right belong and pertain to the said King Alfonso and his successors, nor without special license from King Alfonso and his successors themselves has any other even of the faithful of Christ been entitled hitherto, nor is he by any means now entitled lawfully to meddle therewith -- in order that King Alfonso himself and his successors and the infante.may be able the more zealously to pursue and may pursue this most pious and noble work, and most worthy of perpetual remembrance (which, since the salvation of souls, increase of the faith, and overthrow of its enemies may be procured thereby, we regard as a work wherein the glory of God, and faith in Him, and His commonwealth, the Universal Church, are concerned) in proportion as they, having been relieved of all the greater obstacles, shall find themselves supported by us and by the Apostolic See with favors and graces -- we, being very fully informed of all and singular the premises, do, motu proprio, not at the instance of King Alfonso or the infante, or on the petition of any other offered to us on their behalf in respect to this matter, and after mature deliberation, by apostolic authority, and from certain knowledge, in the fullness of apostolic power, by the tenor of these presents decree and declare that the aforesaid letters of faculty (the tenor whereof we wish to be considered as inserted word for word in these presents, with all and singular the clauses therein contained) are extended to Ceuta and to the aforesaid and all other acquisitions whatsoever, even those acquired before the date of the said letters of faculty, and to all those provinces, islands, harbors, and seas whatsoever, which hereafter, in the name of the said King Alfonso and of his successors and of the infante, in those parts and the adjoining, and in the more distant and remote parts, can be acquired from the hands of infidels or pagans, and that they are comprehended under the said letters of faculty. And by force of those and of the present letters of faculty the acquisitions already made, and what hereafter shall happen to be acquired, after they shall have been acquired, we do by the tenor of these presents decree and declare have pertained, and forever of right do belong and pertain, to the aforesaid king and to his successors and to the infante, and that the right of conquest which in the course of these letters we declare to be extended from the capes of Bojador and of Não, as far as through all Guinea, and beyond toward that southern shore, has belonged and pertained, and forever of right belongs and pertains, to the said King Alfonso, his successors, and the infante, and not to any others. We also by the tenor of these presents decree and declare that King Alfonso and his successors and the infante aforesaid might and may, now and henceforth, freely and lawfully, in these \\[acquisitions\\] and concerning them make any prohibitions, statutes, and decrees whatsoever, even penal ones, and with imposition of any tribute, and dispose and ordain concerning them as concerning their own property and their other dominions. And in order to confer a more effectual right and assurance we do by these presents forever give, grant, and appropriate to the aforesaid King Alfonso and his successors, kings of the said kingdoms, and to the infante, the provinces, islands, harbors, places, and seas whatsoever, how many soever, and of what sort soever they shall be, that have already been acquired and that shall hereafter come to be acquired, and the right of conquest also from the capes of Bojador and of Não aforesaid. Moreover, since this is fitting in many ways for the perfecting of a work of this kind, we allow that the aforesaid King Alfonso and \\[his\\] successors and the infante, as also the persons to whom they, or any one of them, shall think that this work ought to be committed, may (according to the grant made to the said King John by Martin V., of happy memory, and another grant made also to King Edward of illustrious memory, king of the same kingdoms, father of the said King Alfonso, by Eugenius IV., of pious memory, Roman pontiffs, our predecessors) make purchases and sales of any things and goods and victuals whatsoever, as it shall seem fit, with any Saracens and infidels, in the said regions; and also may enter into any contracts, transact business, bargain, buy and negotiate, and carry any commodities whatsoever to the places of those Saracens and infidels, provided they be not iron instruments, wood to be used for construction, cordage, ships, or any kinds of armor, and may sell them to the said Saracens and infidels; and also may do, perform, or prosecute all other and singular things \\[mentioned\\] in the premises, and things suitable or necessary in relation to these; and that the same King Alfonso, his successors, and the infante, in the provinces, islands, and places already acquired, and to be acquired by him, may found and \\[cause to be\\] founded and built any churches, monasteries, or other pious places whatsoever; and also may send over to them any ecclesiastical persons whatsoever, as volunteers, both seculars, and regulars of any of the mendicant orders (with license, however, from their superiors), and that those persons may abide there as long as they shall live, and hear confessions of all who live in the said parts or who come thither, and after the confessions have been heard they may give due absolution in all cases, except those reserved to the aforesaid see, and enjoin salutary penance, and also administer the ecclesiastical sacraments freely and lawfully, and this we allow and grant to Alfonso himself, and his successors, the kings of Portugal, who shall come afterwards, and to the aforesaid infante. Moreover, we entreat in the Lord, and by the sprinkling of the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, whom, as has been said, it concerneth, we exhort, and as they hope for the remission of their sins enjoin, and also by this perpetual edict of prohibition we more strictly inhibit, all and singular the faithful of Christ, ecclesiastics, seculars, and regulars of whatsoever orders, in whatsoever part of the world they live, and of whatsoever state, degree, order, condition, or pre-eminence they shall be, although endued with archiepiscopal, episcopal, imperial, royal, queenly, ducal, or any other greater ecclesiastical or worldly dignity, that they do not by any means presume to carry arms, iron, wood for construction, and other things prohibited by law from being in any way carried to the Saracens, to any of the provinces, islands, harbors, seas, and places whatsoever, acquired or possessed in the name of King Alfonso, or situated in this conquest or elsewhere, to the Saracens, infidels, or pagans; or even without special license from the said King Alfonso and his successors and the infante, to carry or cause to be carried merchandise and other things permitted by law, or to navigate or cause to be navigated those seas, or to fish in them, or to meddle with the provinces, islands, harbors, seas, and places, or any of them, or with this conquest, or to do anything by themselves or another or others, directly or indirectly, by deed or counsel, or to offer any obstruction whereby the aforesaid King Alfonso and his successors and the infante may be hindered from quietly enjoying their acquisitions and possessions, and prosecuting and carrying out this conquest. And we decree that whosoever shall infringe these orders \\[shall incur the following penalties\\], besides the punishments pronounced by law against those who carry arms and other prohibited things to any of the Saracens, which we wish them to incur by so doing; if they be single persons, they shall incur the sentence of excommunication; if a community or corporation of a city, castle, village, or place, that city, castle, village, or place shall be thereby subject to the interdict; and we decree further that transgressors, collectively or individually, shall not be absolved from the sentence of excommunication, nor be able to obtain the relaxation of this interdict, by apostolic or any other authority, unless they shall first have made due satisfaction for their transgressions to Alfonso himself and his successors and to the infante, or shall have amicably agreed with them thereupon. By \\[these\\] apostolic writings we enjoin our venerable brothers, the archbishop of Lisbon, and the bishops of Silves and Ceuta, that they, or two or one of them, by himself, or another or others, as often as they or any of them shall be required on the part of the aforesaid King Alfonso and his successors and the infante or any one of them, on Sundays, and other festival days, in the churches, while a large multitude of people shall assemble there for divine worship, do declare and denounce by apostolic authority that those persons who have been proved to have incurred such sentences of excommunication and interdict, are excommunicated and interdicted, and have been and are involved in the other punishments aforesaid. And we decree that they shall also cause them to be denounced by others, and to be strictly avoided by all, till they shall have made satisfaction for or compromised their transgressions as aforesaid. Offenders are to be held in check by ecclesiastical censure, without regard to appeal, the apostolic constitutions and ordinances and all other things whatsoever to the contrary notwithstanding. But in order that the present letters, which have been issued by us of our certain knowledge and after mature deliberation thereupon, as is aforesaid, may not hereafter be impugned by anyone as fraudulent, secret, or void, we will, and by the authority, knowledge, and power aforementioned, we do likewise by these letters, decree and declare that the said letters and what is contained therein cannot in any wise be impugned, or the effect thereof hindered or obstructed, on account of any defect of fraudulency, secrecy, or nullity, not even from a defect of the ordinary or of any other authority, or from any other defect, but that they shall be valid forever and shall obtain full authority. And if anyone, by whatever authority, shall, wittingly or unwittingly, attempt anything inconsistent with these orders we decree that his act shall be null and void. Moreover, because it would be difficult to carry our present letters to all places whatsoever, we will, and by the said authority we decree by these letters, that faith shall be given as fully and permanently to copies of them, certified under the hand of a notary public and the seal of the episcopal or any superior ecclesiastical court, as if the said original letters were exhibited or shown; and we decree that within two months from the day when these present letters, or the paper or parchment containing the tenor of the same, shall be affixed to the doors of the church at Lisbon, the sentences of excommunication and the other sentences contained therein shall bind all and singular offenders as fully as if these present letters had been made known and presented to them in person and lawfully. Therefore let no one infringe or with rash boldness contravene this our declaration, constitution, gift, grant, appropriation, decree, supplication, exhortation, injunction, inhibition, mandate, and will. But if anyone should presume to do so, be it known to him that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul. Given at Rome, at Saint Peter's, on the eighth day of January, in the year of the incarnation of our Lord one thousand four hundred and fifty-four, and in the eighth year of our pontificate.\" via: papalencyclicals.net"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/the-christian-church-disciples-of-christ-the-u-s-and-canada/",
