"Ginsburg’s opinion in this case also rests on the Doctrine of Discovery. That a US court can still today base decisions on a decree given by a Spanish Pope in 1493 that names non-Christians barbarians (or heathens) and thus justifiably subject to death and dispossession is almost too irrational and overtly racist to take seriously. But in the Supreme Court, such seemingly absurd propositions become an overt form of legal violence to the Indigenous peoples whose lives and livelihoods are in the jurist’s hands. Justice Ginsburg’s opinion in this case reads as follows:“…it was not until lately that the Oneidas sought to regain ancient sovereignty over land converted from wilderness to become part of cities like Sherrill” (emphasis mine). Ginsburg invokes here an anti-Indigenous hierarchy of lifeways, rendering Indian land a so-called “wilderness” that had been tamed, “civilized” by Euroamericans. Also referencing the doctrine of laches, Ginsburg argues the ONNY had “slumbered on their rights”—or waited too long to reclaim sovereignty over these lands—an insidious argument considering that state and federal governments had staunchly prevented New York tribes from bringing any land claims to court until 1974."
Hi Professor. I just saw this a minute ago. It's from MSNBC. I wonder where Indigenous people would fit in to the vision that this woman broadcater would have in Iowa, the United States --- indeed in the world.
Her comments obscure the fact that the claim to be the 'christian inheritors' of the continent underlies the entire system of property law and is not limited to evangelical christians.
In short, after the orgy -- the orgy of anti-whiteness -- is over and the dawn is beginning to peek over the horizon, what will be found? Will it be a better world or rainbows and pretty gardens?
Maybe that commentator's remarks do obscure this claim to a foundation of property law in the United States. But is there more to be said regarding her remarks? How should a white, European and possibly Christian respond? (And until I can get my hands on your book), I will ask the question here as to where should [we] now go (both whites and non-whites)? Do you see a hope for justly adjudicating the, now, myriad claims in the U.S. with even more voices arriving daily via migration and ideological fracturing? Complicating things more, though a political party may harness sufficient discontent of disparate groups in order to wrest for itself the remaining vapors of a now-waning, white-European, Christian predominance --- it is not clear that the successors-turned-disputing factions will not begin to refocus their avarice and squabbling in each others' directions. This concern is even more true given that vying for power will be Judaism/Zionism in its various manifestations (secular, religious versions, political, racial, ethnic, etc.), Islam and a non-white, non-European Christianity (Hispanic, African and Asian) with an overlay of secularism, atheism, and non-white races, ethnicities and -- especially with the Indigenous peoples -- tribal identities and rivalries. Do you believe that we are moving to a better place politically, philosophically and demographically?
Today, I was awakened from a nap by a surprise visit. A friend brought a giant container of beans and hamburger with corn bread that his wife made. They are Osage "Indians," or as we say at your page here, "Indigenous." Tomorrow, I take another friend who is Choctaw for another stage in a long history of attempts at chemotherapy for his cancer. It just occurred to me that, without consciously thinking about it, we are working against -- at least -- the Indigenous-European fracture of which you speak. I am not as hopeful about the consequences of some of the other fault lines that we seem to agree upon as existing.
I still invite you to enter the shop door next to the academic window through which you are viewing events "unfold," (not to imply or claim that it is necessary a non-activist, clinically detached view since I do not know you well, yet). Once inside, perhaps you could engage in, and offer, some hope-fors, shoulds and recommendations for practical action.
For instance, what would an undoing of this principle you emphasize as that of "Christian discovery" look like? How would some type of reversal of, or going beyond, that not result in not only subsets of Europeans and Christians feeling dispossessed, but now sub-groups every other non-Indigenous peoples claiming infringement and demanding form Indigenous Peoples, now, restitution? Thus, you might explain how the pie is going to be chopped up for the non-Indigenous and non-European/non-Christian --- I suppose we call them "colonizers," too.
I do not see the current policies of, principally, the globalist-centralizing Democrat and Republican uni-party as being based upon any real foundation of justice by any accounting. I think they are going with the idea of frank power beating all comers. I do not see this as being advantageous to the descendants of either Indigenous Peoples or European Christians (or African Americans, or anyone else not in the Davos/WEF circles). But perhaps you see a different alliance?
