Discover the overlooked truths of Native American legal struggles and examine the enduring impact of the Doctrine of Discovery with our esteemed guests Peter d'Errico, Steven T. Newcomb, and Joseph J. Heath. This episode promises to enhance your understanding of Native American representation in law and the historical decisions that shape their rights today. Prepare to have your perspective on federal anti-Indian law and the ramifications of the Marshall Trilogy thoroughly expanded by our panel's wealth of expertise.
Our conversation navigates the powerful role language plays in framing indigenous existence against the backdrop of colonization and Western narratives. We dissect the intentional metaphors by historical figures to assert control and critique the mainstream media's failure to challenge the systemic dominations at play. This episode is a clarion call for awareness, urging a collective shift towards acknowledging the historical and spiritual significance of land to Indigenous peoples, and their ongoing efforts to heal and decolonize.
Toward the close, we scrutinize the landmark McGirt decision and its effects on indigenous land rights, noting the absence of "plenary power" in Justice Gorsuch's opinion. The discussion points to the embedded racism and religious supremacy in the Lone Wolf decision of 1903, echoing Justice Clarence Thomas's skepticism of US sovereignty over Native lands. We cap off our exploration by delving into the implications of US citizenship on indigenous identity and the potential empowerment through citizenship of an Indian nation. Join us for a thought-provoking journey through the intricate intersection of law, sovereignty, and identity within Native American communities.
***
This panel was recorded at the The Religious Origins of White Supremacy: Johnson v. M'Intosh and the Doctrine of Christian Discovery conference.
View the transcript and show notes at podcast.doctrineofdiscovery.org. Learn more about the Doctrine of Discovery on our site DoctrineofDiscovery.org.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Jordan Brady Loewen-Colon (00:07):
Hello and welcome to the Mapping the
Doctrine of Discovery podcast.
The producers of this podcastwould like to acknowledge with
respect the onondogga nationfirekeepers of the Haudenosaune,
the Indigenous peoples on whoseancestral lands Syracuse
University now stands.
Paula Johnson (00:25):
Alright well it seems to me that we're here and
I don't want you all to lapseback into your being sleepy
again, so we gotta wake up andget started this morning.
Welcome back everybody to thisfantastic conference.
Again, I'm Paula Johnson.
(00:46):
We're the people I met lastyear, yesterday, and I teach
here at Syracuse University andteach at the College of Law, and
I've been so honored to be apart of this incredible
conference.
Someone who teaches in the law,I know that the subjects that
(01:08):
we've been talking about thisweekend are not as integrated
and infused within law schoolcourses as they ought to be, and
so I'm pleased that we're ableto add information and add a
sense of the imperative that allof these discussions be part of
(01:28):
what we learn in law school,and, for those of us who've
tried to do that, this is veryinspirational and supportive of
all of the athletes, and I hopethat we all find ways of
whatever work we're doing tomake sure that these issues,
these topics, are discussed andthat all the voices that we have
been hearing here this weekendare included in whatever areas
(01:51):
we teach work over our activismlives.
So let me introduce our panelthis morning.
Panelists this morning, this isa discussion on the aptly named
federal anti-Indian law and inthe order in which they will
(02:13):
speak, we have Peter D'Errico,who is online with us.
Professor D'Errico retired fromthe university at UMass in
August 2002.
He is a central figure in thedevelopment of the legal studies
(02:33):
department at UMass, hisresearch and teaching having
been focused on the legal issuesof Native Americans and
indigenous peoples.
He also has been active inlitigation of indigenous peoples
issues.
He is the author of federalanti-Indian law and he continues
to engage in law relatedwriting and consulting,
(02:55):
primarily on issues of concernto indigenous peoples, and he is
especially involved with Mashby, wampanoag and Western Cheshony
issues, as well as the work ofthe United Nations permanent
forum on indigenous issues.
So welcome, professor D'Errico,glad to have you with us.
(03:17):
We also have with us StevenNewcomb.
Professor Newcomb of theShawnee Lenape has co-founded
the indigenous law institute in1992 Birgil Kilstraight Kill
straight, who was a traditionalheadman and ceremonial leader of
(03:38):
the Lakota Nation Co-Denation.
Professor Newcomb is recognizedas one of the world's foremost
authorities on the doctrine ofdiscovery and is made evidence
by his law review articles andhis book Pagans in the Promised
Land decoding the doctrine ofChristian discovery.
He is also a producer of thedocumentary movie the Doctrine
(04:02):
Discovery Sedumory, unmaskingthe Domination Code which was
directed by Sheldon Wolfchild,based on the more Pagans in the
Promised Land.
So welcome to you, professorNewcomb.
And again we have our hometownexpert, Joseph J.
(04:23):
Heath.
Joe Heath has a long background, an extensive experience in
civil rights litigation, as oneof the four lawyers representing
unclassed action against NewYork state in the 1971 Attica
Prison Assaulted brutality whichresulted in a $12 million
settlement in 2000.
(04:43):
He is the Autodogga NationGeneral Counsel.
In his 45 years of practice,joe Heath has also worked in
criminal defense, constitutionallaw and protection of free
speech and assembly, protectionof abuse and the lack of
children, and fighting domesticand police violence, and he also
(05:04):
is an active member of Veteransfor Peace.
So each of our speakers willtalk to us for roughly 10
minutes and we hope to have timefor you afterwards to engage
with your questions and commentswith our panelists.
So, with no further ado, thenwe would invite our Professor
D'Errico to begin.
(05:24):
Professor Enrico, your response.
Peter D'Errico (05:30):
Thank you for that introduction and good
morning everyone.
It would be wonderful to besitting in that chair there next
to Steve and Joe, but I'mjoining you this way and I'm
happy to be able to do that.
I've had a connection over theyears to the folks at Syracuse
doing this important work and soglad to be here.
See ya.
(05:50):
In the few minutes that I haveright now this morning, I want
to make two major points.
First, just picking up on thecomment in the introduction
about this work being too littleinvolved in law schools, and I
think that's a major problem.
It seems to me that, just as aquick comparison, imagine that
(06:15):
we're back in the 1950s.
Some of us are old enough forthat, imagining and remembering.
Actually.
Imagine that the doctrine ofseparate but equal is still US
law and imagine that there areclasses being taught about it
and that it's basically beingpresented as a pretty good thing
.
It has some problems, but ofcourse everything has problems
(06:37):
and we have to work with what isgiven to us, because this is
the way law works and this isthe parallel to what's going on
right now with the entiredoctrine based on the Marshall
trilogy, which I'm sure all ofyou are familiar with, beginning
with Johnson v McIntosh andincluding Cherokee Nation v
(06:58):
Georgia and Worcester v Georgia.
All of that is being taught asif this is just an immutable
framework.
We have to reason within thisframework because it is given to
us as a law and then we go onand do that reasoning within
that framework.
That's what I see happening,not just in law schools.
I see it in articles, I see itin briefs that are filed in
(07:20):
cases in which this is simplypresented as it's the way it is
and we now are gonna try to workour way around in this maze and
figure out some way to makethis bad doctrine be a good
thing.
And we see it in even thehighest levels of the courts and
we see it applauded in themedia.
When the Brakeen v Holland casewas decided, within the first
(07:42):
three or four pages of thedecision, the court said the
basis of our decision is theplenary power of Congress.
It's bizarre to me.
If the problem of child welfarewere addressed without plenary
power, it would have a very easyniche in the entire global
framework of the HagueConvention on Intercountry
Adoption and there would be noproblem of indigenous children
(08:04):
being stolen, because all ofthese intercountry adoptions
happened according to the HagueConvention and all the things
people were worried about withwhy Iqwa was so important are
all covered in that framework,without anybody claiming plenary
power, and this is just somehowpasses by without commentary
(08:26):
and I think that's really aserious problem.
We have Joe de Goudy and theYakima nation to thank for
having been a major exception tothis.
I should say there have been ahandful of exceptions over the
last decades, but the majorexception of the Yakima nation
amicus brief in the Washingtonstate case V Cougar Den was a
(08:49):
frontal attack on this doctrineof domination called Christian
discovery, and only afterpresenting that did they go into
the discussion of the treaty.
And it was very clear that thecourt was put on notice.
The brief was cited at leastthree times, which is unusual
for any amicus brief.
(09:09):
The court was on notice that ifthey wanted to go down that
Christian discovery road theywere gonna be hit from all sides
by a very powerful antagonistin the form of the Yakima nation
amicus, and so they ducted it.
They cited the brief for itssecond section, which is about
the treaty, and on that basisthey upheld Yakima rights.
(09:29):
So it can be done, thechallenge can be made, and it
certainly ought to be being madein law schools.
So that's point number one.
The second point I wanna make isthat the parallel with this
failure to make the challenge isthe invisibility of what it is
that should be challenged.
The most recent example is theone happened right in New York
(09:53):
state last month when theMontaukett so-called
reinstatement bill was vetoed bythe governor.
Now the news coverage from theNew York times all the way to
Newsday and Long Island TVstations and the rest of it, the
coverage all focused on oh howhorribly racist.
This is because the governorrelied on a 1910 decision and a
(10:14):
1914 affirming of that decisionin which the two judges involved
made racist characterizationsof the Montaukett people.
Those that racistcharacterization is actually in
both of those opinions.
So it's not as if there isn'tracism involved, but the major
basis of the opinions was adoctrine of Christian discovery.
(10:35):
It was about land.
It was not about racialmiscegenation which was being,
which was tossed around in oneor two sentences.
It was the major bulk of the1910 decision which started out
by saying the issue here is thestatus of Montaukett land.
And how did the court answerthat question?
The court said the fee of theland is in England.
(10:58):
Now, if you know anything aboutChristian discovery law, you
know that's basic Christiandiscovery doctrine, that the
colonial powers acquiredownership of the continent and
the US has adopted that doctrine.
That's the Macintosh case, theJohnson v Macintosh.
Not a single paper that I saw,not a single news report went
(11:21):
anywhere near that.
They were all over themselveswith talking about racism.
Racism has become a kind offixation that it is the reason
for every wrong in the US.
It's a reason for everyinjustice and the real basis of
domination just passes bywithout anybody even apparently
seeing it.
So I think that these are thesetwo intertwined problems of
(11:46):
failure to raise the challengewhere it must be raised in law
schools and in courts, bylitigants, and the failure of
journalists and commentators tosee what it is that needs to be
challenged.
Even the legislators that werebehind the so-called
reinstatement bill didn't reallyunderstand it.
(12:07):
They referred the bill itselfreferred to the doctrine of
Christian discovery and itappointed it made was that the
Montaukets existed before thatdoctrine was imposed.
