Repudiations
Repuidations of the Doctrine of Discovery by religious organizations and faith communities
Repuidations of the Doctrine of Discovery by religious organizations and faith communities
UC professors attempted to prevent repatriation of Kumeyaay Nation ancestral remains, invoking tribal sovereignty immunity doctrines.
Tee Hit Ton v. U.S. (1955) denied Native peoples compensation for lands taken by the U.S. government under the Doctrine of Discovery.
Teddy Roosevelt’s 1904 Monroe Doctrine Corollary asserted U.S. imperial dominion over the Western Hemisphere and its indigenous peoples.
Martin v. Waddell (1842) applied the Doctrine of Discovery to oyster beds, asserting European discovery gave absolute property rights.
The Monroe Doctrine (1823) extended U.S. claims of ‘ultimate dominion’ over the Western Hemisphere, following the Doctrine of Discovery.
The 1832 Worcester v. Georgia ruling protected Native nations from state laws, yet affirmed federal domination under the Doctrine of Discovery.
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 Fletcher v. Peck case examined whether the U.S. courts would recognize Indian title to land, and how colonial charters justified domination.
How did the U.S. justify ‘ultimate dominion’ over Native nations and lands? This series examines the Doctrine of Discovery in Supreme Court rulings.
Abstract Since the publication of Pagans in the Promised Land by Steven T. Newcomb (Shawnee/Lenape), scholarship on the Doctrine of Discovery has expanded si...
What is a way forward in the midst of the environmental and ecological crisis? How does religious studies engage with Indigenous Peoples? Philip P. Arnold...