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
How did the U.S. justify ‘ultimate dominion’ over Native nations and lands? This series examines the Doctrine of Discovery in Supreme Court rulings. Outcome.
Since the publication of Pagans in the Promised Land by Steven T. Newcomb (Shawnee/Lenape), scholarship on the Doctrine of Discovery has expanded significantly as a central issue in Indigenous law and politics. However, its implications remain underexamined in Religious Studies, Indigenous Studies, and legal scholarship. This article analyzes the matrix of enslavement, exploitation, and extraction that Newcomb identifies within settler-colonial systems and examines how scholars in Religious Studies, Legal Studies, and Indigenous Studies have engaged with the Doctrine of Discovery. Situating the Doctrine of Discovery within the broader analytical frameworks of enslavement, systemic violence, and religious imperialism reveals its deep entanglement with historic and legal structures of oppression. Examining its intersections with Religious Studies and postcolonial scholarship uncover how white Christian hegemony maintains its dominion and exposes the fragility of any perceived boundary between church and state.
Domination Chronicles examines Tee-Hit-Ton v. United States and the doctrine of Christian discovery as legal fiction serving racial segregation and land theft.
Steve Newcomb and Peter d’Errico analyze McGirt v. Oklahoma as a decision that both reveals and conceals U.S. domination in federal Indian law.
Newcomb and d’Errico examine how everyday words conceal domination and how careful language work can expose federal Indian law’s foundations.
Steve Newcomb and Peter d’Errico use quantum theory to rethink free existence, time, domination, and the assumptions behind colonial legal order.
Steve Newcomb and Peter d’Errico discuss a Supreme Court dissent that challenges plenary power and opens questions about federal domination over Native nations.
Steven Newcomb and Peter d’Errico connect Vine Deloria Jr., eminent domain, and contemporary legal scholarship to questions of Native free existence.
A Washington Supreme Court case used by Domination Chronicles to examine the limits of criticizing racist legal language while preserving domination doctrine.
A Washington Supreme Court concurrence criticizes racist language in federal Indian law while leaving deeper doctrines of domination in place.
Steven Newcomb and Peter d’Errico explore how symbols, monuments, seals, and public images participate in creating and preserving domination realities.
A 2025 Ninth Circuit decision that shows how Johnson v. McIntosh and sovereign immunity remain active in contemporary federal Indian law.
Steve Newcomb and Peter d’Errico examine Halverson v. Burgum and the way Johnson v. McIntosh continues to appear inside modern federal Indian law.
Steven Newcomb and Peter d’Errico begin a decades-long dialogue on domination, Johnson v. McIntosh, Christian discovery, and federal Indian law.
Steven Newcomb and Peter d’Errico introduce Domination Chronicles, a podcast focused on domination, discovery, law, language, and Indigenous free existence.