Sunday, March 15, 2020

The Deplorable Doctrine of Discovery

Even though it dates back to 1452, until fairly recently I had never heard of the Doctrine of Discovery (DofD)—and perhaps most Americans are largely unaware of that deplorable doctrine. Please think with me now about what the DofD is and why it is so deplorable.  
The Basis of the DofD

In June 1452, Nicholas V, the Catholic Pope (reigned 1447~55), issued a papal bull (public decree) under the title Dum Diversas. It primarily authorized King Afonso V of Portugal to conquer and subjugate Muslims and “pagans.”
Specifically, the Pope granted the Portuguese king permission
to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens [Arab Muslims] and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, . . . and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery . . . .
As it was issued less than a year before the Fall of Constantinople in 1453, the bull may have been intended to begin another crusade against the Ottoman Empire. (The crusade did not develop, however, and the capital of the Roman Empire established in 330 fell to the Turks and the Empire ended.)
The papal bull, however, was used by Portugal to begin taking slaves from Africa and then for subjugating indigenous people in the “new world.”
The DofD and Manifest Destiny
Some who have recently written about the Doctrine of Discovery say that it is so deplorable because of its use to subjugate and oppress Native Americans in what is now the USA.
The mistreatment of Natives by the Spanish in what is now Texas and the southwest part of the U.S. and the same sort of mistreatment by the French in Florida and Louisiana was, no doubt, partly because of the Doctrine of Discovery.
But those parts of the U.S. were then incorporated in various ways into the U.S. by a government almost completely controlled by WASPS who were opponents of Catholicism.
The Puritans were Christians in England who sought to purify the Church of England from Catholic practices, and after coming to “New England,” they sought to do in the “new world” what they couldn’t do in England.
The Puritan attitude toward the Native people, however, was very similar to that expressed in the Doctrine of Discovery, and from 1630 on, the spirit of triumphal conquest found in the DofD was later justified by the concept of Manifest Destiny.
It was under the overarching idea of Manifest Destiny that the Natives of North America were abused and exploited in much the same way that the indigenous peoples of Central and South America had been subjugated by conquistadors from Catholic countries based on the DofD .
The intention of both the Doctrine of Discovery and of Manifest Destiny was to subject Indigenous peoples to the rule of white European and/or Anglo-Saxon “Christians.”
What Can We Do Now?
Perhaps the first task is to learn about how terribly destructive the implementation of the Doctrine of Discovery and of Manifest Destiny was for Native Americans.
There are Christians who have in recent years been writing about the evils of the DofD. Mennonite Church USA, for example,  has since 2014 been working on resources for “dismantling” the DofD. (Check out their DofD website here.)
In 2016 the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) responded to a 68-page report on the DofD by repudiating the Doctrine, labeling it as heresy and lamenting the pain it has caused.
Mark Charles
One of the authors of the CRC report is Mark Charles, who is half Native American and half Dutch American. He and Soong-Chan Rah are the authors of a book on the subject I highly recommend: Unsettling Truths: The Ongoing, Dehumanizing Legacy of the Doctrine of Discovery (Nov. 2019). 
The authors conclude that “our only path to healing is through lament and learning how to accept some very unsettling truths” (p. 206).  
But in addition to learning and lamenting, surely there is a need for confessing, repenting, apologizing, and determining to engage with others in seeking to dismantle the deplorable Doctrine of Discovery.
What will you do?
* * * * *
Addendum
In the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2010, of all things, there is an apology to the Native Americans in the U.S.  Section 8113 of that Act, which was passed into law by Congress in Dec. 2009, states
that the United States, acting through Congress: (1) recognizes that there have been years of official depredations, ill-conceived policies, and the breaking of covenants by the federal government regarding Indian tribes; (2) apologizes on behalf of the people of the United States to all Native Peoples for the many instances of violence, maltreatment, and neglect inflicted upon them by U.S. citizens; (3) urges the President to acknowledge such wrongs; and (4) commends state governments that have begun reconciliation efforts and encourages all state governments to work toward reconciling their relationships with Indian tribes within their boundaries.
Unfortunately, that apology received hardly any press coverage and was largely overlooked by the President. (Charles & Rah discuss this matter on pages 190~4 of Unsettling Truths.)