Well, that's absolutelyimportant.
From time immemorial, theMontaukets and all other native
peoples have been on thiscontinent without anybody
claiming plenary power over themor ownership of their lands.
(12:28):
But having said that, what didthe bill text do?
It said that under the doctrineof Christian discovery, new
York state doesn't have power todecide anything about Montauket
land.
It has to be Congress thatdecides that.
So this goes back to the firstthing I said is, instead of
challenging that doctrine, thebill authors said well, if we
(12:51):
use that doctrine we can find.
The little silver lining hereis that we have a stick that we
can whip New York with.
It ought to be the USgovernment that decides whether
the Montauket exists.
I'm wondering when would asingle commentator other than
the two people in the room withyou and on the panel and me,
probably two or three others, ifwe could take time to name them
(13:13):
would say wait a minute.
That doesn't really make sense.
You're saying that thedomination is okay as long as
the Congress does it.
It's not okay if New York statedoes it.
So the bill authors were awareof Christian discovery and
didn't know how to deal with it.
That's really unfortunate and Ithink that if we're going to
accomplish anything here and Imean here in our work, but also
(13:37):
here, even in a conference likethis there must be a way to move
beyond the fixation with theracism as the single explanation
for everything that's wrong andeverything that's going that
has gone wrong and the singlething that has to be fixed.
That's ultimately.
If we have those two pointsthat we can make here today,
(14:00):
then we will have accomplishedsomething.
Let's wake up in the lawschools and in the brief writing
to challenge what has to bechallenged and let's wake up in
journalism and commentators andlegislators to realize this is
the same point.
Here's what the target is.
Let's aim at the target.
And just to close out my fewminutes here, I'm not just
(14:23):
talking about making ahistorical, theoretical critique
in the case of the Montauk.
It is historical and it's onethat has current meaning.
But the doctrine of Christiandiscovery is not just something
that happened 200 and some 400and some years ago, because the
doctrine still goes on.
(14:44):
The doctrine is what is beingused by the US government to
take over the Apache land at OakFlat.
It's being used by the USgovernment to take over Western
Cheshonis and Paiute land atThacker Pass.
It's been used by the UnitedStates to disrupt Navajo nation
land resources and waterresources.
(15:04):
It's been used over and overagain in current time still
being used.
So we're talking about anactive battle and that, at least
, is enough to say enough.
Where are we going to stand andsay let's be clear about what's
going on here.
More than racism is going on.
There may be racism, there isracism, but that's not really
(15:28):
what the law is based on.
You can have a judge like RuthBader Ginsburg, whom I don't
think anybody ever said.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg had aracist bone in her body, but she
had no hesitation in 2005, inthe case involving the Oneida,
of saying right at the top ofher opinion, footnote number one
doctrine of discovery is whatwe are relying on here.
(15:49):
The Oneida have no ownership ofland because the monarchical
powers own it.
The colonial powers passed itto the states and the US adopted
it.
End of footnote number one.
That's 2005,.
That's a non-racist SupremeCourt judge Should be enough to
say I think we got a problemhere.
(16:10):
Let's look at it Now.
I don't know if I've used up 10minutes or not, but I've
probably said enough for a while.
Paula Johnson (16:18):
Thank you very much, Robert.
Thank you very much, ProfessorD'Errico.
We will come back to you.
We hope to be and have moreexchange with you with the
points that you've raised.
I'm going to next act with thenew.
Come to speak.
You have a nice day, Robert.
(16:56):
Shawnee greeting] it's good tobe with you all here and want to
acknowledge the Haudenosauneeand the Anandaga Nation on whose
territory we are having thisconvening.
I want to begin in the fewminutes that we have here to set
(17:17):
the context.
That context is the original,free and independent existence
of our nations and peoples,extending back to the beginning
of time through our oralhistories and oral traditions,
contrasted with the system ofdomination brought by ship
across the ocean and imposed oneveryone and everything.
Once we have that contrast,then we have a view from the
(17:41):
shore looking out at thosecolonizing, invading ships
coming toward our ancestors, andwe have the view from the ship
looking at our ancestors allthose centuries ago.
We're able to have that as agreat starting point for this
conversation.
Years ago, when I was workingout the ideas for my book Pagans
(18:04):
and the Promised Land, Icreated some language that I
think is helpful in this moment,this gathering.
This is talking about thesacred birthright of our
original nations and peoples.
Distinct and diverse indigenouspeoples are nations born of the
earth, the sacred life giverplaced by the creator, and
(18:27):
sacred relationship with ourrespective homelands and
territories.
Throughout time, our ancestorslived free and independent of
Western colonialism andsubjugation for an untold
succession of ages, until theempires of Christendom invaded
our region of earth, which iscommonly known in the
foreigner's tongue as theWestern Hemisphere.
(18:49):
Our ancestors bequeath to usthe gift of a sacred birthright,
which is our very being asnaturally existing nations and
peoples.
This sacred birthright iscomprised of our languages,
cultures, lands, deserts,mountains, forests and our
relatives, such as the buffalo,caribou, salmon, cedar, sage,
(19:11):
sweetgrass and corn pollen, aswell as our spiritual and
ceremonial traditions, our songsand sacred ceremonial places,
our oral histories and theburial places of our ancestors.
Our sacred birthright includesour minds, our philosophies, our
sciences, and our economicsystems and agricultural
(19:34):
practices.
It includes our petroglyphs andartifacts, and our sacred
birthright also includes therivers, streams, natural springs
, lakes, underground aquifers,seas, bays, inlets, oceans and
all bodies of water, theprecious and sacred liquid that
flows through the veins ofMother Earth and sustains all
(19:55):
life, without which the lifecannot continue.
And since I have limited time,I won't read the rest of that,
but I will say that it's thistype of understanding that goes
into that original, free andindependent existence of our
(20:15):
nations and peoples.
Our sacred birthright, which weshall never freely forfeit
includes the right to heal fromthe trauma of colonization and
to one day be free andindependent of all forms and
manner of colonial domination.
We have a solemn responsibilityto use every fiber and breath
(20:35):
of our being to uphold andprotect the sacred birthright of
our own children and youngpeople, for the benefit of our
future generations and for thebenefit of life.
Every spark that spirals intothe air from a ceremonial fire
represents the spiritual energyof the universe that burns in
(20:56):
each and every one of us.
We have the ability to combinetogether the fire of our
respective spiritual energy ashuman beings to become a
tremendous force of healing,cultural resurgence and
revitalization.
So, pardon me, the reason whyI'm opening like this, which
(21:17):
I've never done before, is thatI really want you to have a
deeper insight and understanding, to try to get us out of this
colonial mindset, this way inwhich our minds have been
conditioned into thiscolonizer's language, along the
lines of the domination system.
The things that Peter Duricohas just presented to you are so
(21:39):
critically important, but wehave to look at the nature of
language and the way in whichlanguage maintains reality.
It creates and maintains aparticular form of reality.
And as soon as we say aparticular word, then that
becomes the focal point of ourawareness and our consciousness
(21:59):
in a conversation, but we canjust as quickly switch to
something else and then suddenlythat becomes the focus, and so
the framing of how we'rediscussing all of these issues
is so crucial, and Marshall wasvery well aware of this when he
wrote the Johnson vs " ruling orany of those rulings.
All of those men were extremelyskilled in the use of language.
(22:24):
They understood metaphor.
They were some of the mosthighly intelligent people in
history.
We're not even supposed to behere today, let alone get this
deep into the colonial languageand so forth, but yet here we
are, and so I want to say thatit's so extraordinary to me.
In saying these followingremarks, I'm not going to be
(22:46):
criticizing the person I'm goingto mention right now, but I'm
going to make an observation.
Robert Jones has come out with anew book called the Roots of
White Supremacy.
It's been picked up by the NewYork Times, I think.
Maybe the Wall Street Journalcertainly Time Magazine, the
Guardian.
All these mainstreampublications are putting out all
(23:07):
this publicity about whitesupremacy as if they're not part
of that same system ofdomination that is perpetuating
all these harms for our nationsand peoples.
And so the reason I'm bringingthis up is how is it that
they're able to put all that outbut yet, at the same time, the
Christian heath and distinctionand the domination system is not
(23:29):
the central focus?
So in this article about theAlgonquin people that Peter
mentioned, what's the name ofthe people?
Peter Montaukett, montaukett,people, that part of it, even
that's right there, but yet it'snot there because it's not
being explicitly named.
(23:49):
And there's a wonderful book byRichard Brown, a Poetic for
Sociology.
It's fantastic.
I've been reading it for morethan 20 years, probably 30 years
, and I read it over and overagain.
And he makes this statement.
He says the thing itself,whatever thing it is, becomes
emergent in the process of beingnamed.
(24:12):
So when we name it it's there,as I said before, but then when
you don't name it, it's out offocus.
So you can have doctrine ofdiscovery over and over and over
again, but the domination isthere behind in the background,
but not in the foreground.
It only becomes explicit in theforeground when we name it and
then suddenly it's emergent, itemerges into our awareness and
(24:36):
becomes a focal point.
Now, some years ago, peterGrieco and I were talking about
the Tee-Hiton ruling from 1955.
And Peter very kindly sent methe file for the case, the
decision, but attached to thedecision where the filings from
(24:57):
the US government and theTee-Hiton people in Alaska.
I had never seen the filingsand I was so excited I said, oh
my gosh, look at this.
So I opened the US legal briefand I could have written it
because it had ChristianTee-Hiton, all the religious
focus, because that was the timeof the Eisenhower
(25:19):
administration, and it had apapal bull from 1344, 1344 and
1954.
And then it had the papal bullsfrom 1493.
It had the Christian Tee-Hitondifferentiation and the Cabot
Charter and all the variouscharters.
It's those US attorneys focusedin on exactly that language of
(25:43):
Christian, non-christian framingof the so-called doctrine of
discovery, which I prefer tocall the doctrine of domination.
That was the quote, unquotesmoking gun to show that this is
very much a biblical OldTestament narrative.
It's the use of Christianityagainst our nations and peoples
as a system of domination.
(26:04):
But until we call it that,until we make those explicit you
know those points explicit itwill not be evident.
So I also want to mention thatwith regard to the way in which
(26:25):
scholars tend to discuss thesethings.
There's an interestingphenomenon that happens.
So in the Johnson versusMacintosh ruling of 1823, chief
Justice Marshall makes this.
Well, he uses the Englishcharters to quote Christian
people, and he uses that overand over again.
(26:45):
He says notwithstanding theoccupancy of the natives, who
were heathens.
So there's your Christianheathen distinction.
As I already mentioned, scholarstend to say well, the doctrine
of discovery is the idea thatthe first Europeans to locate
non-European lands have theright of possession.
