Steve Hayes
2009-08-07 02:15:23 UTC
Episcopal Church repudiates Doctrine of Discovery
Urges US adoption of UN Declaration
By Gale Courey Toensing
Story Published: Jul 26, 2009
Story Updated: Jul 27, 2009
ANAHEIM, Calif. =96 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=92 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 =93Repudiate the Doctrine of Discovery,=94 was passed
unanimously by the Episcopal House of Bishops and by an overwhelming majority
of the House of Delegates during the church=92s 76th General Convention July 8 =96
17 in Anaheim.
=93It=92s a historic event,=94 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=92s work on the Doctrine of Discovery in his many essays and his 2008
book =93Pagans in the Promise Land=94 is the spark that ignited individuals in the
Episcopal Church to pursue the resolution.
Newcomb expressed his =93deep appreciation=94 for John Dieffenbacher-Krall, Brenda
Hamilton, and John Chaffee =93who powerfully advocated for passage of the
adopted resolution.
=93Through 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.=94
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=92s
convening in 2010.
=93The Episcopalian Church=92s resolution will no doubt factor into that study,=94
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 =96 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 =93New World.=94
The resolution renounces the doctrine =93as fundamentally opposed to the Gospel
of Jesus Christ and our understanding of the inherent rights that individuals
and peoples have received from God,=94 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=92s 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=92Intosh, 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=92Intosh, and dismantle Congress=92 claim to plenary
power over Indian nations.
=93This is illegitimate, this is immoral, this is evil. U.S. law shouldn=92t be
based on this. I want to see an all out effort to overturn Johnson v. M=92Intosh
just as the NAACP legal defense fund and many civil rights activists worked
strategically to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson,=94 he said, referring to the 1896
Supreme Court ruling that upheld a =93separate but equal=94 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=92s history made action
irresistible.
=93It=92s 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=92 claim of plenary power over American
Indian nations.
=93So where=92s the social justice behind Congress saying, =91We=92ll just do whatever
we want with the Maliseets or Navajo or Hopi because we=92re the U.S. and you=92re
not?=92 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.=94
Working with the Wabanaki tribes in Maine, reading Newcomb=92s articles and
later contacting him helped strengthen Dieffenbacher-Krall=92s determination to
act, and in October 2007, Maine=92s 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 =93New World=94 that weren=92t 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=92s resolution through the process in Anaheim.
Chaffee crafted the resolution that was adopted at the general convention.
The resolution has =93a substantial practical value,=94 Chaffee said, because it
could potentially =93provide important legal ammunition in terms of pending and
future legal cases that might be brought by Native Americans. I=92m very happy
to be just a small part of that whole process.=94
Hamilton was honored to be able to participate. In an e-mail update to her
colleagues during the convention, she wrote, =93My testimony rebutted the
comment I have often heard about this issue, =91What, are we trying to rewrite
history?=92 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.=94
http://www.indiancountrytoday.com/national/51572857.html
Comment by Steve Hayes:
Before reading this article I had never heard of this "Doctrine of Discovery",
and I wonder how many other people have heard of it, apart from fundis in the
history of US Law (the "doctrine" was apparently formulated by the US Supreme
Court in 1823)=20
I queried it in a blog post at:
http://khanya.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/behind-the-times-memoirs-of-a-has-been/
which led to some quite interesting and enlightening comments from Steven
Newcomb.
It appears, from his explanation, that though the US Constitution prohibits
Congress from making laws concerning an establishment of religion, there is no
such restriction on the US Supreme Court, which has effectively "established a
religion" through formulating the Doctrine of Discovery.=20
--=20
The unworthy deacon,
Stephen Methodius Hayes
Contact: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Orthodox mission pages: http://www.orthodoxy.faithweb.com/
Urges US adoption of UN Declaration
By Gale Courey Toensing
Story Published: Jul 26, 2009
Story Updated: Jul 27, 2009
ANAHEIM, Calif. =96 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=92 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 =93Repudiate the Doctrine of Discovery,=94 was passed
unanimously by the Episcopal House of Bishops and by an overwhelming majority
of the House of Delegates during the church=92s 76th General Convention July 8 =96
17 in Anaheim.
=93It=92s a historic event,=94 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=92s work on the Doctrine of Discovery in his many essays and his 2008
book =93Pagans in the Promise Land=94 is the spark that ignited individuals in the
Episcopal Church to pursue the resolution.
Newcomb expressed his =93deep appreciation=94 for John Dieffenbacher-Krall, Brenda
Hamilton, and John Chaffee =93who powerfully advocated for passage of the
adopted resolution.
=93Through 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.=94
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=92s
convening in 2010.
=93The Episcopalian Church=92s resolution will no doubt factor into that study,=94
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 =96 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 =93New World.=94
The resolution renounces the doctrine =93as fundamentally opposed to the Gospel
of Jesus Christ and our understanding of the inherent rights that individuals
and peoples have received from God,=94 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=92s 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=92Intosh, 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=92Intosh, and dismantle Congress=92 claim to plenary
power over Indian nations.
=93This is illegitimate, this is immoral, this is evil. U.S. law shouldn=92t be
based on this. I want to see an all out effort to overturn Johnson v. M=92Intosh
just as the NAACP legal defense fund and many civil rights activists worked
strategically to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson,=94 he said, referring to the 1896
Supreme Court ruling that upheld a =93separate but equal=94 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=92s history made action
irresistible.
=93It=92s 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=92 claim of plenary power over American
Indian nations.
=93So where=92s the social justice behind Congress saying, =91We=92ll just do whatever
we want with the Maliseets or Navajo or Hopi because we=92re the U.S. and you=92re
not?=92 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.=94
Working with the Wabanaki tribes in Maine, reading Newcomb=92s articles and
later contacting him helped strengthen Dieffenbacher-Krall=92s determination to
act, and in October 2007, Maine=92s 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 =93New World=94 that weren=92t 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=92s resolution through the process in Anaheim.
Chaffee crafted the resolution that was adopted at the general convention.
The resolution has =93a substantial practical value,=94 Chaffee said, because it
could potentially =93provide important legal ammunition in terms of pending and
future legal cases that might be brought by Native Americans. I=92m very happy
to be just a small part of that whole process.=94
Hamilton was honored to be able to participate. In an e-mail update to her
colleagues during the convention, she wrote, =93My testimony rebutted the
comment I have often heard about this issue, =91What, are we trying to rewrite
history?=92 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.=94
http://www.indiancountrytoday.com/national/51572857.html
Comment by Steve Hayes:
Before reading this article I had never heard of this "Doctrine of Discovery",
and I wonder how many other people have heard of it, apart from fundis in the
history of US Law (the "doctrine" was apparently formulated by the US Supreme
Court in 1823)=20
I queried it in a blog post at:
http://khanya.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/behind-the-times-memoirs-of-a-has-been/
which led to some quite interesting and enlightening comments from Steven
Newcomb.
It appears, from his explanation, that though the US Constitution prohibits
Congress from making laws concerning an establishment of religion, there is no
such restriction on the US Supreme Court, which has effectively "established a
religion" through formulating the Doctrine of Discovery.=20
--=20
The unworthy deacon,
Stephen Methodius Hayes
Contact: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Orthodox mission pages: http://www.orthodoxy.faithweb.com/