20 comments:

  1. Leroy, thanks for an important blog. I learned about the DOD from my Chicamauga Cherokee friends in the Mid-American Indian Fellowships (MAIF), but there are other sources, too. One other blog I follow is that of the Christian Hegemony Project whose web site is written by Paul Kivel (well-known author, teacher, and activist on social justice matters).

    In one blog on "The Doctrine of Discovery, Manifest Destiny, and American Exceptionalism, (https://christianhegemony.org/the-doctrine-of-discovery-manifest-destiny-and-american-exceptionalism)," Kivel notes that one related potential biblical legitimation for such doctrines is Matthew 28: 19-20, the so-called "Great Commission." He is careful to imply that his concern is with Christian interpretations of this verse not Jesus' intended meaning: "Christians have read this statement as God's mandate to convert the world to Christianity so that the millennium could begin."

    To the degree that Christian biblical interpretation shapes insiders' as well as outsiders' perceptions of the Christian movement's purpose, learning to be cautious about what people say the Bible "means" might well be added to the list of things that we should do.

    Oh, and by the way, I could not get your link to the "68 page report" of the CRC to open. I'd like to see it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Milton, thanks so much for your comments and for introducing me to Paul Kivel and the Christian Hegemony Project; I had not known about him or his "Project."

      His article on the DofD, Manifest Destiny, and American Exceptionalism was quite good, I thought, and certainly much more extensive than my relatively short blog posting.

      What Kivel wrote in criticism of Christianity is, it seems to me, primarily a legitimate criticism of Christendom/Christianism, which I wrote about earlier this month. I strongly disagree that he properly deals with what Christianity was in the beginning, what it has been, at least in part, through the centuries, and what it is now when it is not a part of Christendom or Christianism.

      I strongly disagree with his implementation that all Christians interpret the Great Commission as he describes: "It is the theological foundation for Christian evangelism, Crusades, and the Doctrine of Discovery. Christians have read this statement as God’s mandate to convert the world to Christianity so that the millennium could begin."

      While it is true that the Great Commission has been interpreted and used in that way by some Christians and by Christendom/Christianism, certainly many other Christians have taken Jesus' words "teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you" very seriously and have sought to share Jesus' message of love and acceptance that is absolutely opposed to the Doctrine of Discovery.

      Delete
    2. Oh, and I forgot to say that, thanks to you, the link to the CRC report now works.

      Delete
  2. First, by the time I read today's blog, the link to the CRC report was working. It is an interesting read.

    Did the DofD do much more than divide up imperial territories, especially so that Portugal and Spain could decide who conquered what? As we discussed a couple of blogs ago, Constantine changed Christianity when he had that dream and began conquering under the cross. Imperial Christianity was imposed on a "love" Christianity. Where in the Sermon on the Mount was a call to organize a literal army to go out and conquer? It is the way of the world for "us" to go conquer "them." A kingdom that spreads like mustard seed is something quite different. Winning souls with good news has been drowned out by the stomp of marching boots. I wonder how well those marching boots will do against the new "us" of novel corona virus as it stomps across the new "them" of humanity?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Craig, I much appreciate your comments, which are very much in line with the response I just posted (above) to Milton.

      Not only is there nowhere in the Sermon on the Mount calling for a literal army to go out and conquer, that certainly is not in the Great Commission either.

      Delete
  3. Here are comments from Thinking Friend Eric Dollard in Chicago:

    "Thanks, Leroy, for bring the Doctrine of Discovery to our (or at least my) attention.

    "One concrete step we could take as a nation is to return lands, now in federal hands, to their original owners, the Native American tribes. Among other advantages, it would make it much harder for cattle ranchers, such as the Bundys, to claim these lands as their own."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Eric, for your suggestion about a "concrete step."

      Along that line, I found this article posted earlier this month: "The case for transferring federal lands back to Native Americans" (https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/486177-the-case-for-transferring-federal-lands-back-to-native-americans).

      Delete
  4. A pertinent comment from Thinking Friend Glenn Hinson in Kentucky:

    "The Church and the nation need to repent not simply in word but also in deed. We should take seriously the demand for reparations."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Dr. Hinson, for bringing up the matter of reparations. While I think that the demand by (some) African-Americans for reparations needs to be taken seriously, it seems to me that the call for reparations for Native Americans is even more compelling.