    "title": "The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ, the U.S and Canada) Repudiates the Doctrine of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2018-07-28T02:31:13Z",
    "description": "That the General Assembly of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in the United States and Canada, meeting, July 13-17, 2013, in Orlando, Florida, accept 'Reflection on Christian Theology and Polity, the Christian Doctrine of Discovery, and the Indigenous Voice'.",
    "tags": [
      "Christianity",
      "Repudiations",
      "Christian-Church",
      "US",
      "Canada",
      "DOC",
      "Disciples-of-Christ",
      "Faith-Communities"
    ],
    "textContent": "Reflection on Christian Theology and Polity, the Christian Doctrine of Discovery, and the Indigenous Voice That the General Assembly of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in the United States and Canada, meeting, July 13-17, 2013, in Orlando, Florida, accept “Reflection on Christian Theology and Polity, the Christian Doctrine of Discovery, and the Indigenous Voice” as an Item for Reflection and Research during the 2013- 2015 biennium. This reflection and research process would be accountable by report to the Administrative Committee, the General Board, and the 2015 General Assembly. Reflection on Christian Theology and Polity, the Christian Doctrine of Discovery, and the Indigenous Voice (⤓ PDF download)"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/the-doctrine-of-discovery-the-international-law-of-colonialism/",
    "title": "The Ten Legal Dimensions of the Doctrine of Discovery: The International Law of Colonialism",
    "publishedAt": "2018-07-27T10:50:25Z",
    "description": "Here are the 10 elements that I think constitute the Doctrine and are useful in analyzing and comparing how settler-colonizer societies have used this international law against Indigenous peoples around the globe.",
    "updatedAt": "2022-09-26T11:23:23Z",
    "tags": [
      "UN",
      "United-Nations",
      "International-Law",
      "featured",
      "Law"
    ],
    "textContent": "Ten Legal Elements of the Doctrine of Discovery The Doctrine of Discovery: The International Law of Colonialism by Professor Robert J. Miller, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, Arizona State Univ. Chief Justice, Grand Ronde Tribe Court of Appeals Johnson v. M’Intosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823). Here are the 10 elements that I think constitute the Doctrine and are useful in analyzing and comparing how settler/colonizer societies have used this international law against Indigenous peoples around the globe. Robert J. Miller, Native America, Discovered and Conquered: Thomas Jefferson, Lewis and Clark, and Manifest Destiny 3-5 (Praeger Publishers, 2006; paperback University of Nebraska Press, 2008). 1. First discovery. The first European country to discover lands unknown to other Europeans claimed property and sovereign rights over the lands and native peoples. First discovery, however, was usually considered to have created only an incomplete title. 2. Actual occupancy and current possession. To turn first discovery into recognized title, a European country had to actually occupy and possess newly found lands. This was usually done by building forts or settlements. Physical possession had to be accomplished within a reasonable amount of time after the first discovery to create a complete title. 3. Preemption/European title. Discovering European countries also claimed the power of preemption, that is, the sole right to buy the land from Indigenous peoples. This is a valuable property right similar to an exclusive option to purchase land. The government that owned the preemption right prevented or preempted any other European government or individual from buying land from the native owners. The United States still claims this power over Indian lands today. 25 U.S.C. section 177 (2006). 4. Indian or Native title. After first discovery, Euro-American legal systems claimed that Indigenous Peoples and nations had lost their full property rights and full ownership of their lands. Europeans claimed that Indigenous nations only retained the rights to occupy and use their lands. Nevertheless, these rights could last forever if they never consented to sell to the European country that claimed the preemption power. If Indigenous nations did choose to sell, they were only supposed to deal with the government that held the preemption right. Thus, “Indian title” in the United States, and ‘Maori title’ in New Zealand, and Indigenous titles elsewhere allegedly defined limited ownership rights. 5. Tribal limited sovereign and commercial rights. After a first discovery, Europeans considered that Indigenous Nations and Peoples had lost some aspects of their inherent sovereign powers and their rights to international free trade and diplomatic relations. Thereafter, they were only supposed to deal with the European government that had first discovered them. 6. Contiguity. Under Discovery, Europeans claimed a significant amount of land contiguous to and surrounding their actual discoveries and settlements in the New World. Contiguity became very important when different European countries had settlements somewhat close together. In that situation, each country claimed to hold rights over the unoccupied lands between their settlements to a point half way between the actual settlements. Moreover, contiguity held that the discovery of the mouth of a river gave the discovering country a claim over all the lands drained by that river; even if that was thousands of miles of territory. For example, refer to the boundaries of the Louisiana Territory and Oregon country as defined by the United States. 7. Terra nullius. This phrase literally means a land or earth that is null or void or empty. This element stated that if lands were not possessed or occupied by any person or nation, or even if they were occupied but were not being used in a fashion that European legal and property systems approved, then the lands were considered to be “empty” and available for Discovery claims. Europeans were very liberal in applying this element and often considered lands that were actually owned, occupied, and being used by Indigenous Peoples to be “vacant” and available for Discovery claims if they were not being “used” according to Euro-American laws and cultural mores. 8. Christianity. Religion was a significant aspect of the Doctrine of Discovery. Under Discovery, non-Christian peoples were not deemed to have the same rights to land, sovereignty, and self-determination as Christians. 9. Civilization. The European ideals of civilization were important parts of Discovery and of ideas of superiority. Europeans thought that God had directed them to bring civilized ways and education and religion to Indigenous Peoples and to exercise paternalism and guardianship powers over them. 10. Conquest. This element “claimed” that Europeans could acquire Indian title by military victories in “just” and “necessary” wars. In addition, conquest was also used as a term of art to describe the property rights Europeans “claimed” to have acquired automatically over Indigenous Nations just by showing up and making a “first discovery.” For a comparative law analysis of the use of the Doctrine of Discovery in different European and settler societies, see generally Robert J. Miller, The International Law of Colonialism: A Comparative Analysis, 15 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 847 (2012); Robert J. Miller & Micheline D’Angelis, Brazil, Indigenous Peoples, and the International Law of Discovery, 37 Brooklyn J. Int’l Law 1 (2011); Robert J. Miller, Lisa Lesage & Sebastian Lopez Escarcena, The International Law of Discovery, Indigenous Peoples, and Chile, 89 Nebraska L. Rev. 819 (2011); Robert J. Miller, Jacinta Ruru, Larissa Behrendt & Tracey Lindberg, Discovering Indigenous Lands: The Doctrine of Discovery in the English Colonies (Oxford Univ. Press, 2010 and paperback 2012); Robert J. Miller & Jacinta Ruru, An Indigenous Lens into Comparative Law: The Doctrine of Discovery in the United States and New Zealand, 111 West Vir. L. Rev. 849 (2009); Robert J. Miller, Native America, Discovered and Conquered: Thomas Jefferson, Lewis and Clark, and Manifest Destiny (Praeger Publishers, 2006; paperback University of Nebraska Press, 2008). The law review articles are available for free at http://ssrn.com/author=354803 Downloads Download the 10 elements as a (⤓ PDF download). from: Robert J. Miller, Native America, Discovered and Conquered: Thomas Jefferson, Lewis and Clark, and Manifest Destiny 3-5 (Praeger Publishers, 2006; paperback University of Nebraska Press, 2008). The International Law of Colonialism a Comparative Analysis by Robert J. Miller (⤓ 76 page PDF download) via: law.clark.edu."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/the-doctrine-of-discovery-unmasking-the-domination-code/",
    "title": "The Doctrine of Discovery, Unmasking The Domination Code",
    "publishedAt": "2018-08-23T16:06:27Z",
    "description": "The first Christian people to locate lands inhabited by non-Christians ('infidels, heathens, and savages') claimed the right to assert a right of domination to be in themselves. On the basis of this religiously premised argument, the U.S. Supreme Court has defined the land title of the Indian nations as a 'mere right of occupancy' subject to a right of domination on the part of the United States.",
    "tags": [
      "videos",
      "films",
      "Education",
      "resources",
      "Resources"
    ],
    "textContent": "Now Streaming{: .btn .btn--warning .btn--x-large} The Doctrine of Discovery, Unmasking The Domination Code by 38 plus 2 productions and Steven T. Newcomb. The film cost $21.50 USD. To order the film send a check or money order to: 38 Plus 2 Productions 40163 Reservation Hwy 3, Morton MN, 56270 If interested in bulk rate or having producers conduct a public showing please contact Steven Newcomb Watch on Vimeo About The Doctrine of Discovery, Unmasking the Domination Code:   This powerful and landmark documentary “The Doctrine of Discovery: Unmasking The Domination Code” is a result of the collaborative efforts by Dakota filmmaker and Director Sheldon Wolfchild and Co-Producer Steven Newcomb (Shawnee, Lenape). The film, based on Newcomb’s thirty years of research, and his book Pagans in the Promised Land: Decoding the Doctrine of Christian Discovery (Fulcrum, 2008), brings to the big screen an amazing and little known story: The first Christian people to locate lands inhabited by non-Christians (“infidels, heathens, and savages”) claimed the right to assert a right of domination to be in themselves. On the basis of this religiously premised argument, the U.S. Supreme Court has defined the land title of the Indian nations as a “mere right of occupancy” subject to a right of domination on the part of the United States. The first “Christian people” that claimed “ultimate dominion,” said the Supreme Court, could grant away the soil while yet it was still in the possession of the “natives, who were heathens.” Birgil Kills Straight, a Headman of the Oglala Lakota Nation, provides insight into the traditional wisdom and teachings of the Seven Laws of the Oglala Lakota. The documentary points out that the traditional teachings of original nations and peoples form an alternative to the dehumanizing domination system of Christendom. Theologian Luis Rivera-Pagán, who is interviewed in the film, points out in his book A Violent Evangelism: The Religious and Political Conquest of the Americas (1992), that an accurate history must account for the theological and religious justifications for claims of domination over the original nations and peoples. Rivera-Pagán talks about the devastating effects of “the absolute devaluation of one’s being,” or, in other words, dehumanization. The film calls upon the Holy See at the Vatican to revoke the papal decrees that set into motion the domination system, and points out that the values and teachings of original nations are a sacred path for all Life. image description: DVD cover for The Doctrine of Discovery, Unmasking The Domination Code."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/the-episcopal-church-usa/",