(27:07):
So now try to go back to thePable Bulls and find the word
Europe or European in there.
You can't find it, becausethat's a different worldview.
It's a time of a religiousempire, a religious worldview.
They weren't using ageographical place called Europe
and the people living therecalled Europeans to identify
folks from Christendom.
They were calling themChristians, which is the correct
(27:30):
name from their viewpoint.
And so that's crucial, becauseonce these scholars write things
like that, now you're oneremoved from the religious basis
of the whole thing.
And then you go even further,and then you use the color.
Not you, but anybody who writeslike this uses the color
(27:51):
spectrum, and then we're intowhite, black, yellow, red,
whatever kind of color is beingused to identify people.
So the metaphorical frameworkof the color spectrum is being
used as the overlay and thefocal point.
So now you're an additionalremoved.
So where are our nations andpeoples explicitly named in a
color spectrum racial framework?
(28:13):
There's a place for that,certainly to oppose racism and
those forms of domination aswell, but that's not this work,
and so I think that's crucial.
The last thing I want to say,and I'll hand it over to Joe, is
that last night we watched thepresentation amazing
presentation, the play there,and there was a point at which
(28:36):
the Oliphant decision from the1980s was mentioned and there
was a very simple way that thatcould have been summed up.
And there's a sentence in theJohnson ruling where Chief
Justice Marshall says theirrights to complete sovereignty
as independent nations werenecessarily, were necessarily
(28:56):
diminished by the originalfundamental principle.
That discovery gave title tothose who made it.
Chief Justice Rehnquist and theOliphant decision took that
sentence and modified it and hesays their rights to complete
sovereignty as independentnations are and he put the word
(29:17):
are in brackets necessarilydiminished period, close quote.
So not only did he modify thetimeframe to make it present day
and ongoing, but he removed theexplicit mention of the
Christian excuse me, theChristian discovery aspect of it
.
And I think these are thedeceptions that they're using.
(29:39):
What's cool and fantastic isthe fact that the Yakima Nation
legal brief Amicus brief fromthe Cougar Den case put the
Supreme Court on notice.
We know, and now they know thatwe know, and now they're
playing a game.
So you know, in the McGirtruling Peter Durico found that
(30:01):
the Gorsuch reference to USsovereignty and the property law
treatise of Emery Washburn from1864, when all Gorsuch did was
write the title and give you thecitation.
But when you go to the actualreference in the book, what does
it say?
The Christian nations of Europe.
So you're right back there andhe knew that.
(30:21):
Gorsuch knew that.
Why didn't you just cite it andquote it and make it explicit?
But that's the kind of gamethey're playing.
So thank you very much.
One issue Morning everyone.
Speaker 7 (30:48):
I am humbled to appear on the same panel with
these two geniuses Becauseeverything I say is going to
come from there.
If you do not have these twobooks and haven't studied them,
then you're not going to passthis course.
(31:09):
Steve's book, hades and thePromised Land if you read it,
reread it and understand theimportance of this concept of
domination, because that's oneof the things that Steve has
helped us understand.
And this book by Peter, whichis in the background of his
(31:31):
library when you see him, badgirl, anti-indian law prices and
brilliant.
So between the two of them, asI said, I'm humbled to be here.
This is a painting by OrrinLyons faithkeeper, orrin Lyons,
(31:52):
that depicts the creation of theConfederacy here on the shores
of Onondaga Lake, and Orrin iscertainly a graduate of this
institution that we have it'sbuildings named after him and it
(32:15):
reminds me that 59 years ago Itook classes in this building.
I didn't always make the eighto'clock, so I'm really
appreciative that you all arehere, but 59 years ago back then
this institution had a racistteam mascot called the Saltine
(32:39):
Warrior that was played.
I remember going to footballgames and watching a drunken
track boy in red paint come outand run around the field.
So we've come a little bit, weprogressed a little bit in those
60 years.
But let me get to trying totalk about what we're supposed
to do and we've heard a littlebit.
(33:04):
I'm going to focus primarily onthis artificial construct of
plenary power because it's socentral to how, to everything
that we just heard and I hope wesee that by the time I get done
and let's see the next slide.
(33:25):
So in introduction to Peter'sbook he talks about plenary
power and he says challengingChristian discovery in the
United States claims to allnative lands and to have plenary
power over native peopleproduces a metaphysical crisis
(33:48):
for America, our philosophy inthis building.
I have some memory of that.
Metaphysically, as one scholarsaid, if the federal government
exercises unrestrained powerover Indian nations, then we
have a different government thanwe think, a different kind of
government than we think we have.
And, as Steve said and as Petersaid, often judges won't admit
(34:18):
that they're basing theirdecisions on plenary power.
They often dodge around youbecause they don't want us to
understand that.
How extravagant those areMarshall's words.
So what does plenary mean?
This is not a word that we usein our daily discussions and
(34:42):
it's a very clever word becauseit doesn't really tell us how
all-encompassing it is.
But what it means is absolute.
Now, if all of thesediscussions always said absolute
power, we would understand itbetter.
They dodge around and useplenary power.
(35:06):
Most of you are familiar withthe McGurk decision.
I think it's three years agonow.
Most legal scholars justcouldn't get out of their own
way to grow about what awonderful decision this was, and
I certainly would prefer thedecision that we received to the
(35:28):
one that John Roberts wouldhave written.
If you read his minority, it'sa dissent because the concept
was the reservation created byCongress in Oklahoma still in
existence, and Roberts wouldhave said no, because settlers
(35:51):
have grabbed all the land.
That's what Roberts would havewritten.
So it's a good thing thatGorsuch who seems to be the one
justice, because he comes out ofthe ninth circuit, who
understands Indian law to acertain degree, that he wrote
this opinion and what he wrotewas that once Congress
establishes a reservation, itremains intact and that most of
(36:15):
Oklahoma is still Indianreservation.
But he never mentions thecentral foundation for that,
which is plenary power.
He doesn't use the word.
I've done word searches in hisdecision more than once.
You will not find the termplenary power.
(36:38):
Instead he says Congress longago ruled.
The Congress wields significantconstitutional authority.
There is no constitutionalauthority and you'll see that by
the time we finish when it cameto tribal relations possessing
even the authority to breach itsown promises and treaties.
(37:01):
Really slick way of notadmitting what he's trying to
say.
So what we have to do is wehave to look back.
He cites long look.
Long look was a 1905 decision.
Next slide, please.
Next slide.
(37:28):
So long.
Look was 1903.
Whenever you see an indigenouslaw decision from 100 years ago,
you should put it in your woodstore, because the amount of
racism and Christian dominancein every one of these decisions
(37:52):
is.
It's just shameful when we lookat it these days.
And so and this is how MarshalGorsuch brings plenary power
into his decision without changeBecause when we look back at
(38:13):
the opinion that he cites sofavorably, it says that we have
to understand that the Indiansheld their ancestral homeland
was only occupancy.
They never possessed it and itwas assumed that the United
States would govern suchconsiderations of justice as
(38:34):
would control a Christian peoplein their treatment of an
ignorant and dependent race.
And this is where he saysplenary authority over the
tribal relations of the Indianshas been exercised by Congress
from the beginning, and thepower has always seemed to be a
political one, not subject tocontrol in the traditional part
(38:55):
of government.
If any of you remember thequotes that I referred to
yesterday from Johnson versusMcIntosh about how Marshal was
trying to explain thisextravagant claim that he was
making, it's the same thing.
We have said this from thebeginning.
Therefore, it's our powerthat's the basis of plenary
(39:17):
power in Longwood.
And just briefly, to refer backto, peter mentioned the recent
unfortunate veto by GovernorHoco of the recognition of the
Montags In that veto message.
(39:38):
He refers back to, as Petermentioned, some 1910 decisions
that called the Montags shiplesswho served with whites, served
with whites and mixed with otherraces.
(39:59):
And then an appellate courtlooked at that decision and said
that the Montags were impairedby misogyny, particularly with
the Negro race.
So this is the kind of 100 yearold Christian dominant racism
that our courts and our governorkeep referring to.
(40:21):
Next slide, please.
And in Longwood the court wenton to say that it's power exists
to aggregate.
Now this is another word wedon't use in our normal thing.
It means just break, tear up.
(40:41):
So the power exists to tear upthe provisions of an Indian
treaty.
When, therefore, treaties wereentered into, it was never
doubted that the power to tearup existed in Congress and that
a contingency of such powermight be availed from the
contingency availed of fromconsideration of government.
(41:04):
In other words, the UnitedStates said we had our fingers
crossed behind our back when wesigned every one of those
treaties, when we stole all ofyour land.
We never intended to keep oneof those commitments and that's
why we can now understand whythere's such a trail of broken
(41:24):
treaties.
Next slide, please.
Here's another infamous decision.
And because it's where thecourt first articulates plenary
power.
We're not able to see in theConstitution any delegation of
(41:48):
power to enact a criminal lawfor Indians.
But this power arises not somuch from the Constitution.
So here's an admission there isno constitutional basis for
plenary power.
And at the ownership of thecountry, that's the basis of our
power.
We own the lands the Indiansnever did and the right of
exclusive sovereignty which mustexist in the national
(42:11):
government.
In other words, the nationalgovernment has sovereignty, but
Indian nations don't.
Next slide, please.
The lack of constitutionalbasis is so clear that Clarence
Thomas writes about it.
Now I can't believe that I'mquoting favorite people.
(42:33):
I won't finish that sentence.
But we don't need to go throughall of these and in at least
three different times, thomashas clearly said there is no
constitutional basis forClarence Thomas and therefore
all of our indigenous law isconcocted, which is exactly what
(42:58):
we need to understand and whywe're all here Because the
claims of Christian Dominion andthe right to own the land by
merely planting your flag.
You are with us today.
That's why, when we are down inOnondaga talking about how
(43:23):
we're going to get a thousandacres back three years after we
started that and we're stillinto it and how to doubt our
reflexes, they know how to takeour land.
They don't know how to give itback, and that's what we're
talking about the importance ofland.
I don't need to tell most ofyou this the importance of land
(43:47):
to indigenous nations andcultures.
And we have to keep working toget land back, as we all know,
and the way to do that is tokeep exposing and talking about
the doctrine of Christiandiscovery and domination and how
it is used.
Every day that a court getsnear an indigenous decision.
(44:10):
It's the basis of all of thislaw, because the property is so
important to the dominant court.
So I appreciate you'relistening today you have two
very, very important.
I would be remiss if I did notmention this last one, even
(44:30):
though we have been insulted inthe US courts one more, a couple
more, one more.
There we are.
