A story recently reported around the world as if it were breaking news is only newsworthy for unreported reasons..On March 30, the Vatican, responding to years of indigenous demands, again formally repudiated the Doctrine of Discovery (DoD), the political ideology said to be backed by 15th-century papal bulls, decrees that have been interpreted as legitimizing the colonial-era seizure of aboriginal lands and still forming the basis of property law in some jurisdictions..A short statement from the Holy See once more claimed the DoD “… is not part of the teaching of the Catholic Church. Historical research clearly demonstrates that the papal documents in question [bulls], written in a specific historical period and linked to political questions, have never been considered expressions of the Catholic faith…..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 joint statement also said “Numerous and repeated statements by the church and the Popes uphold the rights of indigenous peoples. For example, in the 1537 Bull Sublimis Deus, Pope Paul III wrote, “We define and … the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the Christian faith; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect”..In short, the Vatican argued if any institution or group enslaved, disenfranchised, or took land or other property from the indigenous people of the world, this was contrary to the teachings and policies of the Roman Catholic Church..The Vatican could have used additional evidence to support the 1537 Bull in reference to Canada. In 1534, French explorer Jacques Cartier, acting on behalf of King Francis I, nullified the papal bulls by claiming Canada for the French monarchy..If this were not enough, also in 1534, the bulls were pushed further down the dustbin of history by the Act of Supremacy that declared King Henry VIII Supreme Head of the Church in England, replacing the Pope. No Pope, no papal bulls..Legally, logically, and historically all this means neither the establishment nor repudiation of the DoD had much to do with the Roman Catholic Church, thereby rendering its renunciation gratuitous virtue-signaling at most..So where did the Doctrine come from? At most it was an informal political concept used for centuries to justify European and other colonial adventures. Much later, the DoD was incorporated into U.S. national law. In Johnson v. M’Intosh — an 1823 Supreme Court decision related to a dispute over a parcel of Piankeshaw land in what is now Illinois — the court found aboriginal Americans had no land rights because of the supremacy of the doctrine..The doctrine was last cited in a 2005 Supreme Court decision involving the Oneida Indian Nation, written by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg..But it was never part of Canadian jurisprudence. The Supreme Court of Canada even stated in 2014 “the doctrine of terra nullius [that no one owned the land prior to European assertion of sovereignty] never applied in Canada, as confirmed by the Royal Proclamation of 1763.”.So, if the DoD never applied to Canada, what was the motive for presuming it needed contemporary renunciation? As I argued elsewhere, “The motives behind this anti-conquest, anti-colonization movement are a desire for the return of indigenous lands, more indigenous sovereignty, and financial reparations for the loss of both.”.This is clearly seen in the immediate misinterpreted responses to the repudiation by indigenous leaders. Phil Fontaine, a former national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, said the statement was "wonderful," resolved an outstanding issue, and now puts the matter to civil authorities to revise property laws that cite the doctrine. Meanwhile, Konrad Sioui, the former grand chief of the Huron-Wendat Nation, said he had long hoped the Vatican would repudiate the DoD.."This news is something we've been waiting for," he said. "This answer of the church today gives us all the hope we need because we've been deprived of our lands through this very [Doctrine].".Like the DoD, contemporary indigenous land claims are also rooted in historical amnesia. Despite the existence in law and fact of fee simple land ownership, all of Canada, including the treaty lands of indigenous peoples held in trust on their behalf, has belonged to the British Crown since the days of John Cabot. According to the World Atlas:.“The land of Canada is solely owned by Queen Elizabeth II [and now Charles III] who is also the head of state. Only 9.7% of the total land is privately owned [but subject to many laws and restriction included possible expropriation by the state acting on behalf of the Crown] while the rest is Crown land. The land is administered on behalf of the Crown by various agencies or departments of the government of Canada. The Canadian Act has no provision for any Canadian to own physical land in Canada. Canadians can only own an interest in an estate.”.If it teaches us anything, the Vatican statement once again verifies American philosopher George Santayana’s famous observation “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”.And we are surely repeating nonstop everything having to do with indigenous issues even though such repetition is doing precious little to raise the life chances of ordinary aboriginal people..Hymie Rubenstein is editor of The REAL Indigenous Issues newsletter and a retired professor of anthropology, the University of Manitoba