    "title": "The Episcopal Church USA Statements on the Doctrine of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2018-07-27T11:36:23Z",
    "description": "Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori on the Repudiation of the Doctrine of Discovery",
    "updatedAt": "2022-01-28T11:23:23Z",
    "tags": [
      "Episcopal",
      "Christian",
      "US",
      "USA",
      "Repudiations",
      "Faith-Communities"
    ],
    "textContent": "Statement on Indigenous boarding schools 2021 Statement on Indigenous boarding schools by Presiding Bishop Michael Curry and President of the House of Deputies Gay Clark Jennings Episcopal Church, USA Statement on the Doctrine of Discovery Repudiate the Doctrine of Discovery, 2009-D035 Final Resolution Text Other Documents Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori on the Repudiation of the Doctrine of Discovery 2012 Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori issues pastoral letter on the Doctrine of Discovery and Indigenous Peoples Remembrance, Recognition and Reconciliation: The Episcopal Church’s Call for Justice for Indigenous People A Sermon Preached by John Dieffenbacher-Krall at St. James’ Episcopal Church, Old Town, Maine October 15, 2006 Rejecting the Christian Doctrine of Discovery and Forging a New Relationship with North America’s Indigenous People A Sermon Preached by John Dieffenbacher-Krall at St. David’s Episcopal Church, Barneveld, NY in the Central Diocese of NY July 12, 2009 How St. James’ Might Respond to General Convention Resolution D035 A Sermon Preached by John Dieffenbacher-Krall at St. James’ Episcopal Church, Old Town, Maine October 11, 2009 Indian Country Today Media Network News Article: Episcopal Church repudiates Doctrine of Discovery  and as pdf"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/treaty-of-tordesillas/",
    "title": "Treaty of Tordesillas",
    "publishedAt": "2018-07-23T15:27:40Z",
    "description": "The Treaty of Tordesillas was concluded on June 7 1494 to settle the contentious matter of the possession of the newly discovered lands of the non Christian world between Portugal and Spain. It was ratified by Spain on July 2, 1494. and by Portugal on September 5, 1494.",
    "tags": [
      "Treaty",
      "Papal-Bulls",
      "Law",
      "Catholic"
    ],
    "textContent": "Treaty of Tordesillas June 7, 1494   The Treaty of Tordesillas was concluded on June 7 1494 to settle the contentious matter of the possession of the newly discovered lands of the non Christian world between Portugal and Spain. It was ratified by Spain on July 2, 1494. and by Portugal on September 5, 1494. The judiciary precedent of the treaty was the Inter Caetera Papal Bull, issued on May 4, 1493 by the Spanish Pope Alexander VI. The Inter Caetera Bull fixed the demarcation line along a circle passing 100 leagues W of the Cape Verde Islands and through the two poles. This division gave the entire New World to Spain and Africa and India to Portugal. The margin of the maneuver given to Portugal by the papal bull was small. The Treaty of Tordesillas shifted the demarcation line to a circle passing 370 leagues West of the Cape Verde Islands and thus set the legal base for the colonization of the eastern coast of the land now known as Brazil by the Portuguese explorer Pedro Alvarez Cabral. He landed there on April 22, 1500 claimed the land and named it:Tierra da Vera Cruz (land of the true cross). TRANSLATION OF THE TREATY Don Ferdinand and Dona Isabella, by the grace of God king and queen of Castile, Leon, Aragon, Sicily, Granada, Toledo, Valencia, Galiciaj Majorca Seville, Sardinia, Cordova, Corsica, Murcia, Jaen, Algarve, Algeciras, Gibraltar, and the Canary Islands, count and countess of Barcelona, lord and lady of Biscay and Molina, duke and duchess of Athens and Neopatras, count and countess of Roussillon and Cerdagne, marquis and marchioness of Oristano and Gociano, together with the Prince Don John, our very dear and very beloved first-born son, heir of our aforesaid kingdoms and lordships. Whereas by Don Enrique Enriques, our chief steward, Don Gutierre de Cardenas, chief commissary of Leon, our chief auditor, and Doctor Rodrigo Maldonado, all members of our council, it was treated, adjusted, and agreed for us and in our name and by virtue of our power with the most serene Dom John, by the grace of God, king of Portugal and of the Algarves on this side and beyond the sea in Africa, lord of Guinea, our very dear and very beloved brother, and with Ruy de Sousa, lord of Sagres and Berenguel, Dom Joao de Sousa, his son, chief inspector of weights and measures of the said Most Serene King our brother, and Ayres de Almada, magistrate of the civil cases in his court and member of his desembargo, all members of the council of the aforesaid Most Serene King our brother, [and acting] in his name and by virtue of his power, his ambassadors, who came to us in regard to the controversy over what part belongs to us and what part to the said Most Serene King our brother, of that which up to this seventh day of the present month of June, the date of this instrument, is discovered in the ocean sea, in which said agreement our aforesaid representatives promised among other things that within a certain term specified in it we should sanction, confirm, swear to, ratify, and approve the above-mentioned agreement in person: we, wishing to fulfill and fulfilling all that which was thus adjusted, agreed upon, and authorized in our name in regard to the above-mentioned, ordered the said instrument of the aforesaid agreement and treaty to be brought before us that we might see and examine it, the tenor of which, word for word, is as follows: In the name of God Almighty, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, three truly separate and distinct persons and only one divine essence. Be it manifest and known to all who shall see this public instrument, that at the village of Tordesillas, on the seventh day of the month of June, in the year of the nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ 1494, in the presence of us, the secretaries, clerks, and notaries public subscribed below, there being present the honorable Don Enrique Enriques, chief steward of the very exalted and very mighty princes, the lord and lady Don Ferdinand and Dona Isabella, by the grace of God king and queen of Castile, Leon, Aragon, Sicily, Granada, etc., Don Gutierre de Cardenas, chief auditor of the said lords, the king and queen, and Doctor Rodrigo Maldonado, all members of the council of the said lords, the king and queen of Castile, Leon, Aragon, Sicily, Granada, etc., their qualified representatives of the one part, and the honorable Ruy de Sousa, lord of Sagres and Berenguel, Dom Juan de Sousa, his son, chief inspector of weights and measures of the very exalted and very excellent lord Dom John, by the grace of God king of Portugal and of the Algarves on this side and beyond the sea in Africa, lord of Guinea, and Ayres de Almada, magistrate of civil cases in his court and member of his desembargo, all of the council of the said lord King of Portugal, and his qualified ambassadors and representatives, as was proved by both the said parties by means of the letters of authorization and procurations from the said lords their constituents, the tenor of which, word for word, is as follows: [Here follow the full powers granted by Ferdinand and Isabella to Don Enrique Enriques, Don Gutierre de Cardenas, and Dr. Rodrigo Maldonado on June 5, 1494; and the full powers granted by John II. to Ruy de Sousa, Joao de Sousa, and Ayres Almada on March 8, 1494.] \"Thereupon it was declared by the above-mentioned representatives of the aforesaid King and Queen of Castile, Leon, Aragon, Sicily, Granada, etc., and of the aforesaid King of Portugal and the Algarves, etc.: \\[I.\\] That, whereas a certain controversy exists between the said lords, their constituents, as to what lands, of all those discovered in the ocean sea up to the present day, the date of this treaty, pertain to each one of the said parts respectively; therefore, for the sake of peace and concord, and for the preservation of the relationship and love of the said King of Portugal for the said King and Queen of Castile, Aragon, etc., it being the pleasure of their Highnesses, they, their said representatives, acting in their name and by virtue of their powers herein described, covenanted and agreed that a boundary or straight line be determined and drawn north and south, from pole to pole, on the said ocean sea, from the Arctic to the Antarctic pole. This boundary or line shall be drawn straight, as aforesaid, at a distance of three hundred and seventy leagues west of the Cape Verde Islands, being calculated by degrees, or by any other manner as may be considered the best and readiest, provided the distance shall be no greater than abovesaid. And all lands, both islands and mainlands, found and discovered already, or to be found and discovered hereafter, by the said King of Portugal and by his vessels on this side of the said line and bound determined as above, toward the east, in either north or south latitude, on the eastern side of the said bound provided the said bound is not crossed, shall belong to, and remain in the possession of, and pertain forever to, the said King of Portugal and his successors. And all other lands, both islands and mainlands, found or to be found hereafter, discovered or to be discovered hereafter, which have been discovered or shall be discovered by the said King and Queen of Castile, Aragon, etc., and by their vessels, on the western side of the said bound, determined as above, after having passed the said bound toward the west, in either its north or south latitude, shall belong to, and remain in the possession of, and pertain forever to, the said King and Queen of Castile, Leon, etc., and to their successors. \\[2.\\] Item, the said representatives promise and affirm by virtue of the powers aforesaid, that from this date no ships shall be despatched-namely as follows: the said King and Queen of Castile, Leon, Aragon, etc., for this part of the bound, and its eastern side, on this side the said bound, which pertains to the said King of Portugal and the Algarves, etc.; nor the said King of Portugal to the other part of the said bound which pertains to the said King and Queen of Castile, Aragon, etc.