So because the Onondaga nationhas been shabbily painfully
treated in the federal courtsand the land rights action was
(44:53):
thrown out before we even had achance to argue it because of
the doctrine of Christiandiscovery and domination, which
was in the first footnote inSherrill, which was used to
dismiss the Haudenosaunee andthe Onondaga land rights action.
As we explained yesterday,onondaga went into an
international forum, theorganizations of American states
(45:16):
, inter-american Commission onHuman Rights, and our petition,
after nine years now, hasfinally reached a stage where
the commission will rule on itsmerits and we anticipate a
ruling that the United States isgoing through three human
rights violations for allowingthe land to be stolen, for
(45:38):
allowing the land to be trashedenvironmentally and for having a
court system that has thisracist Christian dominant
nonsense and has no remedy fortreaty violation.
And that's how Onondaga iscontinuing that fight and we
will keep people advised that wekeep making progress.
(45:59):
So I'll get out of the waybecause we really ought to
benefit from Peter and Steve'swisdom as we move forward.
So thank you for listening.
Thank you very much, joe.
Paula Johnson (46:15):
Thank all of you for your presentation, chris.
Thank all of you for yourpresentations.
We do have a few moments leftto have discussion and questions
, so, if there are, please feelfree to raise your hands for any
questions that you have.
Speaker 8 (46:31):
Yes, yeah, I really appreciate all that you have
shared and it's prettymind-altering.
But we're in a pickle and I'mjust wondering, you know, in
order to provoke the thinking,to catapult ourselves out of
(46:53):
this reality that we're living,if I can present a perspective,
because inside what you'retalking about, the Christian
Christianity, the Christiandomination, is also the
domination over women, right,and so we hear a lot from the
(47:14):
men but rarely from the women,and so there's this subliminal
feeling that because I'm ahoodnushonian, I'm a crime
mother and because we're amacholynosurvity that follows
the mother.
It's almost like this battlebetween the mother and the
father, because Christianityalso wiped out the woman and
(47:36):
subjugated her under thepossession of a man.
So when I think about this andI think about who we are, as
hoodnushoni and as being amacholynio leader, I challenge
all of you If we're really thatunhappy with the process of the
legal fight, rescind your UScitizenship, get the hell out of
(47:57):
this country.
And we need a mass exodus outof this present reality that
we're living, that doesn'trecognize or give equal rights
to women, to children, to peopleof all various beliefs and
ethnic communities.
(48:19):
Make a mass exodus, takeeverybody with us.
Resind your US citizenship,resind your Canadian citizenship
, because inside the great lawof peace it says any man of any
nation and any woman who tracesits roots to the source is
allowed to take shelter beneaththere and ask for citizenship
(48:41):
under an Indian nation, as itshould have been in the
beginning.
And to me that would expel thisdominant Christian power because
it's ran so much habit in a lotof societies and continues to
do so.
So this is where the mothermeets the father, and the mother
(49:02):
takes the children with her,and it's because Christian
domination is so riddled withpatriarchy and I'm sorry to say
that, but it is and it's not totake away from the man, but it's
to remind him of who the motheris.
And so for me I propose this asa social and moral stand to all
(49:26):
of humanity is leave the UScountry, leave the dominant
European Christian power andtake shelter underneath the
mother, because there's a lot ofIndian nations here that follow
the mother, not the father.
And so I challenge you all toconsider that and think about
that, because if we continue toalways be in this, there's
(49:50):
always that underlying idea thatit's not only Christian
domination, it's male domination.
And so when we return thesacred to the mother, which we
call rematriation, notrepatriation, is that we awaken
to the true heart of who we arein our humanity, and so I just
(50:13):
want to put that on the floorand to propel our thinking
beyond what it is, because theunderlying title in
Haudenosaunee country is theland belongs to the women, to
the mothers, and the peacemakerleft that clearly when we
created the union of peace, andso we seem to continue to forget
(50:35):
that.
But anyways, I challenge all ofyou to think about that.
There is a process in the USsystem to rescind your US
citizenship and then come underan Indian nation and come under
the veil of peace and acceptancefor everybody in the world.
I just want to add that, steve,I said that to you before.
(50:57):
I really want you to thinkabout that, joe, because when we
get to land rights and thereason why there's so many
missing and murdered indigenouswomen is because they know that
the women are the land and theland is a woman.
So I just want to add that intoyour thinking, and maybe the
(51:18):
mother force be with you, thankyou.
Thank you so much.
Paula Johnson (51:23):
Would you like to say your name so that people
will?
Speaker 8 (51:27):
Mama Bear.
Paula Johnson (51:28):
Mama Bear.
Okay, thank you very much.
Did you have a comment to that?
Peter D'Errico (51:34):
I would like to say first say thank you for the
comments.
Two quick things.
One is you're advocating a kindof renunciation of US
citizenship, and it's in starkcontrast.
One of the things that I havepointed out again and again is
the foolishness, to put itmildly.
(51:56):
It's almost like a suicide actto constantly celebrate how many
native candidates are runningfor office, and the Democrats
and the Republicans and even theindependents are so-called
courting the native vote.
So not only is there not arenunciation, but there's
(52:16):
actually an embracing going onhere.
It's all part of theassimilation move.
It's exactly what the boardingschools were aimed to do to make
all these Indian childrenforget who they were and say oh,
you're just Americans now.
So now, 100 years after theboarding school, there's again a
kind of a popular mediacelebration of look how
(52:40):
assimilated it had been.
Now it's schizophrenic.
Clarence Thomas is right.
It's schizophrenic because someof these same people are
talking about oh, indian nationsare so important government to
government relationship.
At the same time, they'retaking steps to abolish that
independence.
Which brings me to just a realquick second thought is that you
(53:01):
talk about the structure oftraditional governments.
It's not accidental that whenthe government refers to
government to governmentrelationships.
It's not talking abouttraditional native governments.
It's talking about the imposedgovernments that were organized
under the Indian ReorganizationAct.
You think about that for aminute?
Indian Reorganization Act howdoes the US try to reorganize
(53:24):
native people's forms ofgovernment?
But that's what happened,that's what celebrated and again
, just like celebrating all thenative candidates, we celebrate
this thing called government togovernment and it's all quite
deceptive.
It needs to be called out.
One last little thought to helpyou remember.
I think what Steve and Joe didwas so important the defining of
(53:45):
the words that we use.
We don't use plenary ineveryday life, but when you say
plenary means absolute.
We don't use domination ineveryday language.
When you say that it helps toclarify what's really going on.
Using proper terminology,proper in the sense of actually
defining the words that we'reusing, is part of helping us to
(54:06):
wake up.
Thank you for your comment.
Paula Johnson (54:09):
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
I was just thinking, on thisissue of the law being
schizophrenic, that it wasrecently announced that the
lacrosse team from the whole ofMishon would be competing under
their own flag in the upcomingOlympics.
So it seems to me that adds anair of schizophrenia to one
(54:34):
relationship and the recognitionof decision, but at the same
time, having these sorts ofdecisions that continue to come
out in the ways that we've beentalking about and something
maybe to take note of.
Steven T. Newcomb (54:52):
Just keep in mind that.
Yes, clarence Thomas did saythat.
With regard to using themetaphor, I think we really need
to be mindful of these aremetaphors or comparisons,
analogies of schizophrenia.
At the same time, he's usingthat to attack the notion of
sovereignty in native nations.
(55:13):
So if you read the rest of thatsentence, then you'll see that
he's actually questioning thewhole attribution of sovereignty
to native nations, which that'sa much longer conversation,
because sovereignty itself,jonathan Haber-Proff defines
that as an unjust form ofpolitical domination that limits
(55:33):
human freedom.
So that's a whole otherconversation, just in that one
word alone.
Any other questions or comments.
Paula Johnson (55:43):
Do you have someone at the front?
Speaker 4 (55:45):
I'm just wondering so do you have a sense if
Assemblyman Thiel and SenatorPlumbo are going to make a sixth
run at getting that bill acrossthe governor's desk?
And do you have a sense if theyhave any understanding of the
depth of what they're talkingabout here?
(56:07):
Are they able to be advocateson doctrine and have this
conversation at that level?
Peter D'Errico (56:14):
No, no, if that, if you're asking me, I know I
don't think.
I think that they're.
They're talking verysuperficially when you think
about the so-called recognition.
It's just again.
Reverse some of these words andpick up what was just said
about US citizenship.
Do the Montaukett recognize theUS as the owner of their lands?
(56:37):
That's an equally important,more important question than
whether New York State quoterecognizes the Montaukett as
being quote in existence.
That's a very importantconversation to have about what
recognition means.
So anybody that's caught upwith talking about recognition
should put that in quotesrecognition, who's recognizing
(56:58):
whom?
And does it mean that what theUS federal anti-Indian law says
is that if the US doesn'trecognize you, you don't exist?
Well, I mean, that's veryinteresting, isn't it?
So that means if I don'trecognize the US, it doesn't
exist?
Oh, no, because I don't haveplanetary power.
So I don't think that there ispossible, given the kind of
(57:20):
conversation we're having today.
If this conversation isexpanded, then it's possible.
Some of the legislators I wroteto some of them, by the way,
commenting about this that ifthey really want to grapple with
this, they've got to do alittle more thinking than
they've been doing, although Ididn't put it so boldly as that.
Steven T. Newcomb (57:39):
I want to just quickly mention that
OriginalFreeNationscom is ourwebsite and redthoughtorg, which
former chairman of the ACMANation, joe DeGal, he put
together and Peter Derico and I.
Can you go back to that?
Yeah, originalfreenationscom,and we have a tremendous amount
(58:02):
of content on our website asOriginal Nations advocates and
the Indigenous Law Institute,but also redthoughtorg.
I think we have what Joe De 70hours or something.
I mean.
Certainly we got a lot on thereand it's Peter and Joe De and I
having these types ofinteractions over a very long
(58:26):
period of time and I thank JoeDe for having put that together
I just want to make sure Imentioned it, steve, also your
community slatter.
Oh, Peter Derico and I both havea sub-stat, so you can look at
that as well.
Paula Johnson (58:43):
Thank you.
We are just a minute before wehave to conclude.
There are other sessions thatare beginning in just a few
moments.
If we well, we have one handover here, and I think that
really needs to be our lastcomment before we can go ahead.
I just want to say thank you.
Speaker 3 (59:02):
I'm the mother of a Montaukian child, montauk, and
I'm an attorney, and I want tosay thank you for setting the
target in this battle.
I will forever be grateful tothe creator for being in this
space and being in this room andhearing the message and the
gift that we'll give to thestudents.
Thank you.
Paula Johnson (59:20):
Thank you.
Thank you, thank you.
