Steven Newcomb: Tricking Indians out of land

Steven Newcomb: Tricking Indians out of landMonday, August 24, 2009Filed Under: Opinion "In an article published in “The Journal of Libertarian Studies” in 1983, Carl Watner examined the subject of American Indian land rights. He began with a quote from Rosalie Nichols, a fan of Ayn Rand. When asked “if the Indians had ever had a title deed to North America,” Nichols replied: “Who should have issued them one, I don’t know, unless it was the buffalo.”
Nichols’ response used ridicule as an effective and skillful technique for dehumanizing American Indians. This was accomplished by creating a red herring, or false issue: the impossibility of the buffalo having ever given a paper title deed to the Indians.
The comment also was no doubt intended to evoke the issue of literacy and the observation that most American Indian nations did not use a written language system prior to the Europeans arriving. The underlying assumption is that “intelligent” people (i.e., Europeans) use a written language, and since American Indian cultures in North America did not use a written language they were not “intelligent.”
By focusing the reader’s attention on the image of a title deed, a very specific kind of written document unknown to American Indian cultures, Watner skillfully avoided a much more general question: Did the Indians have an original right to the lands of North America? By not posing this question, Watner left a void where the question would have been.
If Watner had asked in a straightforward manner whether the American Indians had a right to the lands in North America where they had been living for thousands of years, the common sense answer would be an unequivocal “yes.”
But once that question had been answered, the answer would create a firm presumption that would need to be explained away before European land claims to the continent could make any sense."

Steven Newcomb: The Christian invasion 'right'

Steven Newcomb: The Christian invasion 'right'Friday, July 31, 2009Filed Under: Opinion "At its 76th General Convention in Anaheim, Calif., July 8 – 17, the Episcopal Church adopted a resolution entitled, “Repudiating the Doctrine of Discovery.” I’d like to discuss the significance of the resolution in relation to the efforts by indigenous nations to protect their sacred places. The Black Hills, Mt. Graham, the Go-Road in Northern California, Yucca Mountain and San Francisco Peaks are the most well known, but there are certainly many others throughout the continent.
Since they first arrived, Christian Europeans worked hard to cut the ties of indigenous nations to their traditional lands. Attacking their languages and ceremonial traditions in the name of Christianity was a key means of attempting to sever the ongoing spiritual relationship that indigenous nations maintained for many thousands of years with their most sacred places and territories.
Non-Indian court rulings have also significantly affected Indian nations. And the most foundational court decisions are historically grounded in the ancient view that Christians had the right to locate, invade and capture lands anywhere in the world, provided the lands were inhabited by non-Christians.
This religiously premised claim of a Right of Christian Invasion leads to an important question: “Is the ancient claim that Christians have the right to locate, invade and assume territorial dominion over the lands of non-Christian nations a legitimate source of U.S. law in the 21st century?” The answer from the Episcopal Church resolution is, “No, it isn’t a legitimate source of U.S. law.”"

Steven Newcomb: How to rid Indians of land

Steven Newcomb: How to rid Indians of landFriday, October 2, 2009Filed Under: Opinion "Alpheus Snow, in his book “The Administration of Dependencies,” examined “the Evolution of the Federal Empire” of the United States, “with Special Reference to Colonial Problems.” How to get Indian land has always been a central colonial issue for the United States. This is otherwise known as “the Indian problem,” or, how to get the land away from the Indian nations that first possessed it.
Territory is of critical importance to the colonial problem of the United States. Snow said that from the “earliest time” the meaning of the word “territory” had been disputed. Based on a number of Latin writers dating back to the Roman Empire, Snow traced the concept of “territory” to the Latin word “terreo,” “to hold a place in subjection through terror, or excessive fear.”
From this perspective, the more accurate spelling of “territory” would be “terror-tory,” meaning, “a region or place held under subjection or control through the use of terroristic force against the people.” A successful war of terror results in an expanded “terror-tory” (territory).
Snow said the double suffix “torium” resulted in the whole word “toritorim,” the literal meaning in Latin being, “a place pertaining to a person who holds in subjection through terror or excessive fear.” A toritorim is a place that is held “through awe, or dread.” The more benign and euphemistic sounding meaning would be, “a place subject to the exclusive control of a person (such as a Lord), or a political community.”
All this leads to a troubling but quite logical conclusion. Behind the “Doctrine of Discovery” and the claim of a unilateral U.S. “plenary power” over Indian nations is the claimed “right” of Christian terror-torial sovereignty. This can be characterized as the presumed right by a “Christian prince or people” to invasively use terroristic force against non-Christians (heathens and infidels)."