-for the purpose of discovering and seeking any mainlands or islands, or for the purpose of trade, barter, or conquest of any kind. But should it come to pass that the said ships of the said King and Queen of Castile, Leon, Aragon, etc., on sailing thus on this side of the said bound, should discover any mainlands or islands in the region pertaining, as abovesaid, to the said King of Portugal, such mainlands or islands shall pertain to and belong forever to the said King of Portugal and his heirs, and their Highnesses shall order them to be surrendered to him immediately. And if the said ships of the said King of Portugal discover any islands and mainlands in the regions of the said King and Queen of Castile, Leon, Aragon, etc., all such lands shall belong to and remain forever in the possession of the said King and Queen of Castile, Leon, Aragon, etc., and their heirs, and the said King of Portugal shall cause such lands to be surrendered immediately. \\[3.\\] Item, in order that the said line or bound of the said division may be made straight and as nearly as possible the said distance of three hundred and seventy leagues west of the Cape Verde Islands, as hereinbefore stated, the said representatives of both the said parties agree and assent that within the ten months immediately following the date of this treaty their said constituent lords shall despatch two or four caravels, namely, one or two by each one of them, a greater or less number, as they may mutually consider necessary. These vessels shall meet at the Grand Canary Island during this time, and each one of the said parties shall send certain persons in them, to wit, pilots, astrologers, sailors, and any others they may deem desirable. But there must be as many on one side as on the other, and certain of the said pilots, astrologers, sailors, and others of those sent by the said King and Queen of Castile, Aragon, etc., and who are experienced, shall embark in the ships of the said King of Portugal and the Algarves; in like manner certain of the said persons sent by the said King of Portugal shall embark in the ship or ships of the said King and Queen of Castile, Aragon, etc.; a like number in each case, so that they may jointly study and examine to better advantage the sea, courses, winds, and the degrees of the sun or of north latitude, and lay out the leagues aforesaid, in order that, in determining the line and boundary, all sent and empowered by both the said parties in the said vessels, shall jointly concur. These said vessels shall continue their course together to the said Cape Verde Islands, from whence they shall lay a direct course to the west, to the distance of the said three hundred and seventy degrees, measured as the said persons shall agree, and measured without prejudice to the said parties. When this point is reached, such point will constitute the place and mark for measuring degrees of the sun or of north latitude either by daily runs measured in leagues, or in any other manner that shall mutually be deemed better. This said line shall be drawn north and south as aforesaid, from the said Arctic pole to the said Antarctic pole. And when this line has been determined as abovesaid, those sent by each of the aforesaid parties, to whom each one of the said parties must delegate his own authority and power, to determine the said mark and bound, shall draw up a writing concerning it and affix thereto their signatures. And when determined by the mutual consent of all of them, this line shall be considered as a perpetual mark and bound, in such wise that the said parties, or either of them, or their future successors, shall be unable to deny it, or erase or remove it, at any time or in any manner whatsoever. And should, perchance, the said line and bound from pole to pole, as aforesaid, intersect any island or mainland, at the first point of such intersection of such island or mainland by the said line, some kind of mark or tower shall be erected, and a succession of similar marks shall be erected in a straight line from such mark or tower, in a line identical with the above-mentioned bound. These marks shall separate those portions of such land belonging to each one of the said parties; and the subjects of the said parties shall not dare, on either side, to enter the territory of the other, by crossing the said mark or bound in such island or mainland. \\[4.\\] Item, inasmuch as the said ships of the said King and Queen of Castile, Leon, Aragon, etc., sailing as before declared, from their kingdoms and seigniories to their said possessions on the other side of the said line, must cross the seas on this side of the line, pertaining to the said King of Portugal, it is therefore concerted and agreed that the said ships of the said King and Queen of Castile, Leon, Aragon, etc., shall, at any time and without any hindrance, sail in either direction, freely, securely, and peacefully, over the said seas of the said King of Portugal, and within the said line. And whenever their Highnesses and their successors wish to do so, and deem it expedient, their said ships may take their courses and routes direct from their kingdoms to any region within their line and bound to which they desire to despatch expeditions of discovery, conquest, and trade. They shall take their courses direct to the desired region and for any purpose desired therein, and shall not leave their course, unless compelled to do so by contrary weather. They shall do this provided that, before crossing the said line, they shall not seize or take possession of anything discovered in his said region by the said King of Portugal; and should their said ships find anything before crossing the said line, as aforesaid, it shall belong to the said King of Portugal, and their Highnesses shall order it surrendered immediately. And since it is possible that the ships and subjects of the said King and Queen of Castile, Leon, etc., or those acting in their name, may discover before the twentieth day of this present month of June, following the date of this treaty, some islands and mainlands within the said line, drawn straight from pole to pole, that is to say, inside the said three hundred and seventy leagues west of the Cape Verde Islands, as aforesaid, it is hereby agreed and determined, in order to remove all doubt, that all such islands and mainlands found and discovered in any manner whatsoever up to the said twentieth day of this said month of June, although found by ships and subjects of the said King and Queen of Castile, Aragon, etc., shall pertain to and remain forever in the possession of the said King of Portugal and the Algarves, and of his successors and kingdoms, provided that they lie within the first two hundred and fifty leagues of the said three hundred and seventy leagues reckoned west of the Cape Verde Islands to the above-mentioned line-in whatsoever part, even to the said poles, of the said two hundred and fifty leagues they may be found, determining a boundary or straight line from pole to pole, where the said two hundred and fifty leagues end. Likewise all the islands and mainlands found and discovered up to the said twentieth day of this present month of June by the ships and subjects of the said King and Queen of Castile, Aragon, etc., or in any other manner, within the other one hundred and twenty leagues that still remain of the said three hundred and seventy leagues where the said bound that is to be drawn from pole to pole, as aforesaid, must be determined, and in whatever part of the said one hundred and twenty leagues, even to the said poles,-they that are found up to the said day shall pertain to and remain forever in the possession of the said King and Queen of Castile, Aragon, etc., and of their successors and kingdoms; just as whatever is or shall be found on the other side of the said three hundred and seventy leagues pertaining to their Highnesses, as aforesaid, is and must be theirs, although the said one hundred and twenty leagues are within the said bound of the said three hundred and seventy leagues pertaining to the said King of Portugal, the Algarves, etc., as aforesaid. And if, up to the said twentieth day of this said month of June, no lands are discovered by the said ships of their Highnesses within the said one hundred and twenty leagues, and are discovered after the expiration of that time, then they shall pertain to the said King of Portugal as is set forth in the above. The said Don Enrique Enriques, chief steward, Don Gutierre de Cardenas, chief auditor, and Doctor Rodrigo Maldonado, representatives of the said very exalted and very mighty princes, the lord and lady, the king and queen of Castile, Leon, Aragon, Sicily, Granada, etc., by virtue of their said power, which is incorporated above, and the said Ruy de Sousa, Dom Joao de Sousa, his son, and Arias de Almadana, representatives and ambassadors of the said very exalted and very excellent prince, the lord king of Portugal and of the Algarves on this side and beyond the sea in Africa, lord of Guinea, by virtue of their said power, which is incorporated above, promised, and affirmed, in the name of their said constituents, [saying that they and their successors and kingdoms and lordships, forever and ever, would keep, observe, and fulfill, really and effectively, renouncing all fraud, evasion, deceit, falsehood, and pretense, everything set forth in this treaty, and each part and parcel of it; and they desired and authorized that everything set forth in this said agreement and every part and parcel of it be observed, fulfilled, and performed as everything which is set forth in the treaty of peace concluded and ratified between the said lord and lady, the king and queen of Castile, Aragon, etc., and the lord Dom Alfonso, king of Portugal (may he rest in glory) and the said king, the present ruler of Portugal, his son, then prince in the former year of 1479, must be observed, fulfilled, and performed, and under those same penalties, bonds, securities, and obligations, in accordance with and in the manner set forth in the said treaty of peace. Also they bound themselves [by the promise]that neither the said parties nor any of them nor their successors forever should violate or oppose that which is abovesaid and specified, nor any part or parcel of it, directly or indirectly, or in any other manner at any time, or in any manner whatsoever, premeditated or not premeditated, or that may or can be, under the penalties set forth in the said agreement of the said peace; and whether the fine be paid or not paid, or graciously remitted, that this obligation, agreement, and treaty shall continue in force and remain firm, stable, and valid forever and ever. That thus they will keep, observe, perform, and pay everything, the said representatives, acting in the name of their said constituents, pledged the property, movable and real, patrimonial and fiscal, of each of their respective parties, and of their subjects and vassals, possessed and to be possessed. They renounced all laws and rights of which the said parties or either of them might take advantage to violate or oppose the foregoing or any part of it; and for the greater security and stability of the aforesaid, they swore before God and the Blessed Mary and upon the sign of the Cross, on which they placed their right hands, and upon the words of the Holy Gospels, wheresoever they are written at greatest length, and on the consciences of their said constituents, that they, jointly and severally, will keep, observe, and fulfill all the aforesaid and each part and parcel of it, really and effectively, renouncing all fraud, evasion, deceit, falsehood, and pretense, and that they will not contradict it at any time or in any manner. And under the same oath they swore not to seek absolution or release from it from our most Holy Father or from any other legate or prelate who could give it to them. And even though, proprio