Speaker 9 (59:22):
Thank you, joe De.
I just want I'll be remiss.
I can say this.
I disagree with everythingSteve Newcomb said and Peter
Dorico.
I also 100% agree witheverything they said.
You can figure it out, joe.
You're good, joe.
(59:42):
I told them I was going toheckle them in their
presentation and I did it.
Paula Johnson (59:51):
So I will say, let us please thank our
panelists again.
Jordan Brady Loewen-Colon (59:56):
The producers of this podcast were
Adam DJ Brett and Jordan LawnCologne.
Our intro and outro is socialdancing music by Oris Edwards
and Regis Cook.
This podcast is funded incollaboration with the Henry
Luce Foundation, SyracuseUniversity and Hendrix Chapel
and the Indigenous ValuesInitiative.
If you liked this episode,please check out our website and
(01:00:18):
make sure to subscribe.
Hello and welcome to the Mapping the
Doctrine of Discovery podcast.
The producers of this podcastwould like to acknowledge with
respect the onondogga nationfirekeepers of the Haudenosaune,
the Indigenous peoples on whoseancestral lands Syracuse
University now stands.
Paula Johnson (00:25):
Alright well it seems to me that we're here and
I don't want you all to lapseback into your being sleepy
again, so we gotta wake up andget started this morning.
Welcome back everybody to thisfantastic conference.
Again, I'm Paula Johnson.
(00:46):
We're the people I met lastyear, yesterday, and I teach
here at Syracuse University andteach at the College of Law, and
I've been so honored to be apart of this incredible
conference.
Someone who teaches in the law,I know that the subjects that
(01:08):
we've been talking about thisweekend are not as integrated
and infused within law schoolcourses as they ought to be, and
so I'm pleased that we're ableto add information and add a
sense of the imperative that allof these discussions be part of
(01:28):
what we learn in law school,and, for those of us who've
tried to do that, this is veryinspirational and supportive of
all of the athletes, and I hopethat we all find ways of
whatever work we're doing tomake sure that these issues,
these topics, are discussed andthat all the voices that we have
been hearing here this weekendare included in whatever areas
(01:51):
we teach work over our activismlives.
So let me introduce our panelthis morning.
Panelists this morning, this isa discussion on the aptly named
federal anti-Indian law and inthe order in which they will
(02:13):
speak, we have Peter D'Errico,who is online with us.
Professor D'Errico retired fromthe university at UMass in
August 2002.
He is a central figure in thedevelopment of the legal studies
(02:33):
department at UMass, hisresearch and teaching having
been focused on the legal issuesof Native Americans and
indigenous peoples.
He also has been active inlitigation of indigenous peoples
issues.
He is the author of federalanti-Indian law and he continues
to engage in law relatedwriting and consulting,
(02:55):
primarily on issues of concernto indigenous peoples, and he is
especially involved with Mashby, wampanoag and Western Cheshony
issues, as well as the work ofthe United Nations permanent
forum on indigenous issues.
So welcome, professor D'Errico,glad to have you with us.
(03:17):
We also have with us StevenNewcomb.
Professor Newcomb of theShawnee Lenape has co-founded
the indigenous law institute in1992 Birgil Kilstraight Kill
straight, who was a traditionalheadman and ceremonial leader of
(03:38):
the Lakota Nation Co-Denation.
Professor Newcomb is recognizedas one of the world's foremost
authorities on the doctrine ofdiscovery and is made evidence
by his law review articles andhis book Pagans in the Promised
Land decoding the doctrine ofChristian discovery.
He is also a producer of thedocumentary movie the Doctrine
(04:02):
Discovery Sedumory, unmaskingthe Domination Code which was
directed by Sheldon Wolfchild,based on the more Pagans in the
Promised Land.
So welcome to you, professorNewcomb.
And again we have our hometownexpert, Joseph J.
(04:23):
Heath.
Joe Heath has a long background, an extensive experience in
civil rights litigation, as oneof the four lawyers representing
unclassed action against NewYork state in the 1971 Attica
Prison Assaulted brutality whichresulted in a $12 million
settlement in 2000.
(04:43):
He is the Autodogga NationGeneral Counsel.
In his 45 years of practice,joe Heath has also worked in
criminal defense, constitutionallaw and protection of free
speech and assembly, protectionof abuse and the lack of
children, and fighting domesticand police violence, and he also
(05:04):
is an active member of Veteransfor Peace.
So each of our speakers willtalk to us for roughly 10
minutes and we hope to have timefor you afterwards to engage
with your questions and commentswith our panelists.
So, with no further ado, thenwe would invite our Professor
D'Errico to begin.
(05:24):
Professor Enrico, your response.
Peter D'Errico (05:30):
Thank you for that introduction and good
morning everyone.
It would be wonderful to besitting in that chair there next
to Steve and Joe, but I'mjoining you this way and I'm
happy to be able to do that.
I've had a connection over theyears to the folks at Syracuse
doing this important work and soglad to be here.
See ya.
(05:50):
In the few minutes that I haveright now this morning, I want
to make two major points.
First, just picking up on thecomment in the introduction
about this work being too littleinvolved in law schools, and I
think that's a major problem.
It seems to me that, just as aquick comparison, imagine that
(06:15):
we're back in the 1950s.
Some of us are old enough forthat, imagining and remembering.
Actually.
Imagine that the doctrine ofseparate but equal is still US
law and imagine that there areclasses being taught about it
and that it's basically beingpresented as a pretty good thing
.
It has some problems, but ofcourse everything has problems
(06:37):
and we have to work with what isgiven to us, because this is
the way law works and this isthe parallel to what's going on
right now with the entiredoctrine based on the Marshall
trilogy, which I'm sure all ofyou are familiar with, beginning
with Johnson v McIntosh andincluding Cherokee Nation v
(06:58):
Georgia and Worcester v Georgia.
All of that is being taught asif this is just an immutable
framework.
We have to reason within thisframework because it is given to
us as a law and then we go onand do that reasoning within
that framework.
That's what I see happening,not just in law schools.
I see it in articles, I see itin briefs that are filed in
(07:20):
cases in which this is simplypresented as it's the way it is
and we now are gonna try to workour way around in this maze and
figure out some way to makethis bad doctrine be a good
thing.
And we see it in even thehighest levels of the courts and
we see it applauded in themedia.
When the Brakeen v Holland casewas decided, within the first
(07:42):
three or four pages of thedecision, the court said the
basis of our decision is theplenary power of Congress.
It's bizarre to me.
If the problem of child welfarewere addressed without plenary
power, it would have a very easyniche in the entire global
framework of the HagueConvention on Intercountry
Adoption and there would be noproblem of indigenous children
(08:04):
being stolen, because all ofthese intercountry adoptions
happened according to the HagueConvention and all the things
people were worried about withwhy Iqwa was so important are
all covered in that framework,without anybody claiming plenary
power, and this is just somehowpasses by without commentary
(08:26):
and I think that's really aserious problem.
We have Joe de Goudy and theYakima nation to thank for
having been a major exception tothis.
I should say there have been ahandful of exceptions over the
last decades, but the majorexception of the Yakima nation
amicus brief in the Washingtonstate case V Cougar Den was a
(08:49):
frontal attack on this doctrineof domination called Christian
discovery, and only afterpresenting that did they go into
the discussion of the treaty.
And it was very clear that thecourt was put on notice.
The brief was cited at leastthree times, which is unusual
for any amicus brief.
(09:09):
The court was on notice that ifthey wanted to go down that
Christian discovery road theywere gonna be hit from all sides
by a very powerful antagonistin the form of the Yakima nation
amicus, and so they ducted it.
They cited the brief for itssecond section, which is about
the treaty, and on that basisthey upheld Yakima rights.
(09:29):
So it can be done, thechallenge can be made, and it
certainly ought to be being madein law schools.
So that's point number one.
The second point I wanna make isthat the parallel with this
failure to make the challenge isthe invisibility of what it is
that should be challenged.
The most recent example is theone happened right in New York
(09:53):
state last month when theMontaukett so-called
reinstatement bill was vetoed bythe governor.
Now the news coverage from theNew York times all the way to
Newsday and Long Island TVstations and the rest of it, the
coverage all focused on oh howhorribly racist.
This is because the governorrelied on a 1910 decision and a
(10:14):
1914 affirming of that decisionin which the two judges involved
made racist characterizationsof the Montaukett people.
Those that racistcharacterization is actually in
both of those opinions.
So it's not as if there isn'tracism involved, but the major
basis of the opinions was adoctrine of Christian discovery.
(10:35):
It was about land.
It was not about racialmiscegenation which was being,
which was tossed around in oneor two sentences.
It was the major bulk of the1910 decision which started out
by saying the issue here is thestatus of Montaukett land.
And how did the court answerthat question?
The court said the fee of theland is in England.
(10:58):
Now, if you know anything aboutChristian discovery law, you
know that's basic Christiandiscovery doctrine, that the
colonial powers acquiredownership of the continent and
the US has adopted that doctrine.
That's the Macintosh case, theJohnson v Macintosh.
Not a single paper that I saw,not a single news report went
(11:21):
anywhere near that.
They were all over themselveswith talking about racism.
Racism has become a kind offixation that it is the reason
for every wrong in the US.
It's a reason for everyinjustice and the real basis of
domination just passes bywithout anybody even apparently
seeing it.
So I think that these are thesetwo intertwined problems of
(11:46):
failure to raise the challengewhere it must be raised in law
schools and in courts, bylitigants, and the failure of
journalists and commentators tosee what it is that needs to be
challenged.
Even the legislators that werebehind the so-called
reinstatement bill didn't reallyunderstand it.
(12:07):
They referred the bill itselfreferred to the doctrine of
Christian discovery and itappointed it made was that the
Montaukets existed before thatdoctrine was imposed.
Well, that's absolutelyimportant.
From time immemorial, theMontaukets and all other native
peoples have been on thiscontinent without anybody
claiming plenary power over themor ownership of their lands.
(12:28):
But having said that, what didthe bill text do?
It said that under the doctrineof Christian discovery, new
York state doesn't have power todecide anything about Montauket
land.
It has to be Congress thatdecides that.
So this goes back to the firstthing I said is, instead of
challenging that doctrine, thebill authors said well, if we
(12:51):
use that doctrine we can find.
The little silver lining hereis that we have a stick that we
can whip New York with.
It ought to be the USgovernment that decides whether
the Montauket exists.
I'm wondering when would asingle commentator other than
the two people in the room withyou and on the panel and me,
probably two or three others, ifwe could take time to name them
(13:13):
would say wait a minute.
That doesn't really make sense.
You're saying that thedomination is okay as long as
the Congress does it.
