Thank you. I think it is possible to ride the wave of co-opted discussions around race to turn attention to the aspects you so importantly call out and align us to view clearly - a way to say - these people experience all of racism - AND eracism. Even in the liturgy of political correctness, decolonizing is a "thing." It's just all fluff and talk promoted by white elitists to do nothing while saying a lot, IMO.
Oh, wait it DOES something - it funds the DNC - not that I think the RNC is an ounce better. I haven't voted for many years <3 Have you read Whitney Webb's work? Oof, the tangled web indeed. Let's shine it away!
Since you mention him again, i searched and found an interesting bit of history of books trivia: "Justice Story was one of the most successful American authors of the first half of the 19th century. "By the time he turned 65, on September 18, 1844, he earned $10,000 a year from his book royalties. At this point, his salary as Associate Justice was $4,500." (Wikipedia citation - "Rotunda & Nowak "Introduction" to Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States...")
Peter, thanks for the clarifications and distinguishing what's what! One line that stood out for it's blindness and emotional twistedness or in German schadenfreude (pleasure from someone else's misfortune), "...the territory they occupied was disposed of by the governments of Europe at their pleasure, as if it had been found without inhabitants."
The first thing would be for Native lawsuits and others who claim to be favorable to Indigenous peoples to stop invoking the doctrine! For example, in this case the Bill itself invoked the doctrine, as part of their challenge to NY state. The second thing would be to file briefs directly challenging the doctrine, as the Yakam Nation did in the Cougar Den case: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/16/16-1498/64580/20180924115810387_36893%20pdf%20Yakama%20Nation%20br.pdf
Why do you think people continue to invoke it? To me, correct me if I'm wrong as I'm not a lawyer, or constitutional expert, the very word "doctrine" implies an unconstitutional non-separation of church and state, and something based on papal bulls seems the consummate inappropriate, unconstitutional basis for ANYTHING - it's not religion generally, it's specifically the Catholic church as administered by the Pope - and though Catholic originally meant universal, in the context of religious plurality, both within Christianity and in terms of the breadth of religions, it seems it should be an obviously moot principle. So my question is WHY is it invoked?
'doctrine' in a legal sense means an established rule or principle. It is invoked in situations where the parties want to block a state action by saying 'only the US can do it'.
Yes, but the doctrine IS a religious one...it's based on the Papal Bulls, which invoke Christianity as their basis, however perverted their theology. So in this case do you not think it IS a religious doctrine that could be struck down as violating the religious rights of Indigenous Peoples by continuing conquest of them based on Christianity rather than State Versus Federal?
Yes. The legal doctrine of christian discovery is also a religious doctrine. The challenge you suggest is worth pursuing. Some have discussed it, but to my knowledge no one has argued it in a case.
I do not know - can you argue a case from multiple angles? It seems like it would be stronger if one argued it in the ways that have been done as well as ^ and from common sense and democratic representation/failure to represent the people - as most people if they knew, would not support it, especially liberals. If someone does it, make sure cameras are in the room and you have a few people with big audiences so it goes viral. Nobody these days wants to be known as a recolonialist racist for their decision. Closed doors days are over!
Racism vs. Eracism comes to mind.
a nice phrase!
Thank you. I think it is possible to ride the wave of co-opted discussions around race to turn attention to the aspects you so importantly call out and align us to view clearly - a way to say - these people experience all of racism - AND eracism. Even in the liturgy of political correctness, decolonizing is a "thing." It's just all fluff and talk promoted by white elitists to do nothing while saying a lot, IMO.
Oh, wait it DOES something - it funds the DNC - not that I think the RNC is an ounce better. I haven't voted for many years <3 Have you read Whitney Webb's work? Oof, the tangled web indeed. Let's shine it away!
haven't read her work...
Highly recommend her two volume book One Nation Under Blackmail.
Since you mention him again, i searched and found an interesting bit of history of books trivia: "Justice Story was one of the most successful American authors of the first half of the 19th century. "By the time he turned 65, on September 18, 1844, he earned $10,000 a year from his book royalties. At this point, his salary as Associate Justice was $4,500." (Wikipedia citation - "Rotunda & Nowak "Introduction" to Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States...")
thanks… I did not know this… He taught at Harvard and the endowment for his job paid for his publications (according to the Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Joseph-Story )
Peter, thanks for the clarifications and distinguishing what's what! One line that stood out for it's blindness and emotional twistedness or in German schadenfreude (pleasure from someone else's misfortune), "...the territory they occupied was disposed of by the governments of Europe at their pleasure, as if it had been found without inhabitants."
Story’s phrasing is even more intense: “...inhabited only by brute animals."
What would be the logical steps to undo it?
The first thing would be for Native lawsuits and others who claim to be favorable to Indigenous peoples to stop invoking the doctrine! For example, in this case the Bill itself invoked the doctrine, as part of their challenge to NY state. The second thing would be to file briefs directly challenging the doctrine, as the Yakam Nation did in the Cougar Den case: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/16/16-1498/64580/20180924115810387_36893%20pdf%20Yakama%20Nation%20br.pdf
Thank you!
Why do you think people continue to invoke it? To me, correct me if I'm wrong as I'm not a lawyer, or constitutional expert, the very word "doctrine" implies an unconstitutional non-separation of church and state, and something based on papal bulls seems the consummate inappropriate, unconstitutional basis for ANYTHING - it's not religion generally, it's specifically the Catholic church as administered by the Pope - and though Catholic originally meant universal, in the context of religious plurality, both within Christianity and in terms of the breadth of religions, it seems it should be an obviously moot principle. So my question is WHY is it invoked?
'doctrine' in a legal sense means an established rule or principle. It is invoked in situations where the parties want to block a state action by saying 'only the US can do it'.
Yes, but the doctrine IS a religious one...it's based on the Papal Bulls, which invoke Christianity as their basis, however perverted their theology. So in this case do you not think it IS a religious doctrine that could be struck down as violating the religious rights of Indigenous Peoples by continuing conquest of them based on Christianity rather than State Versus Federal?
Yes. The legal doctrine of christian discovery is also a religious doctrine. The challenge you suggest is worth pursuing. Some have discussed it, but to my knowledge no one has argued it in a case.
I do not know - can you argue a case from multiple angles? It seems like it would be stronger if one argued it in the ways that have been done as well as ^ and from common sense and democratic representation/failure to represent the people - as most people if they knew, would not support it, especially liberals. If someone does it, make sure cameras are in the room and you have a few people with big audiences so it goes viral. Nobody these days wants to be known as a recolonialist racist for their decision. Closed doors days are over!
Please email me telatroge@shinnecock.org
Interesting.
Sadly a recurring historical bias, most recently with Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant referring to Palestinian fighters as "human animals".
again… like Joseph Story….