motu, it should be given to them, they will not make use of it; rather, by this present agreement, they, acting in the said name, entreat our most Holy Father that his Holiness be pleased to confirm and approve this said agreement, according to what is set forth therein; and that he order his bulls in regard to it to be issued to the parties or to whichever of the parties may solicit them, with the tenor of this agreement incorporated therein, and that he lay his censures upon those who shall violate or oppose it at any time whatsoever. Likewise, the said representatives, acting in the said names, bound themselves under the same penalty and oath, that within the one hundred days next following, reckoned from the day of the date of this agreement, the parties would mutually exchange the approbation and ratification of this said agreement, written on parchment, signed with the names of the said lords, their constituents, and sealed with their hanging leaden seals; and that the instrument which the said lords, the king and queen of Castile, Aragon, etc., should have to issue, must be signed, agreed to, and sanctioned by the very noble and most illustrious lord, Prince Don Juan, their son. Of all the foregoing they authorized two copies, both of the same tenor exactly, which they signed with their names and executed before the undersigned secretaries and notaries public, one for each party. And whichever copy is produced, it shall be as valid as if both the copies which were made and executed in the said town of Tordesillas, on the said day, month, and year aforesaid, should be produced. The chief deputy, Don Enrique, Ruy de Sousa, Dom Juan de Sousa, Doctor Rodrigo Maldonado, Licentiate Ayres. Witnesses who were present and who saw the said representatives and ambassadors sign their names here and execute the aforesaid, and take the said oath: The deputy Pedro de Leon and the deputy Fernando de Torres, residents of the town of Valladolid, the deputy Fernando de Gamarra, deputy of Zagra and Cenete, contino of the house of the said king and queen, our lords, and Joao Suares de Sequeira, Ruy Leme, and Duarte Pacheco, continos of the house of the said King of Portugal, summoned for that purpose. And I, Fernando Alvarez de Toledo, secretary of the king and queen, our lords, member of their council, and their scrivener of the high court of justice, and notary public in their court and throughout their realms and lordships, witnessed all the aforesaid, together with the said witnesses and with Estevan Vaez, secretary of the said King of Portugal, who by the authority given him by the said king and queen, our lords, to certify to this act in their kingdoms, also witnessed the abovesaid; and at the request and with the authorization of all the said representatives and ambassadors, who in my presence and his here signed their names, I caused this public instrument of agreement to be written. It is written on these six leaves of paper, in entire sheets, written on both sides, together with this leaf, which contains the names of the aforesaid persons and my sign; and the bottom of every page is marked with the notarial mark of my name and that of the said Estevan Vaez. And in witness I here make my sign, which is thus. In testimony of truth: Fernando Alvarez. And I, the said Estevan Vaez (who by the authority given me by the said lords, the king and queen of Castile, and of Leon, to make it public throughout their kingdoms and lordships, together with the said Fernando Alvarez, at the request and summons of the said ambassadors and representatives witnessed everything), in testimony and assurance thereof signed it here with my public sign, which is thus. The said deed of treaty, agreement, and concord, above incorporated, having been examined and understood by us and by the said Prince Don John, our son, we approve, commend, confirm, execute, and ratify it, and we promise to keep, observe, and fulfill all the abovesaid that is set forth therein, and every part and parcel of it, really and effectively. We renounce all fraud, evasion, falsehood, and pretense, and we shall not violate or oppose it, or any part of it, at any time or in any manner whatsoever. For greater security, we and the said prince Don John, our son, swear before God and Holy Mary, and by the words of the Holy Gospels, wheresoever they are written at greatest length, and upon the sign of the Cross upon which we actually placed our right hands, in the presence of the said Ruy de Sousa, Dom Joao de Sousa, and Licentiate Ayres de Almada, ambassadors and representatives of the said Most Serene King of Portugal, our brother, thus to keep, observe, and fulfill it, and every part and parcel of it, so far as it is incumbent upon us, really and effectively, as is abovesaid, for ourselves and for our heirs and successors, and for our said kingdoms and lordships, and the subjects and natives of them, under the penalties and obligations, bonds and abjurements set forth in the said contract of agreement and concord above written. In attestation and corroboration whereof, we sign our name to this our letter and order it to be sealed with our leaden seal' hanging by threads of colored silk. Given in the town of Arevalo, on the second day of the month of July, in the year of the nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ, 1494. I, THE KING. I, THE QUEEN. I, THE PRINCE. I, FERNANDO ALVAREZ de Toledo, secretary of the king and of the queen, our lords, have caused it to be written by their mandate. . . . doctor. Source: Davenport, Frances Gardiner European Treaties Bearing on the History of the United States to 1648 Washington, DC : The Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1917"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/u-s-v-king-mountain-tobacco/",
    "title": "U.S. v. KING MOUNTAIN TOBACCO CO., INC. DECISION 9th Circuit, August 13, 2018",
    "publishedAt": "2023-01-30T12:16:23Z",
    "description": "Tobacco company, owned by a Yakima Nation citizen, makes cigarettes using 54 % tobacco that is grown on allotted nation land, held in trust by US. The 9th Circuit affirmed the District Court holding that federal excise taxes still applied to these tobacco products",
    "updatedAt": "2026-01-19T05:00:00Z",
    "tags": [
      "Law",
      "US-Law",
      "Indigenous-Peoples",
      "Haudenosaunee-Confederacy",
      "Onondaga-Nation"
    ],
    "textContent": "Anaalysis by Steven T. Newcomb U.S. v. King Mountain Tobacco Co., Inc. (9th Cir. Court, August 13, 2012) - Domination Translator Series - By Steven T. Newcomb Excerpts and Comments from Joseph J. Heath (below) FACTS: Tobacco company, owned by a Yakima Nation citizen, makes cigarettes using 54 % tobacco that is grown on allotted nation land, held in trust by US. The 9th Circuit affirmed the District Court holding that federal excise taxes still applied to these tobacco products. DIRECT QUOTES FROM 9th CIRCUIT DECISION: “After all, the federal government enjoys plenary and exclusive power over Indian tribes. Bryan v. Itasca County, 426 U.S. 373, 376 n. 2 (1976). And ‘[t]he right to tribal self-government is ultimately dependent on and subject to the broad power of Congress.’ White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136, 143 (1980).” [p. 11.]⋯ “The objectives of allotment “The objectives of allotment[^1] were simple: to extinguish tribal sovereignty, erase reservation boundaries, and force the assimilation of Indians into society at large. See, e.g., In re Heff, 197 U.S. 488, 499 (1905); Blackfeet Tribe of Indians v. Montana , 729 F. 2d 1192, 1195 (9th Cir. 1984) (en banc) (0bserving that the ‘primary purpose’ of allotment was the ‘speedy assimilation of the Indians’), aff’d, 471 U.S. 759 (1985). [pp. 12 & 13] Resources Download Excerpts as a ⤓ PDF Download the Case as a ⤓ PDF Case via uscourts.gov ⤓ PDF Back to Law. Footnotes [^1]: Here the Circuit is discussing the General Allotment Act of 1887, 24 Stat. 388."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/unitarian-universalist-association-of-congregations/",
    "title": "Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations Repudiates the Doctrine of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2018-07-28T02:39:39Z",
    "description": "A Unitarian Universalist Resolution To Repudiate the Doctrine of Discovery, and Implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples",
    "tags": [
      "Repudiations",
      "Unitarian",
      "Universalist",
      "UUA",
      "Faith-Communities"
    ],
    "textContent": "A Unitarian Universalist Resolution To Repudiate the Doctrine of Discovery, and Implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (⤓ PDF download) Motion from the Right Relationship Monitoring Committee for the UUA Board of Trustees meeting January 2012 (⤓ PDF download) Why We Are Offering This Resolution at General Assembly 2012 (⤓ PDF download) 2012 Responsive Resolution (⤓ PDF download)"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/united-church-of-canada-repudiates-the-doctrine-of-discovery/",
    "title": "United Church of Canada Repudiates the Doctrine of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2018-07-28T02:55:05Z",
    "description": "We repudiate the Doctrine of Discovery, which asserted that lands belonged to the Christian powers that 'discovered' them.",
    "tags": [
      "Repudiations",
      "United-Church-Canada",
      "Canada",
      "Christianity",
      "UCC",
      "Faith-Communities"
    ],
    "textContent": "Social Policies of The United Church of Canada: Doctrine of Discovery (⤓ PDF download) We repudiate the Doctrine of Discovery, which asserted that lands belonged to the Christian powers that “discovered” them (offsite). Doctrine of Discovery Background (⤓ PDF download) Indigenous Justice Archive of the UCC (offsite) The Children Remembered Archival project"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/united-church-of-christ/",
    "title": "United Church of Christ Repudiates the Doctrine of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2018-07-28T02:33:12Z",
    "description": "Calling for the United Church of Christ to Repudiate the Doctrine of Discovery Which Authorized the Genocide of Native Peoples and the Theft of Native Lands.",
    "tags": [
      "Repudiations",
      "Christianity",
      "UCC",
      "United-Church-Christ",
      "Faith-Communities"
    ],
    "textContent": "Calling for the United Church of Christ to Repudiate the Doctrine of Discovery Which Authorized the Genocide of Native Peoples and the Theft of Native Lands (⤓ PDF download). \"Educational Content and Documentary.\""
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/united-methodist-church/",
    "title": "United Methodist Church Repudiates the Doctrine of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2018-07-28T02:35:53Z",
    "description": "Trail of Repentance And Healing.",
    "tags": [
      "Repudiations",
      "Christian",
      "Methodist",
      "UMC",
      "Faith-Communities"
    ],
    "textContent": "Petition 20831 United Methodist Church (⤓ PDF download) Giving Substance to Words. AOR 2012 (⤓ PDF download) Trail of Repentance And Healing (⤓ PDF download)"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/united-nations-declaration-on-the-rights-of-indigenous-peoples/",
    "title": "United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples",
    "publishedAt": "2018-07-24T09:27:45Z",
    "description": "Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 13 September 2007",
    "tags": [
      "UN",
      "United-Nations",