It's not okay if New York statedoes it.
So the bill authors were awareof Christian discovery and
didn't know how to deal with it.
That's really unfortunate and Ithink that if we're going to
accomplish anything here and Imean here in our work, but also
(13:37):
here, even in a conference likethis there must be a way to move
beyond the fixation with theracism as the single explanation
for everything that's wrong andeverything that's going that
has gone wrong and the singlething that has to be fixed.
That's ultimately.
If we have those two pointsthat we can make here today,
(14:00):
then we will have accomplishedsomething.
Let's wake up in the lawschools and in the brief writing
to challenge what has to bechallenged and let's wake up in
journalism and commentators andlegislators to realize this is
the same point.
Here's what the target is.
Let's aim at the target.
And just to close out my fewminutes here, I'm not just
(14:23):
talking about making ahistorical, theoretical critique
in the case of the Montauk.
It is historical and it's onethat has current meaning.
But the doctrine of Christiandiscovery is not just something
that happened 200 and some 400and some years ago, because the
doctrine still goes on.
(14:44):
The doctrine is what is beingused by the US government to
take over the Apache land at OakFlat.
It's being used by the USgovernment to take over Western
Cheshonis and Paiute land atThacker Pass.
It's been used by the UnitedStates to disrupt Navajo nation
land resources and waterresources.
(15:04):
It's been used over and overagain in current time still
being used.
So we're talking about anactive battle and that, at least
, is enough to say enough.
Where are we going to stand andsay let's be clear about what's
going on here.
More than racism is going on.
There may be racism, there isracism, but that's not really
(15:28):
what the law is based on.
You can have a judge like RuthBader Ginsburg, whom I don't
think anybody ever said.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg had aracist bone in her body, but she
had no hesitation in 2005, inthe case involving the Oneida,
of saying right at the top ofher opinion, footnote number one
doctrine of discovery is whatwe are relying on here.
(15:49):
The Oneida have no ownership ofland because the monarchical
powers own it.
The colonial powers passed itto the states and the US adopted
it.
End of footnote number one.
That's 2005,.
That's a non-racist SupremeCourt judge Should be enough to
say I think we got a problemhere.
(16:10):
Let's look at it Now.
I don't know if I've used up 10minutes or not, but I've
probably said enough for a while.
Paula Johnson (16:18):
Thank you very much, Robert.
Thank you very much, ProfessorD'Errico.
We will come back to you.
We hope to be and have moreexchange with you with the
points that you've raised.
I'm going to next act with thenew.
Come to speak.
You have a nice day, Robert.
(16:56):
Shawnee greeting] it's good tobe with you all here and want to
acknowledge the Haudenosauneeand the Anandaga Nation on whose
territory we are having thisconvening.
I want to begin in the fewminutes that we have here to set
(17:17):
the context.
That context is the original,free and independent existence
of our nations and peoples,extending back to the beginning
of time through our oralhistories and oral traditions,
contrasted with the system ofdomination brought by ship
across the ocean and imposed oneveryone and everything.
Once we have that contrast,then we have a view from the
(17:41):
shore looking out at thosecolonizing, invading ships
coming toward our ancestors, andwe have the view from the ship
looking at our ancestors allthose centuries ago.
We're able to have that as agreat starting point for this
conversation.
Years ago, when I was workingout the ideas for my book Pagans
(18:04):
and the Promised Land, Icreated some language that I
think is helpful in this moment,this gathering.
This is talking about thesacred birthright of our
original nations and peoples.
Distinct and diverse indigenouspeoples are nations born of the
earth, the sacred life giverplaced by the creator, and
(18:27):
sacred relationship with ourrespective homelands and
territories.
Throughout time, our ancestorslived free and independent of
Western colonialism andsubjugation for an untold
succession of ages, until theempires of Christendom invaded
our region of earth, which iscommonly known in the
foreigner's tongue as theWestern Hemisphere.
(18:49):
Our ancestors bequeath to usthe gift of a sacred birthright,
which is our very being asnaturally existing nations and
peoples.
This sacred birthright iscomprised of our languages,
cultures, lands, deserts,mountains, forests and our
relatives, such as the buffalo,caribou, salmon, cedar, sage,
(19:11):
sweetgrass and corn pollen, aswell as our spiritual and
ceremonial traditions, our songsand sacred ceremonial places,
our oral histories and theburial places of our ancestors.
Our sacred birthright includesour minds, our philosophies, our
sciences, and our economicsystems and agricultural
(19:34):
practices.
It includes our petroglyphs andartifacts, and our sacred
birthright also includes therivers, streams, natural springs
, lakes, underground aquifers,seas, bays, inlets, oceans and
all bodies of water, theprecious and sacred liquid that
flows through the veins ofMother Earth and sustains all
(19:55):
life, without which the lifecannot continue.
And since I have limited time,I won't read the rest of that,
but I will say that it's thistype of understanding that goes
into that original, free andindependent existence of our
(20:15):
nations and peoples.
Our sacred birthright, which weshall never freely forfeit
includes the right to heal fromthe trauma of colonization and
to one day be free andindependent of all forms and
manner of colonial domination.
We have a solemn responsibilityto use every fiber and breath
(20:35):
of our being to uphold andprotect the sacred birthright of
our own children and youngpeople, for the benefit of our
future generations and for thebenefit of life.
Every spark that spirals intothe air from a ceremonial fire
represents the spiritual energyof the universe that burns in
(20:56):
each and every one of us.
We have the ability to combinetogether the fire of our
respective spiritual energy ashuman beings to become a
tremendous force of healing,cultural resurgence and
revitalization.
So, pardon me, the reason whyI'm opening like this, which
(21:17):
I've never done before, is thatI really want you to have a
deeper insight and understanding, to try to get us out of this
colonial mindset, this way inwhich our minds have been
conditioned into thiscolonizer's language, along the
lines of the domination system.
The things that Peter Duricohas just presented to you are so
(21:39):
critically important, but wehave to look at the nature of
language and the way in whichlanguage maintains reality.
It creates and maintains aparticular form of reality.
And as soon as we say aparticular word, then that
becomes the focal point of ourawareness and our consciousness
(21:59):
in a conversation, but we canjust as quickly switch to
something else and then suddenlythat becomes the focus, and so
the framing of how we'rediscussing all of these issues
is so crucial, and Marshall wasvery well aware of this when he
wrote the Johnson vs " ruling orany of those rulings.
All of those men were extremelyskilled in the use of language.
(22:24):
They understood metaphor.
They were some of the mosthighly intelligent people in
history.
We're not even supposed to behere today, let alone get this
deep into the colonial languageand so forth, but yet here we
are, and so I want to say thatit's so extraordinary to me.
In saying these followingremarks, I'm not going to be
(22:46):
criticizing the person I'm goingto mention right now, but I'm
going to make an observation.
Robert Jones has come out with anew book called the Roots of
White Supremacy.
It's been picked up by the NewYork Times, I think.
Maybe the Wall Street Journalcertainly Time Magazine, the
Guardian.
All these mainstreampublications are putting out all
(23:07):
this publicity about whitesupremacy as if they're not part
of that same system ofdomination that is perpetuating
all these harms for our nationsand peoples.
And so the reason I'm bringingthis up is how is it that
they're able to put all that outbut yet, at the same time, the
Christian heath and distinctionand the domination system is not
(23:29):
the central focus?
So in this article about theAlgonquin people that Peter
mentioned, what's the name ofthe people?
Peter Montaukett, montaukett,people, that part of it, even
that's right there, but yet it'snot there because it's not
being explicitly named.
(23:49):
And there's a wonderful book byRichard Brown, a Poetic for
Sociology.
It's fantastic.
I've been reading it for morethan 20 years, probably 30 years
, and I read it over and overagain.
And he makes this statement.
He says the thing itself,whatever thing it is, becomes
emergent in the process of beingnamed.
(24:12):
So when we name it it's there,as I said before, but then when
you don't name it, it's out offocus.
So you can have doctrine ofdiscovery over and over and over
again, but the domination isthere behind in the background,
but not in the foreground.
It only becomes explicit in theforeground when we name it and
then suddenly it's emergent, itemerges into our awareness and
(24:36):
becomes a focal point.
Now, some years ago, peterGrieco and I were talking about
the Tee-Hiton ruling from 1955.
And Peter very kindly sent methe file for the case, the
decision, but attached to thedecision where the filings from
(24:57):
the US government and theTee-Hiton people in Alaska.
I had never seen the filingsand I was so excited I said, oh
my gosh, look at this.
So I opened the US legal briefand I could have written it
because it had ChristianTee-Hiton, all the religious
focus, because that was the timeof the Eisenhower
(25:19):
administration, and it had apapal bull from 1344, 1344 and
1954.
And then it had the papal bullsfrom 1493.
It had the Christian Tee-Hitondifferentiation and the Cabot
Charter and all the variouscharters.
It's those US attorneys focusedin on exactly that language of
(25:43):
Christian, non-christian framingof the so-called doctrine of
discovery, which I prefer tocall the doctrine of domination.
That was the quote, unquotesmoking gun to show that this is
very much a biblical OldTestament narrative.
It's the use of Christianityagainst our nations and peoples
as a system of domination.
(26:04):
But until we call it that,until we make those explicit you
know those points explicit itwill not be evident.
So I also want to mention thatwith regard to the way in which
(26:25):
scholars tend to discuss thesethings.
There's an interestingphenomenon that happens.
So in the Johnson versusMacintosh ruling of 1823, chief
Justice Marshall makes this.
Well, he uses the Englishcharters to quote Christian
people, and he uses that overand over again.
(26:45):
He says notwithstanding theoccupancy of the natives, who
were heathens.
So there's your Christianheathen distinction.
As I already mentioned, scholarstend to say well, the doctrine
of discovery is the idea thatthe first Europeans to locate
non-European lands have theright of possession.
(27:07):
So now try to go back to thePable Bulls and find the word
Europe or European in there.
You can't find it, becausethat's a different worldview.
It's a time of a religiousempire, a religious worldview.
They weren't using ageographical place called Europe
and the people living therecalled Europeans to identify
folks from Christendom.
They were calling themChristians, which is the correct
(27:30):
name from their viewpoint.
And so that's crucial, becauseonce these scholars write things
like that, now you're oneremoved from the religious basis
of the whole thing.
And then you go even further,and then you use the color.
Not you, but anybody who writeslike this uses the color
(27:51):
spectrum, and then we're intowhite, black, yellow, red,
whatever kind of color is beingused to identify people.
So the metaphorical frameworkof the color spectrum is being
used as the overlay and thefocal point.
So now you're an additionalremoved.