I do not see only potential "fracture lines," but broad swathes of fusion, regrowth and annealing. What could be the basis for such fusion?
And even when what is, is and only is---is not making what is not is, worth attempting?
aims at these questions / possibilities. It focuses on what we do at Redthought.org, where a whole library of long presentations grapples with the questions.
Indeed, some Redthought presentations are hours-long, with viewers asking questions and offering thoughts similar to yours.
I am interested in what you might say after watching one (or more) of them.
The three video clips in "View" give you a taste of our perspective.
Suffice it to say, I have been in and out of that shop door often. :-) I know there are fusions / new growths / regrowths / collaborations....
Very good, thank you! I will try to get through some videos in these next two weeks.
I am glad, too, that you see the possibilities of thinking of this like bone healing, rather than crumbling rock and grinding, volcanic plate tectonics. Bone is alive.
There are to be recognized interests that favor and promote multi-focal discord and a strategy of forever encouraging 'ressentiment'. It is not just that "bad stuff" just happens. This interference is a behind-the-curtain game for achieving domination through tactics of divide-and-conquer. People have legitimate personal, cultural, tribal, ethnic, racial and national interests. They also have interests via non-genetic, voluntary associations. There are non-abusive, non-trickster ways to dynamically and adaptively negotiate and achieve those interests through time. Social Darwinism and Sun-Tsu need not be the defining principles of human relations and mutual flourishing.
Professor d'Errico, I am enjoying this talk that you delivered for an audience at GCC. I am looking forward to your treatment of these related topics in videos and writing. When I first arrived in Oklahoma, I tried to make a good faith study of the history from as many perspectives as I could. I am certainly not an expert in "Indian" law. The only text remotely connected to your expertise that I read in detail was 'Law West of Fort Smith'. On a more practical side, I did have a job that involved dealing with the multiple layers of Native, municipal, state and federal law. That was, at least, intellectually intriguing. I hope that I did a fair and effective job. I look forward to learning more and -- if it seems worthwhile -- perhaps we can someday have a conversation.
Professor, Thank you for the link to your book seller. I reviewed the contents and have put it in a high place on my wish list. I am eager to get my hands on it. From just the brief insight that I can ascertain from the blurb, the concept of an Indigenous nomos holds much promise, both in the context of this continent, and abroad. It is not necessarily a magic wand, though, is it? What happens when it is applied to European peoples and nations? What happens when the Indigenous nomos, as a principle, is collided with the Kalergi Plan? And lastly -- for the moment -- could a properly-crafted concept of the nation-state come to the rescue of Indigenous peoples? I hope you are having a wonderful Saturday!
I was curious whether you saw this report on the Iowa caucus and this news reporter's explanation that the State of Iowa is too "white." (See Tucker Carlson's coverage of (I think) MSNBC coverage of the results of the Iowa Caucus..) If the state were to become predominantly black (a people also not from this continent), I am wondering where this reporter might put the Indigenous people of Iowa? Should, say, black Americans be allowed -- or encouraged -- to outnumber the Indigenous people? Will the Indigenous people(s) have to fight their way out of the same situation that is being argued as existing between white Europeans and Indigenous people?
I hope you are having a good week as we roll into Friday.
Thank you. And whether my questions are addressed or not by reading your book, we probably have much to talk about. This does become complex, does it not? https://youtu.be/G45WthPTo24 I happened upon [or was it the search engine reading me and feeding me?] a report concerning a rash of church fires in Canada in, from what I can tell, Indigenous communities. The temporal proximity of some, one to another, suggests coordination.
Watching NOW! So happy to see this!
Thank you again for all you do! Found this:
"Ginsburg’s opinion in this case also rests on the Doctrine of Discovery. That a US court can still today base decisions on a decree given by a Spanish Pope in 1493 that names non-Christians barbarians (or heathens) and thus justifiably subject to death and dispossession is almost too irrational and overtly racist to take seriously. But in the Supreme Court, such seemingly absurd propositions become an overt form of legal violence to the Indigenous peoples whose lives and livelihoods are in the jurist’s hands. Justice Ginsburg’s opinion in this case reads as follows:“…it was not until lately that the Oneidas sought to regain ancient sovereignty over land converted from wilderness to become part of cities like Sherrill” (emphasis mine). Ginsburg invokes here an anti-Indigenous hierarchy of lifeways, rendering Indian land a so-called “wilderness” that had been tamed, “civilized” by Euroamericans. Also referencing the doctrine of laches, Ginsburg argues the ONNY had “slumbered on their rights”—or waited too long to reclaim sovereignty over these lands—an insidious argument considering that state and federal governments had staunchly prevented New York tribes from bringing any land claims to court until 1974."
https://blogs.cornell.edu/cornelluniversityindigenousdispossession/2021/01/04/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-notoriety-in-indian-country-and-cornells-campus-landscape/
Peace to all
Thanks for the blog link! I will share it...