      "Indigenous-Peoples",
      "UNDRIP"
    ],
    "textContent": "Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 13 September 2007 [without reference to a Main Committee (A/61/L.67 and Add.1)] 61/295.   United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The General Assembly, Taking note of the recommendation of the Human Rights Council contained in its resolution 1/2 of 29 June 2006, [^1] by which the Council adopted the text of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Recalling its resolution 61/178 of 20 December 2006, by which it decided to defer consideration of and action on the Declaration to allow time for further consultations thereon, and also decided to conclude its consideration before the end of the sixty-first session of the General Assembly, Adopts the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as contained in the annex to the present resolution. 107th plenary meeting 13 September 2007 Annex United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples The General Assembly, Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and good faith in the fulfilment of the obligations assumed by States in accordance with the Charter, Affirming that indigenous peoples are equal to all other peoples, while recognizing the right of all peoples to be different, to consider themselves different, and to be respected as such, Affirming also that all peoples contribute to the diversity and richness of civilizations and cultures, which constitute the common heritage of humankind, Affirming further that all doctrines, policies and practices based on or advocating superiority of peoples or individuals on the basis of national origin or racial, religious, ethnic or cultural differences are racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable and socially unjust, Reaffirming that indigenous peoples, in the exercise of their rights, should be free from discrimination of any kind, Concerned that indigenous peoples have suffered from historic injustices as a result of, inter alia, their colonization and dispossession of their lands, territories and resources, thus preventing them from exercising, in particular, their right to development in accordance with their own needs and interests, Recognizing the urgent need to respect and promote the inherent rights of indigenous peoples which derive from their political, economic and social structures and from their cultures, spiritual traditions, histories and philosophies, especially their rights to their lands, territories and resources, Recognizing also the urgent need to respect and promote the rights of indigenous peoples affirmed in treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements with States, Welcoming the fact that indigenous peoples are organizing themselves for political, economic, social and cultural enhancement and in order to bring to an end all forms of discrimination and oppression wherever they occur, Convinced that control by indigenous peoples over developments affecting them and their lands, territories and resources will enable them to maintain and strengthen their institutions, cultures and traditions, and to promote their development in accordance with their aspirations and needs, Recognizing that respect for indigenous knowledge, cultures and traditional practices contributes to sustainable and equitable development and proper management of the environment, Emphasizing the contribution of the demilitarization of the lands and territories of indigenous peoples to peace, economic and social progress and development, understanding and friendly relations among nations and peoples of the world, Recognizing in particular the right of indigenous families and communities to retain shared responsibility for the upbringing, training, education and well-being of their children, consistent with the rights of the child, Considering that the rights affirmed in treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements between States and indigenous peoples are, in some situations, matters of international concern, interest, responsibility and character, Considering also that treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements, and the relationship they represent, are the basis for a strengthened partnership between indigenous peoples and States, Acknowledging that the Charter of the United Nations, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights [^2] and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,2 as well as the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, [^3] affirm the fundamental importance of the right to self-determination of all peoples, by virtue of which they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development, Bearing in mind that nothing in this Declaration may be used to deny any peoples their right to self-determination, exercised in conformity with international law, Convinced that the recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples in this Declaration will enhance harmonious and cooperative relations between the State and indigenous peoples, based on principles of justice, democracy, respect for human rights, non-discrimination and good faith, Encouraging States to comply with and effectively implement all their obligations as they apply to indigenous peoples under international instruments, in particular those related to human rights, in consultation and cooperation with the peoples concerned, Emphasizing that the United Nations has an important and continuing role to play in promoting and protecting the rights of indigenous peoples, Believing that this Declaration is a further important step forward for the recognition, promotion and protection of the rights and freedoms of indigenous peoples and in the development of relevant activities of the United Nations system in this field, Recognizing and reaffirming that indigenous individuals are entitled without discrimination to all human rights recognized in international law, and that indigenous peoples possess collective rights which are indispensable for their existence, well-being and integral development as peoples, Recognizing that the situation of indigenous peoples varies from region to region and from country to country and that the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical and cultural backgrounds should be taken into consideration, Solemnly proclaims the following United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a standard of achievement to be pursued in a spirit of partnership and mutual respect: Article 1 Indigenous peoples have the right to the full enjoyment, as a collective or as individuals, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms as recognized in the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [^4] and international human rights law. Article 2 Indigenous peoples and individuals are free and equal to all other peoples and individuals and have the right to be free from any kind of discrimination, in the exercise of their rights, in particular that based on their indigenous origin or identity. Article 3 Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. Article 4 Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions. Article 5 Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions, while retaining their right to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the State. Article 6 Every indigenous individual has the right to a nationality. Article 7 1. Indigenous individuals have the rights to life, physical and mental integrity, liberty and security of person. 2. Indigenous peoples have the collective right to live in freedom, peace and security as distinct peoples and shall not be subjected to any act of genocide or any other act of violence, including forcibly removing children of the group to another group. Article 8 1. Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture. 2. States shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and redress for: (a)    Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities; (b)    Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources; (c)     Any form of forced population transfer which has the aim or effect of violating or undermining any of their rights; (d)    Any form of forced assimilation or integration; (e)     Any form of propaganda designed to promote or incite racial or ethnic discrimination directed against them. Article 9 Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right to belong to an indigenous community or nation, in accordance with the traditions and customs of the community or nation concerned. No discrimination of any kind may arise from the exercise of such a right. Article 10 Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories. No relocation shall take place without the free, prior and informed consent of the indigenous peoples concerned and after agreement on just and fair compensation and, where possible, with the option of return. Article 11 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to practise and revitalize their cultural traditions and customs. This includes the right to maintain, protect and develop the past, present and future manifestations of their cultures, such as archaeological and historical sites, artefacts, designs, ceremonies, technologies and visual and performing arts and literature. 2. States shall provide redress through effective mechanisms, which may include restitution, developed in conjunction with indigenous peoples, with respect to their cultural, intellectual, religious and spiritual property taken without their free, prior and informed consent or in violation of their laws, traditions and customs. Article 12 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to manifest, practise, develop and teach their spiritual and religious traditions, customs and ceremonies; the right to maintain, protect, and have access in privacy to their religious and cultural sites; the right to the use and control of their ceremonial objects; and the right to the repatriation of their human remains. 2. States shall seek to enable the access and/or repatriation of ceremonial objects and human remains in their possession through fair, transparent and effective mechanisms developed in conjunction with indigenous peoples concerned. Article 13 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to revitalize, use, develop and transmit to future generations their histories, languages, oral traditions, philosophies, writing systems and literatures, and to designate and retain their own names for communities, places and persons. 2. States shall take effective measures to ensure that this right is protected and also to ensure that indigenous peoples can understand and be understood in political, legal and administrative proceedings, where necessary through the provision of interpretation or by other appropriate means. Article 14 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to establish and control their educational systems and institutions providing education in their own languages, in a manner appropriate to their cultural methods of teaching and learning. 2. Indigenous individuals, particularly children, have the right to all levels and forms of education of the State without discrimination. 3. States shall, in conjunction with indigenous peoples, take effective measures, in order for indigenous individuals, particularly children, including those living outside their communities, to have access, when possible, to an education in their own culture and provided in their own language. Article 15 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the dignity and diversity of their cultures, traditions, histories and aspirations which shall be appropriately reflected in education and public information. 