So where are our nations andpeoples explicitly named in a
color spectrum racial framework?
(28:13):
There's a place for that,certainly to oppose racism and
those forms of domination aswell, but that's not this work,
and so I think that's crucial.
The last thing I want to say,and I'll hand it over to Joe, is
that last night we watched thepresentation amazing
presentation, the play there,and there was a point at which
(28:36):
the Oliphant decision from the1980s was mentioned and there
was a very simple way that thatcould have been summed up.
And there's a sentence in theJohnson ruling where Chief
Justice Marshall says theirrights to complete sovereignty
as independent nations werenecessarily, were necessarily
(28:56):
diminished by the originalfundamental principle.
That discovery gave title tothose who made it.
Chief Justice Rehnquist and theOliphant decision took that
sentence and modified it and hesays their rights to complete
sovereignty as independentnations are and he put the word
(29:17):
are in brackets necessarilydiminished period, close quote.
So not only did he modify thetimeframe to make it present day
and ongoing, but he removed theexplicit mention of the
Christian excuse me, theChristian discovery aspect of it
.
And I think these are thedeceptions that they're using.
(29:39):
What's cool and fantastic isthe fact that the Yakima Nation
legal brief Amicus brief fromthe Cougar Den case put the
Supreme Court on notice.
We know, and now they know thatwe know, and now they're
playing a game.
So you know, in the McGirtruling Peter Durico found that
(30:01):
the Gorsuch reference to USsovereignty and the property law
treatise of Emery Washburn from1864, when all Gorsuch did was
write the title and give you thecitation.
But when you go to the actualreference in the book, what does
it say?
The Christian nations of Europe.
So you're right back there andhe knew that.
(30:21):
Gorsuch knew that.
Why didn't you just cite it andquote it and make it explicit?
But that's the kind of gamethey're playing.
So thank you very much.
One issue Morning everyone.
Speaker 7 (30:48):
I am humbled to appear on the same panel with
these two geniuses Becauseeverything I say is going to
come from there.
If you do not have these twobooks and haven't studied them,
then you're not going to passthis course.
(31:09):
Steve's book, hades and thePromised Land if you read it,
reread it and understand theimportance of this concept of
domination, because that's oneof the things that Steve has
helped us understand.
And this book by Peter, whichis in the background of his
(31:31):
library when you see him, badgirl, anti-indian law prices and
brilliant.
So between the two of them, asI said, I'm humbled to be here.
This is a painting by OrrinLyons faithkeeper, orrin Lyons,
(31:52):
that depicts the creation of theConfederacy here on the shores
of Onondaga Lake, and Orrin iscertainly a graduate of this
institution that we have it'sbuildings named after him and it
(32:15):
reminds me that 59 years ago Itook classes in this building.
I didn't always make the eighto'clock, so I'm really
appreciative that you all arehere, but 59 years ago back then
this institution had a racistteam mascot called the Saltine
(32:39):
Warrior that was played.
I remember going to footballgames and watching a drunken
track boy in red paint come outand run around the field.
So we've come a little bit, weprogressed a little bit in those
60 years.
But let me get to trying totalk about what we're supposed
to do and we've heard a littlebit.
(33:04):
I'm going to focus primarily onthis artificial construct of
plenary power because it's socentral to how, to everything
that we just heard and I hope wesee that by the time I get done
and let's see the next slide.
(33:25):
So in introduction to Peter'sbook he talks about plenary
power and he says challengingChristian discovery in the
United States claims to allnative lands and to have plenary
power over native peopleproduces a metaphysical crisis
(33:48):
for America, our philosophy inthis building.
I have some memory of that.
Metaphysically, as one scholarsaid, if the federal government
exercises unrestrained powerover Indian nations, then we
have a different government thanwe think, a different kind of
government than we think we have.
And, as Steve said and as Petersaid, often judges won't admit
(34:18):
that they're basing theirdecisions on plenary power.
They often dodge around youbecause they don't want us to
understand that.
How extravagant those areMarshall's words.
So what does plenary mean?
This is not a word that we usein our daily discussions and
(34:42):
it's a very clever word becauseit doesn't really tell us how
all-encompassing it is.
But what it means is absolute.
Now, if all of thesediscussions always said absolute
power, we would understand itbetter.
They dodge around and useplenary power.
(35:06):
Most of you are familiar withthe McGurk decision.
I think it's three years agonow.
Most legal scholars justcouldn't get out of their own
way to grow about what awonderful decision this was, and
I certainly would prefer thedecision that we received to the
(35:28):
one that John Roberts wouldhave written.
If you read his minority, it'sa dissent because the concept
was the reservation created byCongress in Oklahoma still in
existence, and Roberts wouldhave said no, because settlers
(35:51):
have grabbed all the land.
That's what Roberts would havewritten.
So it's a good thing thatGorsuch who seems to be the one
justice, because he comes out ofthe ninth circuit, who
understands Indian law to acertain degree, that he wrote
this opinion and what he wrotewas that once Congress
establishes a reservation, itremains intact and that most of
(36:15):
Oklahoma is still Indianreservation.
But he never mentions thecentral foundation for that,
which is plenary power.
He doesn't use the word.
I've done word searches in hisdecision more than once.
You will not find the termplenary power.
(36:38):
Instead he says Congress longago ruled.
The Congress wields significantconstitutional authority.
There is no constitutionalauthority and you'll see that by
the time we finish when it cameto tribal relations possessing
even the authority to breach itsown promises and treaties.
(37:01):
Really slick way of notadmitting what he's trying to
say.
So what we have to do is wehave to look back.
He cites long look.
Long look was a 1905 decision.
Next slide, please.
Next slide.
(37:28):
So long.
Look was 1903.
Whenever you see an indigenouslaw decision from 100 years ago,
you should put it in your woodstore, because the amount of
racism and Christian dominancein every one of these decisions
(37:52):
is.
It's just shameful when we lookat it these days.
And so and this is how MarshalGorsuch brings plenary power
into his decision without changeBecause when we look back at
(38:13):
the opinion that he cites sofavorably, it says that we have
to understand that the Indiansheld their ancestral homeland
was only occupancy.
They never possessed it and itwas assumed that the United
States would govern suchconsiderations of justice as
(38:34):
would control a Christian peoplein their treatment of an
ignorant and dependent race.
And this is where he saysplenary authority over the
tribal relations of the Indianshas been exercised by Congress
from the beginning, and thepower has always seemed to be a
political one, not subject tocontrol in the traditional part
(38:55):
of government.
If any of you remember thequotes that I referred to
yesterday from Johnson versusMcIntosh about how Marshal was
trying to explain thisextravagant claim that he was
making, it's the same thing.
We have said this from thebeginning.
Therefore, it's our powerthat's the basis of plenary
(39:17):
power in Longwood.
And just briefly, to refer backto, peter mentioned the recent
unfortunate veto by GovernorHoco of the recognition of the
Montags In that veto message.
(39:38):
He refers back to, as Petermentioned, some 1910 decisions
that called the Montags shiplesswho served with whites, served
with whites and mixed with otherraces.
(39:59):
And then an appellate courtlooked at that decision and said
that the Montags were impairedby misogyny, particularly with
the Negro race.
So this is the kind of 100 yearold Christian dominant racism
that our courts and our governorkeep referring to.
(40:21):
Next slide, please.
And in Longwood the court wenton to say that it's power exists
to aggregate.
Now this is another word wedon't use in our normal thing.
It means just break, tear up.
(40:41):
So the power exists to tear upthe provisions of an Indian
treaty.
When, therefore, treaties wereentered into, it was never
doubted that the power to tearup existed in Congress and that
a contingency of such powermight be availed from the
contingency availed of fromconsideration of government.
(41:04):
In other words, the UnitedStates said we had our fingers
crossed behind our back when wesigned every one of those
treaties, when we stole all ofyour land.
We never intended to keep oneof those commitments and that's
why we can now understand whythere's such a trail of broken
(41:24):
treaties.
Next slide, please.
Here's another infamous decision.
And because it's where thecourt first articulates plenary
power.
We're not able to see in theConstitution any delegation of
(41:48):
power to enact a criminal lawfor Indians.
But this power arises not somuch from the Constitution.
So here's an admission there isno constitutional basis for
plenary power.
And at the ownership of thecountry, that's the basis of our
power.
We own the lands the Indiansnever did and the right of
exclusive sovereignty which mustexist in the national
(42:11):
government.
In other words, the nationalgovernment has sovereignty, but
Indian nations don't.
Next slide, please.
The lack of constitutionalbasis is so clear that Clarence
Thomas writes about it.
Now I can't believe that I'mquoting favorite people.
(42:33):
I won't finish that sentence.
But we don't need to go throughall of these and in at least
three different times, thomashas clearly said there is no
constitutional basis forClarence Thomas and therefore
all of our indigenous law isconcocted, which is exactly what
(42:58):
we need to understand and whywe're all here Because the
claims of Christian Dominion andthe right to own the land by
merely planting your flag.
You are with us today.
That's why, when we are down inOnondaga talking about how
(43:23):
we're going to get a thousandacres back three years after we
started that and we're stillinto it and how to doubt our
reflexes, they know how to takeour land.
They don't know how to give itback, and that's what we're
talking about the importance ofland.
I don't need to tell most ofyou this the importance of land
(43:47):
to indigenous nations andcultures.
And we have to keep working toget land back, as we all know,
and the way to do that is tokeep exposing and talking about
the doctrine of Christiandiscovery and domination and how
it is used.
Every day that a court getsnear an indigenous decision.
(44:10):
It's the basis of all of thislaw, because the property is so
important to the dominant court.
So I appreciate you'relistening today you have two
very, very important.
I would be remiss if I did notmention this last one, even
(44:30):
though we have been insulted inthe US courts one more, a couple
more, one more.
There we are.
So because the Onondaga nationhas been shabbily painfully
treated in the federal courtsand the land rights action was
(44:53):
thrown out before we even had achance to argue it because of
the doctrine of Christiandiscovery and domination, which
was in the first footnote inSherrill, which was used to
dismiss the Haudenosaunee andthe Onondaga land rights action.
As we explained yesterday,onondaga went into an
international forum, theorganizations of American states
(45:16):
, inter-american Commission onHuman Rights, and our petition,
after nine years now, hasfinally reached a stage where
the commission will rule on itsmerits and we anticipate a
ruling that the United States isgoing through three human
rights violations for allowingthe land to be stolen, for
(45:38):
allowing the land to be trashedenvironmentally and for having a
court system that has thisracist Christian dominant
nonsense and has no remedy fortreaty violation.
And that's how Onondaga iscontinuing that fight and we
will keep people advised that wekeep making progress.
