Acknowledging the Doctrine of Christian Domination
Since the doctrine of discovery has been institutionalized in U.S. Indian law and policy for generations, including by the U.S. Supreme Court, the question a...
Since the doctrine of discovery has been institutionalized in U.S. Indian law and policy for generations, including by the U.S. Supreme Court, the question a...
In March 1992, at the Peace and the Planet Symposium in Eugene, Oregon, Steven T. Newcomb walked up to a table where Oglala Lakota educator Birgil Kills Stra...
Given that this interpretive work involves words and ideas, and not physical puzzle pieces, we as Native scholars face an interesting challenge: How do we ta...
Greetings Friends and Relatives, I’m excited to announce the roll out of paid subscriptions, which I declined to do for our first year. However, many of you ...
How did the U.S. justify ‘ultimate dominion’ over Native nations and lands? This series examines the Doctrine of Discovery in Supreme Court rulings.
The Fletcher v. Peck case examined whether the U.S. courts would recognize Indian title to land, and how colonial charters justified domination.
Cayuga Nation v. Pataki (2005) explored Haudenosaunee land claims and the suppressed 1922 Everett Report on Native treaty rights.
Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida (2010) examined equitable defenses used to bar Native land claims spanning centuries.
Onondaga Nation’s lawsuit to recover ancestral lands was dismissed using federal Indian law doctrines based on discovery and domination.
U.S. v. King Mountain Tobacco (2012) asserted federal excise tax authority over Yakama Nation based on plenary power doctrine.
In 1831, the Cherokee Nation sought Supreme Court protection from Georgia’s laws designed to annihilate their political existence.
The 1823 landmark Johnson v. McIntosh case established the Doctrine of Discovery as U.S. law, denying Native nations’ property rights.
The 1832 Worcester v. Georgia ruling protected Native nations from state laws, yet affirmed federal domination under the Doctrine of Discovery.
Martin v. Waddell (1842) applied the Doctrine of Discovery to oyster beds, asserting European discovery gave absolute property rights.
McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020) upheld Creek Nation jurisdiction while affirming federal plenary power based on the Doctrine of Discovery.
Teddy Roosevelt’s 1904 Monroe Doctrine Corollary asserted U.S. imperial dominion over the Western Hemisphere and its indigenous peoples.
Tee Hit Ton v. U.S. (1955) denied Native peoples compensation for lands taken by the U.S. government under the Doctrine of Discovery.
The Monroe Doctrine (1823) extended U.S. claims of ‘ultimate dominion’ over the Western Hemisphere, following the Doctrine of Discovery.
UC professors attempted to prevent repatriation of Kumeyaay Nation ancestral remains, invoking tribal sovereignty immunity doctrines.
Archbishop Cordileone said his ceremony was intended to drive out evil and defend the image of Serra.
Transcript PDF
The phrase “the doctrine of discovery” never appears in the 1823 Johnson v. McIntosh ruling. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote instead of “the right of disco...
Some Reflections for the Parliament of the World’s Religions in Chicago, Illinois, August 14-18, 2023
Decoding the Doctrine of Christian Discovery: A Wakaga Sovereignty Series is a multi-article initiative by the Wakaga Economic Development Group examining ho...
Join us for a deep dive into The Doctrine of Discovery film and uncover the hidden truths behind the Domination Code in our live Q&A session
From the Long March to Rome Gathering
On September 23, 2026, the Native American Rights Fund (NARF) filed an amicus curiae brief in the D.C. Circuit on behalf of the National Congress of American...
In response to the Papal Bulls issued
Steven Newcomb (Shawnee/Lenape) Prior to the invasion of this continent (“North America”) by representatives of the monarchs of Western Christendom, the orig...
Steven Newcomb (Shawnee/Lenape)
Newcomb, Steven T. “The Evidence of Christian Nationalism in Federal Indian Law: The Doctrine of Discovery, Johnson v. McIntosh, and Plenary Power.” NYU Rev....
Let us set the context for this discussion. The context begins with the free existence of our Native nations and peoples, extending back to the beginning of ...
What’s a 15th-century statement from a pope have to do with U.S. land policy today?
Joseph Story is regarded as a genius and a giant in the legal profession. His continuing influence on American law was demonstrated for me some years ago whe...
Whether the intent of domination expressed by that language is part of “official Church teachings” is irrelevant in my view. What is relevant is that, throug...
Significant aspects of this research were published in the New York University Review of Law & Social Change (Vol. 20, Number 2, 1993), “The Evidence of ...
In CounterPunch, Shawnee/Lenape scholar Steve Newcomb connects anti-blackness and racism to the domination and dehumanization of the Doctrine of Discovery.
📄 Download as a PDF
As bizarre as it may seem, today’s federal definitions of Indian title and Indian nationhood find their basis in the Old Testament covenant tradition. This t...
The first Christian people to locate lands inhabited by non-Christians (‘infidels, heathens, and savages’) claimed the right to assert a right of domination ...
A Screening Of The Domination Code followed by an incredible panel discussion with Sheldon Wolfchild (Dakota), Steven Newcomb (Shawnee/Lenape), Buffy Sainte ...