2. States shall take effective measures, in consultation and cooperation with the indigenous peoples concerned, to combat prejudice and eliminate discrimination and to promote tolerance, understanding and good relations among indigenous peoples and all other segments of society. Article 16 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to establish their own media in their own languages and to have access to all forms of non-indigenous media without discrimination. 2. States shall take effective measures to ensure that State-owned media duly reflect indigenous cultural diversity. States, without prejudice to ensuring full freedom of expression, should encourage privately owned media to adequately reflect indigenous cultural diversity. Article 17 1. Indigenous individuals and peoples have the right to enjoy fully all rights established under applicable international and domestic labour law. 2. States shall in consultation and cooperation with indigenous peoples take specific measures to protect indigenous children from economic exploitation and from performing any work that is likely to be hazardous or to interfere with the child’s education, or to be harmful to the child’s health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development, taking into account their special vulnerability and the importance of education for their empowerment. 3. Indigenous individuals have the right not to be subjected to any discriminatory conditions of labour and, inter alia, employment or salary. Article 18 Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures, as well as to maintain and develop their own indigenous decision-making institutions. Article 19 States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them. Article 20 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and develop their political, economic and social systems or institutions, to be secure in the enjoyment of their own means of subsistence and development, and to engage freely in all their traditional and other economic activities. 2. Indigenous peoples deprived of their means of subsistence and development are entitled to just and fair redress. Article 21 1. Indigenous peoples have the right, without discrimination, to the improvement of their economic and social conditions, including, inter alia, in the areas of education, employment, vocational training and retraining, housing, sanitation, health and social security. 2. States shall take effective measures and, where appropriate, special measures to ensure continuing improvement of their economic and social conditions. Particular attention shall be paid to the rights and special needs of indigenous elders, women, youth, children and persons with disabilities. Article 22 1. Particular attention shall be paid to the rights and special needs of indigenous elders, women, youth, children and persons with disabilities in the implementation of this Declaration. 2. States shall take measures, in conjunction with indigenous peoples, to ensure that indigenous women and children enjoy the full protection and guarantees against all forms of violence and discrimination. Article 23 Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for exercising their right to development. In particular, indigenous peoples have the right to be actively involved in developing and determining health, housing and other economic and social programmes affecting them and, as far as possible, to administer such programmes through their own institutions. Article 24 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to their traditional medicines and to maintain their health practices, including the conservation of their vital medicinal plants, animals and minerals. Indigenous individuals also have the right to access, without any discrimination, to all social and health services. 2. Indigenous individuals have an equal right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. States shall take the necessary steps with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of this right. Article 25 Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinctive spiritual relationship with their traditionally owned or otherwise occupied and used lands, territories, waters and coastal seas and other resources and to uphold their responsibilities to future generations in this regard. Article 26 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired. 2. Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use, as well as those which they have otherwise acquired. 3. States shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories and resources. Such recognition shall be conducted with due respect to the customs, traditions and land tenure systems of the indigenous peoples concerned. Article 27 States shall establish and implement, in conjunction with indigenous peoples concerned, a fair, independent, impartial, open and transparent process, giving due recognition to indigenous peoples’ laws, traditions, customs and land tenure systems, to recognize and adjudicate the rights of indigenous peoples pertaining to their lands, territories and resources, including those which were traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used. Indigenous peoples shall have the right to participate in this process. Article 28 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to redress, by means that can include restitution or, when this is not possible, just, fair and equitable compensation, for the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used, and which have been confiscated, taken, occupied, used or damaged without their free, prior and informed consent. 2. Unless otherwise freely agreed upon by the peoples concerned, compensation shall take the form of lands, territories and resources equal in quality, size and legal status or of monetary compensation or other appropriate redress. Article 29 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the conservation and protection of the environment and the productive capacity of their lands or territories and resources. States shall establish and implement assistance programmes for indigenous peoples for such conservation and protection, without discrimination. 2. States shall take effective measures to ensure that no storage or disposal of hazardous materials shall take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples without their free, prior and informed consent. 3. States shall also take effective measures to ensure, as needed, that programmes for monitoring, maintaining and restoring the health of indigenous peoples, as developed and implemented by the peoples affected by such materials, are duly implemented. Article 30 1. Military activities shall not take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples, unless justified by a relevant public interest or otherwise freely agreed with or requested by the indigenous peoples concerned. 2. States shall undertake effective consultations with the indigenous peoples concerned, through appropriate procedures and in particular through their representative institutions, prior to using their lands or territories for military activities. Article 31 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, as well as the manifestations of their sciences, technologies and cultures, including human and genetic resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, literatures, designs, sports and traditional games and visual and performing arts. They also have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their intellectual property over such cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions. 2. In conjunction with indigenous peoples, States shall take effective measures to recognize and protect the exercise of these rights. Article 32 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for the development or use of their lands or territories and other resources. 2. States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources. 3. States shall provide effective mechanisms for just and fair redress for any such activities, and appropriate measures shall be taken to mitigate adverse environmental, economic, social, cultural or spiritual impact. Article 33 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine their own identity or membership in accordance with their customs and traditions. This does not impair the right of indigenous individuals to obtain citizenship of the States in which they live. 2. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine the structures and to select the membership of their institutions in accordance with their own procedures. Article 34 Indigenous peoples have the right to promote, develop and maintain their institutional structures and their distinctive customs, spirituality, traditions, procedures, practices and, in the cases where they exist, juridical systems or customs, in accordance with international human rights standards. Article 35 Indigenous peoples have the right to determine the responsibilities of individuals to their communities. Article 36 1. Indigenous peoples, in particular those divided by international borders, have the right to maintain and develop contacts, relations and cooperation, including activities for spiritual, cultural, political, economic and social purposes, with their own members as well as other peoples across borders. 2. States, in consultation and cooperation with indigenous peoples, shall take effective measures to facilitate the exercise and ensure the implementation of this right. Article 37 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the recognition, observance and enforcement of treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements concluded with States or their successors and to have States honour and respect such treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements. 2. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as diminishing or eliminating the rights of indigenous peoples contained in treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements. Article 38 States in consultation and cooperation with indigenous peoples, shall take the appropriate measures, including legislative measures, to achieve the ends of this Declaration. Article 39 Indigenous peoples have the right to have access to financial and technical assistance from States and through international cooperation, for the enjoyment of the rights contained in this Declaration. Article 40 Indigenous peoples have the right to access to and prompt decision through just and fair procedures for the resolution of conflicts and disputes with States or other parties, as well as to effective remedies for all infringements of their individual and collective rights. Such a decision shall give due consideration to the customs, traditions, rules and legal systems of the indigenous peoples concerned and international human rights. Article 41 The organs and specialized agencies of the United Nations system and other intergovernmental organizations shall contribute to the full realization of the provisions of this Declaration through the mobilization, inter alia, of financial cooperation and technical assistance. Ways and means of ensuring participation of indigenous peoples on issues affecting them shall be established. Article 42 The United Nations, its bodies, including the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, and specialized agencies, including at the country level, and States shall promote respect for and full application of the provisions of this Declaration and follow up the effectiveness of this Declaration. Article 43 The rights recognized herein constitute the minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of the indigenous peoples of the world. Article 44 All the rights and freedoms recognized herein are equally guaranteed to male and female indigenous individuals. Article 45 Nothing in this Declaration may be construed as diminishing or extinguishing the rights indigenous peoples have now or may acquire in the future. Article 46 1. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, people, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act contrary to the Charter of the United Nations or construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States. 2. In the exercise of the rights enunciated in the present Declaration, human rights and fundamental freedoms of all shall be respected. The exercise of the rights set forth in this Declaration shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law and in accordance with international human rights obligations. Any such limitations shall be non-discriminatory and strictly necessary solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and for meeting the just and most compelling requirements of a democratic society. 3. The provisions set forth in this Declaration shall be interpreted in accordance with the principles of justice, democracy, respect for human rights, equality, non-discrimination, good governance and good faith. via: United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. (PDF versions) The UN has copies of the UNDRIP in English, Français, Español, Русский, عربي, 汉语. Footnotes [^1]: See Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-first Session, Supplement No. 53 (A/61/53), part one, chap. II, sect. A. [^2]: See resolution 2200 A (XXI), annex. [^3]: A/CONF.157/24 (Part I), chap. III. [^4]: Resolution 217 A (III)."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/united-nations/",
    "title": "United Nations",
    "publishedAt": "2018-07-30T17:43:58Z",
    "tags": [
      "UN",
      "United-Nations",
      "Featured",
      "Main"
    ],
    "textContent": "United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and State of the World’s Indigenous Peoples. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples State of the World’s Indigenous Peoples Tonya Gonella Frichner, Preliminary study of the impact on Indigenous peoples of the international legal construct known as the Doctrine of Discovery."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/us-indian-law-panel/",
    "title": "'United States Indian Law' Panel",
    "publishedAt": "2018-08-08T16:30:24Z",
    "description": "Resources from the 'United States Indian Law Panel' at the Taking on the Doctrine of Discovery, What are our Next Steps?",
    "tags": [
      "Law",
      "Event",
      "Conference",
      "Education",
      "Resources",
      "US-Law",
      "US-Indian-Law",
      "Indigenous-Peoples"
    ],
    "textContent": "Resources from the \"United States Indian Law Panel\" at the Taking on the Doctrine of Discovery, What are our Next Steps? Conference Date: August 18-19, 2018 Place: Skä·noñh—Great Law of Peace Center, Onondaga Nation Territory (Liverpool, NY). Panelists: Joseph J. Heath, Peter D’Errico and Steven T. Newcomb. Moderated by Betty Lyons. Listed by Author d’Errico, Peter. “Replacing the Doctrine of Christian Discovery and Implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.” \\\\\\\\\\. \"Indigenous Lèse-majesté: Questioning U.S. Federal Indian Law\" (⤓ PDF for Download). \\\\\\\\\\. \"Seeing through the chimera of U.S. federal Indian 'trust' law.\" (⤓ PDF for Download). Heath, Joseph J. The Doctrine of Christian Discovery: Its Fundamental Importance in United States Indian Law and the Need for its Repudiation and Removal. 10 Alb. Govt. L. Rev. 112 (2017) (⤓ PDF for Download). \\\\\\\\\\. A Brief History of Haudenosaunee Treaty Making and The Obligations of the United States to Protect Haudenosaunee Lands and to Not Disturb the Free Use and Enjoyment Thereof. (⤓ PDF for Download). \\\\\\\\\\. The Citizenship Act of 1924 was an Integral Pillar of The Colonization and Forced Assimilation Policies of the United States in Violation of Treaties. (⤓ PDF for Download). \\\\\\\\\\. Nations Are Sovereign; They Are Not \"Tribes.\" (⤓ PDF for download). \\\\\\\\\\. Statement on the Historical Use of the Doctrine of Christian Discovery by the United States Supreme Court Since 1823. (PDF for Download). Miller, Robert J. (Eastern Shawnee). Native America, Discovered and Conquered, Thomas Jefferson, Lewis and Clark and Manifest Destiny. Newcomb, Steven T. (Shawnee/Lanape). Pagans in the Promise Land, Decoding the Doctrine of Christian Discovery (Fulcrum 2008). \\\\\\\\\\\\\\. Evidence of Christian Nationalism In Federal Indian Law: The Doctrine of Discovery, Johnson v. M’Intosh, and Plenary Power” in NYU Review of Law and Social Change (volume 20, issue 2), 1992. (⤓ PDF for Download). \\\\\\\\\\\\\\. The Biblical Basis of Federal Indian Law & Policy. Williams, Robert A. Jr. The American Indian in Western Legal Thought: The Discourses of Conquest (OUP 1992). Film Newcomb, Steven T. The Doctrine of Discovery, Unmasking The Domination Code, 38 plus 2 Productions. Watch on Vimeo Presentation Heath, Joseph J. \"The Doctrine of Christian Discovery.\" (⤓ PDF for Download). Legal Case U.S. v. KING MOUNTAIN TOBACCO CO., INC. DECISION 9th Circuit, August 13, 2018 (⤓ PDF for Download) → For a more detailed bibliography on the Doctrine of Discovery see our bibliography page. Back to Law"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/videos/",
    "title": "Videos",
    "publishedAt": "2018-08-01T11:12:07Z",
    "description": "Films on the Doctrine of Discovery",
    "tags": [
      "videos",
      "films",
      "Education",
      "resources",
      "Resources",
      "Videos"
    ],
    "textContent": "▶ Doctrine of Discovery Short Film ▶ Indigenous Holocaust Produced solely by IIFM - YouTube ▶ Working As Allies to Indigenous Peoples: Tonya Gonnella Frichner - YouTube ▶ American Holocaust of Native American Indians (FULL Documentary) - YouTube ▶ From Doctrine to Declaration: Welcome Remarks from Ali Watson, Gabrielle Tayac, and gkisedtanamoogk - YouTube ▶ The Episcopal Church Exposes the Doctrine of Discovery ▶ The Goepolitical and International Law Objectives of the Lewis and Clark Expedition"
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/what-is-the-doctrine-of-discovery/",
    "title": "What is the Doctrine of Discovery?",
    "publishedAt": "2018-07-30T17:46:01Z",
    "description": "Papal Bulls of the 15th century gave Christian explorers the right to claim lands they 'discovered' and lay claim to those lands for their Christian Monarchs. Any land that was not inhabited by Christians was available to be 'discovered', claimed, and exploited. If the 'pagan' inhabitants could be converted, they might be spared. If not, they could be enslaved or killed.",
    "updatedAt": "2023-01-16T14:39:01Z",
    "tags": [
      "featured",
      "papal-Bulls",
      "education",
      "resources",
      "main",
      "Education",
      "Papal-Bulls"
    ],
    "textContent": "\"We were planting corn and they were planting crosses.\" Faithkeeper Oren Lyons The Doctrines of Christian Discovery (DoCD) originate with 15th century Papal Bulls that were issued by the Vatican and implemented by Monarchies, sanctioning the brutal Conquest and Colonization of non-Christians who were deemed “enemies of Christ” in Africa and the Americas. These Papal Bulls were a continuation of what had been going on since at least the 8th century from Charlemagne, through the Crusades, the Inquisition, the war on witches, to the Reconquista of the Iberian Peninsula. In 1823, the “Doctrine of Discovery” was first articulated as a legal formulation in U.S. Supreme Court case, Johnson v. M'Intosh in 1823. As this case fundamentally defines international property law today, it continues to be used by multi-national corporations and Nation-States in their extraction of resources in indigenous territories around the world. The global scale with which the DoCD expressed itself in the “Age of Discovery”—first in Africa, then the Americas, and beyond—created a unified Christendom, which became the opposing force against the great global plurality of cultures. This Doctrine governs United States and international law today and has been cited as recently as 2005 in the decision City Of Sherrill V. Oneida Indian Nation Of N.Y.. To understand how the Doctrine of Discovery continues to operate, it is important to see both its religious and legal dimensions together. Philip P. Arnold and Sandy Bigtree's 10 Religious Dimensions show how Christian ideas about domination, conversion, land, and non-Christian peoples shaped the worldview that made conquest appear morally and spiritually justified to European powers. These dimensions help explain why the Doctrine was never only a legal technicality; it was rooted in a religious imagination that denied the full humanity, sovereignty, and spiritual traditions of Indigenous Peoples. Robert J. Miller's 10 Legal Dimensions trace how those religious claims were transformed into legal doctrines of title, sovereignty, discovery, conquest, and domination. Robert J. Miller’s analysis shows how the same logic that animated the Papal Bulls later appeared in international law and U.S. Federal Indian Law, especially through Johnson v. M'Intosh. Read together, these two resources show the Doctrine of Discovery as a system: religious justification supplied the moral framework, while legal doctrine gave colonial governments and courts tools to dispossess Indigenous Nations and normalize that dispossession across centuries."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/white-v-univ-of-cal/",
    "title": "White v. Univ. of Cal.",
    "publishedAt": "2018-08-27T12:06:04Z",
    "description": "Aboriginal interest in land generally is described as a tribe’s right to occupy the land.",
    "updatedAt": "2026-01-19T05:00:00Z",
    "tags": [
      "Law",
      "US-Law",
      "Indigenous-Peoples"
    ],
    "textContent": "Analysis by Steven T. Newcomb White v. University of California (9th Cir., 2014) - Domination Translator Series - Part 10 Key Excerpt:   “Aboriginal interest in land generally is described as a tribe’s right to occupy the land.  It is not a property right, but “amounts to a right of occupancy which the sovereign grants and protects against the interests of third parties.”  That right, which is residual in nature, comes from the legal theory that discovery and conquest gave the conquerors the right to own the land but did not disturb the tribe’s right to occupy it. “  Id., at 1015.  (Emphasis added.) Download White v. Univ. of Cal. as a PDF via CaseText.com Back to Law."
  },
  {
    "$type": "site.standard.document",
    "site": "https://doctrineofdiscovery.org",
    "path": "/world-council-of-churches/",
    "title": "World Council of Churches Repudiates the Doctrine of Discovery",
    "publishedAt": "2018-07-28T02:41:41Z",
    "description": "WCC statement on the Doctrine of Discovery and its enduring impact on Indigenous Peoples.",
    "tags": [
      "WCC",
      "Repudiations",
      "Christianity",
      "World-Council-Churches",
      "Faith-Communities"
    ],
    "textContent": "World Council of Churches Statement on the Doctrine of Discovery and its enduring impact on Indigenous Peoples (⤓ PDF download)"
  }
]