(45:59):
So I'll get out of the waybecause we really ought to
benefit from Peter and Steve'swisdom as we move forward.
So thank you for listening.
Thank you very much, joe.
Paula Johnson (46:15):
Thank all of you for your presentation, chris.
Thank all of you for yourpresentations.
We do have a few moments leftto have discussion and questions
, so, if there are, please feelfree to raise your hands for any
questions that you have.
Speaker 8 (46:31):
Yes, yeah, I really appreciate all that you have
shared and it's prettymind-altering.
But we're in a pickle and I'mjust wondering, you know, in
order to provoke the thinking,to catapult ourselves out of
(46:53):
this reality that we're living,if I can present a perspective,
because inside what you'retalking about, the Christian
Christianity, the Christiandomination, is also the
domination over women, right,and so we hear a lot from the
(47:14):
men but rarely from the women,and so there's this subliminal
feeling that because I'm ahoodnushonian, I'm a crime
mother and because we're amacholynosurvity that follows
the mother.
It's almost like this battlebetween the mother and the
father, because Christianityalso wiped out the woman and
(47:36):
subjugated her under thepossession of a man.
So when I think about this andI think about who we are, as
hoodnushoni and as being amacholynio leader, I challenge
all of you If we're really thatunhappy with the process of the
legal fight, rescind your UScitizenship, get the hell out of
(47:57):
this country.
And we need a mass exodus outof this present reality that
we're living, that doesn'trecognize or give equal rights
to women, to children, to peopleof all various beliefs and
ethnic communities.
(48:19):
Make a mass exodus, takeeverybody with us.
Resind your US citizenship,resind your Canadian citizenship
, because inside the great lawof peace it says any man of any
nation and any woman who tracesits roots to the source is
allowed to take shelter beneaththere and ask for citizenship
(48:41):
under an Indian nation, as itshould have been in the
beginning.
And to me that would expel thisdominant Christian power because
it's ran so much habit in a lotof societies and continues to
do so.
So this is where the mothermeets the father, and the mother
(49:02):
takes the children with her,and it's because Christian
domination is so riddled withpatriarchy and I'm sorry to say
that, but it is and it's not totake away from the man, but it's
to remind him of who the motheris.
And so for me I propose this asa social and moral stand to all
(49:26):
of humanity is leave the UScountry, leave the dominant
European Christian power andtake shelter underneath the
mother, because there's a lot ofIndian nations here that follow
the mother, not the father.
And so I challenge you all toconsider that and think about
that, because if we continue toalways be in this, there's
(49:50):
always that underlying idea thatit's not only Christian
domination, it's male domination.
And so when we return thesacred to the mother, which we
call rematriation, notrepatriation, is that we awaken
to the true heart of who we arein our humanity, and so I just
(50:13):
want to put that on the floorand to propel our thinking
beyond what it is, because theunderlying title in
Haudenosaunee country is theland belongs to the women, to
the mothers, and the peacemakerleft that clearly when we
created the union of peace, andso we seem to continue to forget
(50:35):
that.
But anyways, I challenge all ofyou to think about that.
There is a process in the USsystem to rescind your US
citizenship and then come underan Indian nation and come under
the veil of peace and acceptancefor everybody in the world.
I just want to add that, steve,I said that to you before.
(50:57):
I really want you to thinkabout that, joe, because when we
get to land rights and thereason why there's so many
missing and murdered indigenouswomen is because they know that
the women are the land and theland is a woman.
So I just want to add that intoyour thinking, and maybe the
(51:18):
mother force be with you, thankyou.
Thank you so much.
Paula Johnson (51:23):
Would you like to say your name so that people
will?
Speaker 8 (51:27):
Mama Bear.
Paula Johnson (51:28):
Mama Bear.
Okay, thank you very much.
Did you have a comment to that?
Peter D'Errico (51:34):
I would like to say first say thank you for the
comments.
Two quick things.
One is you're advocating a kindof renunciation of US
citizenship, and it's in starkcontrast.
One of the things that I havepointed out again and again is
the foolishness, to put itmildly.
(51:56):
It's almost like a suicide actto constantly celebrate how many
native candidates are runningfor office, and the Democrats
and the Republicans and even theindependents are so-called
courting the native vote.
So not only is there not arenunciation, but there's
(52:16):
actually an embracing going onhere.
It's all part of theassimilation move.
It's exactly what the boardingschools were aimed to do to make
all these Indian childrenforget who they were and say oh,
you're just Americans now.
So now, 100 years after theboarding school, there's again a
kind of a popular mediacelebration of look how
(52:40):
assimilated it had been.
Now it's schizophrenic.
Clarence Thomas is right.
It's schizophrenic because someof these same people are
talking about oh, indian nationsare so important government to
government relationship.
At the same time, they'retaking steps to abolish that
independence.
Which brings me to just a realquick second thought is that you
(53:01):
talk about the structure oftraditional governments.
It's not accidental that whenthe government refers to
government to governmentrelationships.
It's not talking abouttraditional native governments.
It's talking about the imposedgovernments that were organized
under the Indian ReorganizationAct.
You think about that for aminute?
Indian Reorganization Act howdoes the US try to reorganize
(53:24):
native people's forms ofgovernment?
But that's what happened,that's what celebrated and again
, just like celebrating all thenative candidates, we celebrate
this thing called government togovernment and it's all quite
deceptive.
It needs to be called out.
One last little thought to helpyou remember.
I think what Steve and Joe didwas so important the defining of
(53:45):
the words that we use.
We don't use plenary ineveryday life, but when you say
plenary means absolute.
We don't use domination ineveryday language.
When you say that it helps toclarify what's really going on.
Using proper terminology,proper in the sense of actually
defining the words that we'reusing, is part of helping us to
(54:06):
wake up.
Thank you for your comment.
Paula Johnson (54:09):
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
I was just thinking, on thisissue of the law being
schizophrenic, that it wasrecently announced that the
lacrosse team from the whole ofMishon would be competing under
their own flag in the upcomingOlympics.
So it seems to me that adds anair of schizophrenia to one
(54:34):
relationship and the recognitionof decision, but at the same
time, having these sorts ofdecisions that continue to come
out in the ways that we've beentalking about and something
maybe to take note of.
Steven T. Newcomb (54:52):
Just keep in mind that.
Yes, clarence Thomas did saythat.
With regard to using themetaphor, I think we really need
to be mindful of these aremetaphors or comparisons,
analogies of schizophrenia.
At the same time, he's usingthat to attack the notion of
sovereignty in native nations.
(55:13):
So if you read the rest of thatsentence, then you'll see that
he's actually questioning thewhole attribution of sovereignty
to native nations, which that'sa much longer conversation,
because sovereignty itself,jonathan Haber-Proff defines
that as an unjust form ofpolitical domination that limits
(55:33):
human freedom.
So that's a whole otherconversation, just in that one
word alone.
Any other questions or comments.
Paula Johnson (55:43):
Do you have someone at the front?
Speaker 4 (55:45):
I'm just wondering so do you have a sense if
Assemblyman Thiel and SenatorPlumbo are going to make a sixth
run at getting that bill acrossthe governor's desk?
And do you have a sense if theyhave any understanding of the
depth of what they're talkingabout here?
(56:07):
Are they able to be advocateson doctrine and have this
conversation at that level?
Peter D'Errico (56:14):
No, no, if that, if you're asking me, I know I
don't think.
I think that they're.
They're talking verysuperficially when you think
about the so-called recognition.
It's just again.
Reverse some of these words andpick up what was just said
about US citizenship.
Do the Montaukett recognize theUS as the owner of their lands?
(56:37):
That's an equally important,more important question than
whether New York State quoterecognizes the Montaukett as
being quote in existence.
That's a very importantconversation to have about what
recognition means.
So anybody that's caught upwith talking about recognition
should put that in quotesrecognition, who's recognizing
(56:58):
whom?
And does it mean that what theUS federal anti-Indian law says
is that if the US doesn'trecognize you, you don't exist?
Well, I mean, that's veryinteresting, isn't it?
So that means if I don'trecognize the US, it doesn't
exist?
Oh, no, because I don't haveplanetary power.
So I don't think that there ispossible, given the kind of
(57:20):
conversation we're having today.
If this conversation isexpanded, then it's possible.
Some of the legislators I wroteto some of them, by the way,
commenting about this that ifthey really want to grapple with
this, they've got to do alittle more thinking than
they've been doing, although Ididn't put it so boldly as that.
Steven T. Newcomb (57:39):
I want to just quickly mention that
OriginalFreeNationscom is ourwebsite and redthoughtorg, which
former chairman of the ACMANation, joe DeGal, he put
together and Peter Derico and I.
Can you go back to that?
Yeah, originalfreenationscom,and we have a tremendous amount
(58:02):
of content on our website asOriginal Nations advocates and
the Indigenous Law Institute,but also redthoughtorg.
I think we have what Joe De 70hours or something.
I mean.
Certainly we got a lot on thereand it's Peter and Joe De and I
having these types ofinteractions over a very long
(58:26):
period of time and I thank JoeDe for having put that together
I just want to make sure Imentioned it, steve, also your
community slatter.
Oh, Peter Derico and I both havea sub-stat, so you can look at
that as well.
Paula Johnson (58:43):
Thank you.
We are just a minute before wehave to conclude.
There are other sessions thatare beginning in just a few
moments.
If we well, we have one handover here, and I think that
really needs to be our lastcomment before we can go ahead.
I just want to say thank you.
Speaker 3 (59:02):
I'm the mother of a Montaukian child, montauk, and
I'm an attorney, and I want tosay thank you for setting the
target in this battle.
I will forever be grateful tothe creator for being in this
space and being in this room andhearing the message and the
gift that we'll give to thestudents.
Thank you.
Paula Johnson (59:20):
Thank you.
Thank you, thank you.
Speaker 9 (59:22):
Thank you, joe De.
I just want I'll be remiss.
I can say this.
I disagree with everythingSteve Newcomb said and Peter
Dorico.
I also 100% agree witheverything they said.
You can figure it out, joe.
You're good, joe.
(59:42):
I told them I was going toheckle them in their
presentation and I did it.
Paula Johnson (59:51):
So I will say, let us please thank our
panelists again.
Jordan Brady Loewen-Colon (59:56):
The producers of this podcast were
Adam DJ Brett and Jordan LawnCologne.
Our intro and outro is socialdancing music by Oris Edwards
and Regis Cook.
This podcast is funded incollaboration with the Henry
Luce Foundation, SyracuseUniversity and Hendrix Chapel
and the Indigenous ValuesInitiative.
If you liked this episode,please check out our website and
(01:00:18):
make sure to subscribe.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.