      Delete
  5. Dickson Yagi, a Thinking Friend originally from Hawaii, my long-time colleague at Seinan Gakuin University, and who now lives in California writes:

    "Thanks for this writing. Best insightful summary of the Doctrine of Discovery I have seen. The prejudice, theft and mass murder it represents encompass also Ainu in Japan, native Hawaiians. and natives of Australia."

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thinking Friend Glen Davis in Canada wrote, "I was interested to read your blog on DoD," and then he included a link about how the Presbyterian Church in Canada addressed this issue at their 2019 General Assembly.

    Among other things,

    "Doctrine of Discovery Presentation – Doctrine of Discovery Research

    "The Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s 96 Calls to Action, include No. 49 that calls on the churches to repudiate concepts used to justify European sovereignty over Indigenous lands and peoples, such as the Doctrine of Discovery and 'terra nullius'. Justice Ministries has been tasked with this work for our church. They asked the Archives staff to go through the A&Ps and the WMS annual reports to find any examples/quotations where the church:
    - consciously presumed the superiority of European culture (language, traditions, religion, etc.) over Indigenous culture; - consciously described Indigenous people and culture as inferior; - expressed the views that assimilation into 'European” or Western' culture is the only way to be 'Christ-like'; and - believed that the success of mission was understood by the degree to which Indigenous people were 'civilized'.”

    ReplyDelete
  7. Here is part of an email from Thinking Friend Virginia Belk in New Mexico:

    "Earlier, you and I discussed the change from celebrating Columbus Day to celebrating Indigenous People's day. In my work with Navajo/Diné children, I never varnished the truths of their history nor my white roots' prejudiced actions; my reading aloud and conducting follow up worksheets and writing techniques, I included "The Long Walk" atrocities. I continue to try to educate, affirm and nurture the multicultural beauty of humanity.

    . . . .

    "While I learned about Manifest Destiny in sixth grade and was made aware of covert government policy early in my doctoral studies prior to 1990, I was unfamiliar with the title Doctrine of Discovery until very recently. To discover that it originated with a Roman Catholic pope was disconcerting but enlightening. . . ."

    ReplyDelete
  8. Marilyn Peot, a local Thinking who is also a Catholic Sister and my personal friend, sent these brief comments this morning:

    "The DofD sickens me and causes me deep sorrow.
    What a Lenten call to honesty and hope-filled action for our future!
    I believe the Spirit is a-movin' -- and healing is still possible."

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Isn’t it something that in all those years of education, when we were taught that Columbus 'discovered' North America, that we heard nothing about the Doctrine?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. [corrected]

      The first sentence of Mark Charles's book, “Unsettling Truths – The Ongoing Dehumanizing Legacy of the Doctrine of Discovery,” reads: “You cannot discover lands already inhabited.”

      As a schoolboy, I heard much about Columbus discovering America, but not only did I not hear anything about the DofD, unlike Virginia (cited above) who was in the same college graduating class as June and me, I don't ever remember hearing anything about Manifest Destiny during all the years of my formal education.

      Delete
  10. A relatively new Thinking Friend, Steven Kunkel, who self-identifies as a Gospel Infusionist in Japan posted comments here, but as they were mostly about an unrelated matter, I am just sharing a part of what he wrote and will respond directly with him about the other matter.

    "This is a very helpful and logical argument in this post and I could say a lot of them have been good to understand. . . . Blessings and looking forward for the next article. S.K.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I was glad to see this in the news this morning (3/31/23):

    VATICAN CITY (AP) — The Vatican on Thursday (March 30) responded to Indigenous demands and formally repudiated the “Doctrine of Discovery,” the theories backed by 15th-century “papal bulls” that legitimized the colonial-era seizure of Native lands and form the basis of some property laws today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2023/03/30/230330b.html (see nos. 6 and 7 for most direct statements)

      Delete
    2. Thanks for adding this information, J.P.

      Delete
  12. Here is the link to an important statement about this issue posted by the Parliament of the World’s Religions on April 5, 2023:
    https://parliamentofreligions.org/indigenous-peoples/official-statement-on-vatican-repudiation-of-the-doctrine-of-discovery/

    ReplyDelete