A story recently reported around the world as if it were breaking news is only newsworthy for unreported reasons..On March 30, the Vatican, responding to years of indigenous demands, again formally repudiated the Doctrine of Discovery (DoD), the political ideology said to be backed by 15th-century papal bulls, decrees that have been interpreted as legitimizing the colonial-era seizure of aboriginal lands and still forming the basis of property law in some jurisdictions..A short statement from the Holy See once more claimed the DoD “… is not part of the teaching of the Catholic Church. Historical research clearly demonstrates that the papal documents in question [bulls], written in a specific historical period and linked to political questions, have never been considered expressions of the Catholic faith…..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 joint statement also said “Numerous and repeated statements by the church and the Popes uphold the rights of indigenous peoples. For example, in the 1537 Bull Sublimis Deus, Pope Paul III wrote, “We define and … the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the Christian faith; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect”..In short, the Vatican argued if any institution or group enslaved, disenfranchised, or took land or other property from the indigenous people of the world, this was contrary to the teachings and policies of the Roman Catholic Church..The Vatican could have used additional evidence to support the 1537 Bull in reference to Canada. In 1534, French explorer Jacques Cartier, acting on behalf of King Francis I, nullified the papal bulls by claiming Canada for the French monarchy..If this were not enough, also in 1534, the bulls were pushed further down the dustbin of history by the Act of Supremacy that declared King Henry VIII Supreme Head of the Church in England, replacing the Pope. No Pope, no papal bulls..Legally, logically, and historically all this means neither the establishment nor repudiation of the DoD had much to do with the Roman Catholic Church, thereby rendering its renunciation gratuitous virtue-signaling at most..So where did the Doctrine come from? At most it was an informal political concept used for centuries to justify European and other colonial adventures. Much later, the DoD was incorporated into U.S. national law. In Johnson v. M’Intosh — an 1823 Supreme Court decision related to a dispute over a parcel of Piankeshaw land in what is now Illinois — the court found aboriginal Americans had no land rights because of the supremacy of the doctrine..The doctrine was last cited in a 2005 Supreme Court decision involving the Oneida Indian Nation, written by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg..But it was never part of Canadian jurisprudence. The Supreme Court of Canada even stated in 2014 “the doctrine of terra nullius [that no one owned the land prior to European assertion of sovereignty] never applied in Canada, as confirmed by the Royal Proclamation of 1763.”.So, if the DoD never applied to Canada, what was the motive for presuming it needed contemporary renunciation? As I argued elsewhere, “The motives behind this anti-conquest, anti-colonization movement are a desire for the return of indigenous lands, more indigenous sovereignty, and financial reparations for the loss of both.”.This is clearly seen in the immediate misinterpreted responses to the repudiation by indigenous leaders. Phil Fontaine, a former national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, said the statement was "wonderful," resolved an outstanding issue, and now puts the matter to civil authorities to revise property laws that cite the doctrine. Meanwhile, Konrad Sioui, the former grand chief of the Huron-Wendat Nation, said he had long hoped the Vatican would repudiate the DoD.."This news is something we've been waiting for," he said. "This answer of the church today gives us all the hope we need because we've been deprived of our lands through this very [Doctrine].".Like the DoD, contemporary indigenous land claims are also rooted in historical amnesia. Despite the existence in law and fact of fee simple land ownership, all of Canada, including the treaty lands of indigenous peoples held in trust on their behalf, has belonged to the British Crown since the days of John Cabot. According to the World Atlas:.“The land of Canada is solely owned by Queen Elizabeth II [and now Charles III] who is also the head of state. Only 9.7% of the total land is privately owned [but subject to many laws and restriction included possible expropriation by the state acting on behalf of the Crown] while the rest is Crown land. The land is administered on behalf of the Crown by various agencies or departments of the government of Canada. The Canadian Act has no provision for any Canadian to own physical land in Canada. Canadians can only own an interest in an estate.”.If it teaches us anything, the Vatican statement once again verifies American philosopher George Santayana’s famous observation “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”.And we are surely repeating nonstop everything having to do with indigenous issues even though such repetition is doing precious little to raise the life chances of ordinary aboriginal people..Hymie Rubenstein is editor of The REAL Indigenous Issues newsletter and a retired professor of anthropology, the University of Manitoba