Hi Professor. I just saw this a minute ago. It's from MSNBC. I wonder where Indigenous people would fit in to the vision that this woman broadcater would have in Iowa, the United States --- indeed in the world.
https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/157/133/958/playable/a38f26bd781799c1.mp4
Her comments obscure the fact that the claim to be the 'christian inheritors' of the continent underlies the entire system of property law and is not limited to evangelical christians.
In short, after the orgy -- the orgy of anti-whiteness -- is over and the dawn is beginning to peek over the horizon, what will be found? Will it be a better world or rainbows and pretty gardens?
Maybe that commentator's remarks do obscure this claim to a foundation of property law in the United States. But is there more to be said regarding her remarks? How should a white, European and possibly Christian respond? (And until I can get my hands on your book), I will ask the question here as to where should [we] now go (both whites and non-whites)? Do you see a hope for justly adjudicating the, now, myriad claims in the U.S. with even more voices arriving daily via migration and ideological fracturing? Complicating things more, though a political party may harness sufficient discontent of disparate groups in order to wrest for itself the remaining vapors of a now-waning, white-European, Christian predominance --- it is not clear that the successors-turned-disputing factions will not begin to refocus their avarice and squabbling in each others' directions. This concern is even more true given that vying for power will be Judaism/Zionism in its various manifestations (secular, religious versions, political, racial, ethnic, etc.), Islam and a non-white, non-European Christianity (Hispanic, African and Asian) with an overlay of secularism, atheism, and non-white races, ethnicities and -- especially with the Indigenous peoples -- tribal identities and rivalries. Do you believe that we are moving to a better place politically, philosophically and demographically?
I think things are coming to a head... along all the lines of fracture you mention
Today, I was awakened from a nap by a surprise visit. A friend brought a giant container of beans and hamburger with corn bread that his wife made. They are Osage "Indians," or as we say at your page here, "Indigenous." Tomorrow, I take another friend who is Choctaw for another stage in a long history of attempts at chemotherapy for his cancer. It just occurred to me that, without consciously thinking about it, we are working against -- at least -- the Indigenous-European fracture of which you speak. I am not as hopeful about the consequences of some of the other fault lines that we seem to agree upon as existing.
I still invite you to enter the shop door next to the academic window through which you are viewing events "unfold," (not to imply or claim that it is necessary a non-activist, clinically detached view since I do not know you well, yet). Once inside, perhaps you could engage in, and offer, some hope-fors, shoulds and recommendations for practical action.
For instance, what would an undoing of this principle you emphasize as that of "Christian discovery" look like? How would some type of reversal of, or going beyond, that not result in not only subsets of Europeans and Christians feeling dispossessed, but now sub-groups every other non-Indigenous peoples claiming infringement and demanding form Indigenous Peoples, now, restitution? Thus, you might explain how the pie is going to be chopped up for the non-Indigenous and non-European/non-Christian --- I suppose we call them "colonizers," too.
I do not see the current policies of, principally, the globalist-centralizing Democrat and Republican uni-party as being based upon any real foundation of justice by any accounting. I think they are going with the idea of frank power beating all comers. I do not see this as being advantageous to the descendants of either Indigenous Peoples or European Christians (or African Americans, or anyone else not in the Davos/WEF circles). But perhaps you see a different alliance?
I do not see only potential "fracture lines," but broad swathes of fusion, regrowth and annealing. What could be the basis for such fusion?
And even when what is, is and only is---is not making what is not is, worth attempting?
Thanks for the above reply.
Thanks, David, for this thoughtful comment!
