The so-called Doctrine of discovery has a long history. One of its most dramatic and consequential expressions was by the often reverentially invoked Chief Justice John Marshall. Himself a trader in slaves , Marshall supplied the initial rationale for the conquest of Indigenous Peoples in the 1823 Mc'Intosh case. Marshall, writing for the Court, voided a sale of land by a native tribe. Native tribes occupy lands, but are not entitled to the land, Marshall declared. The King of England acquired title by right of conquest, which passed to the United States upon independence. Title to land was derived from the sovereign. Therefore title to lands under purported grants to private individuals made by Indian tribes or nations northwest of the River Ohio in 1773 and 1775 cannot be "sustained" in the courts of the United States.
Indigenous peoples had the traditional right of occupancy but not exclusive possession - the key characteristic of sovereign ownership.The Vatican on March 30 [2023] formally repudiated the "Doctrine of Discovery," officially declaring that an historic policy used to justify colonial exploitation is "not part of the teaching of the Catholic Church." The rejection of the concept, which has been used to describe a collection of papal teachings dating back to the 15th century, comes after years of pressure from Indigenous groups and some government leaders, including Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. "In no uncertain terms, the Church's magisterium upholds the respect due to every human being," states a two-page text released jointly by the Vatican's Dicasteries for Culture and Education and Promoting Integral Human Development. "The Catholic Church therefore repudiates those concepts that fail to recognize the inherent human rights of indigenous peoples, including what has become known as the legal and political 'doctrine of discovery.' " The declaration acknowledges that some scholars believe the basis of the doctrine is rooted in papal documents, but states that the bulls were "written in a specific historical period and linked to political questions, [and] have never been considered expressions of the Catholic faith." At the same time, it states that the papal bulls "did not adequately reflect the equal dignity and rights of indigenous peoples" and that the they were "manipulated for political purposes by competing colonial powers in order to justify immoral acts against indigenous peoples that were carried out, at times, without opposition from ecclesiastical authorities."
No comments:
Post a Comment