My latest post, "View from the Shore" < https://peterderrico.substack.com/p/view-from-the-shore-vs-view-from >
aims at these questions / possibilities. It focuses on what we do at Redthought.org, where a whole library of long presentations grapples with the questions.
Indeed, some Redthought presentations are hours-long, with viewers asking questions and offering thoughts similar to yours.
I am interested in what you might say after watching one (or more) of them.
The three video clips in "View" give you a taste of our perspective.
Suffice it to say, I have been in and out of that shop door often. :-) I know there are fusions / new growths / regrowths / collaborations....
Very good, thank you! I will try to get through some videos in these next two weeks.
I am glad, too, that you see the possibilities of thinking of this like bone healing, rather than crumbling rock and grinding, volcanic plate tectonics. Bone is alive.
There are to be recognized interests that favor and promote multi-focal discord and a strategy of forever encouraging 'ressentiment'. It is not just that "bad stuff" just happens. This interference is a behind-the-curtain game for achieving domination through tactics of divide-and-conquer. People have legitimate personal, cultural, tribal, ethnic, racial and national interests. They also have interests via non-genetic, voluntary associations. There are non-abusive, non-trickster ways to dynamically and adaptively negotiate and achieve those interests through time. Social Darwinism and Sun-Tsu need not be the defining principles of human relations and mutual flourishing.
Our son appreciates your work! Thank you!
What if we said nope to the pope
To plenary powers
We gave no more hours
Lay flowers at the grave
Of stolen land and lives
And plant seeds not sides
So that all in sovereign harmony in future-now thrives
And consent were not bent
To mean domination without that very thing
In health and in land
In our hearts let’s sing!
May all know love
Without exploitation
Or Annihilation consciousness’
Sting
<3 about to share it with my son who is homeschooled :)
Professor d'Errico, I am enjoying this talk that you delivered for an audience at GCC. I am looking forward to your treatment of these related topics in videos and writing. When I first arrived in Oklahoma, I tried to make a good faith study of the history from as many perspectives as I could. I am certainly not an expert in "Indian" law. The only text remotely connected to your expertise that I read in detail was 'Law West of Fort Smith'. On a more practical side, I did have a job that involved dealing with the multiple layers of Native, municipal, state and federal law. That was, at least, intellectually intriguing. I hope that I did a fair and effective job. I look forward to learning more and -- if it seems worthwhile -- perhaps we can someday have a conversation.
Thank you for your comment!
Have you looked at my 2022 book: "Federal Anti-Indian Law: The Legal Entrapment of Indigenous Peoples"? It may be useful to you...
https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/federal-antiindian-law-9781440879210/
Professor, Thank you for the link to your book seller. I reviewed the contents and have put it in a high place on my wish list. I am eager to get my hands on it. From just the brief insight that I can ascertain from the blurb, the concept of an Indigenous nomos holds much promise, both in the context of this continent, and abroad. It is not necessarily a magic wand, though, is it? What happens when it is applied to European peoples and nations? What happens when the Indigenous nomos, as a principle, is collided with the Kalergi Plan? And lastly -- for the moment -- could a properly-crafted concept of the nation-state come to the rescue of Indigenous peoples? I hope you are having a wonderful Saturday!
David - I think your questions will be responded to by passages in my book. If not, let's communicate further!
You have introduced me to something I wasn't aware of — Kalergi
best wishes,
peter
Hi Professor d'Errico.
I was curious whether you saw this report on the Iowa caucus and this news reporter's explanation that the State of Iowa is too "white." (See Tucker Carlson's coverage of (I think) MSNBC coverage of the results of the Iowa Caucus..) If the state were to become predominantly black (a people also not from this continent), I am wondering where this reporter might put the Indigenous people of Iowa? Should, say, black Americans be allowed -- or encouraged -- to outnumber the Indigenous people? Will the Indigenous people(s) have to fight their way out of the same situation that is being argued as existing between white Europeans and Indigenous people?
I hope you are having a good week as we roll into Friday.
Thank you. And whether my questions are addressed or not by reading your book, we probably have much to talk about. This does become complex, does it not? https://youtu.be/G45WthPTo24 I happened upon [or was it the search engine reading me and feeding me?] a report concerning a rash of church fires in Canada in, from what I can tell, Indigenous communities. The temporal proximity of some, one to another, suggests coordination.
Excellent......beyond words...