Readings
From the bull "Romanus
Pontifex" issued by Pope Nicholas V in 1452 Pope Nicholas V to King
Alfonso V of Portugal
... [W]e bestow suitable favors and special graces on those Catholic kings and princes, ... athletes and intrepid champions of the Christian faith ... to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens [an archaic term for Muslims] and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and ... to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate ... possessions, and goods, and to convert them to ... their use and profit …”[i]
From the papal
bull "Inter caetera" issued by Pope Alexander VI
“ We have indeed learned that you, who for a long time had intended to seek out and discover certain islands and mainlands remote and unknown and not hitherto discovered by others, to the end that you might bring to the worship of our Redeemer and the profession of the Catholic faith their residents and inhabitants, …you, with the wish to fulfill your desire, chose our beloved son, Christopher Columbus, a man assuredly worthy …with divine aid and with the utmost diligence sailing in the ocean sea, discovered certain very remote islands and even mainlands that hitherto had not been discovered by others; wherein dwell very many peoples living in peace, and, as reported, going unclothed, and not eating flesh. …. In the islands and countries already discovered are found gold, spices, and very many other precious things of divers kinds and qualities. … you have purposed with the favor of divine clemency to bring under your sway the said mainlands and islands with their residents and inhabitants and to bring them to the Catholic faith."
Sermon
Sometimes I forget how radical Universalism really is; this
idea that, “God’s love embraces the whole human race,” seems like
common sense to me. But lately when I’m watching the news I hear people hinting
at the idea, or even saying outright, that some people are more valuable than
others. Universalism was radical hundreds of years ago when it proposed that we
humans were not divided into those who are elect, and the rest of us who are doomed
to an eternity of hellfire; Instead Universalists believed that we are all were
beloved by God. Though the language has changed, this duality of the elect and
the doomed, the worthy and the unworthy is not just some historic notion from
the days of Calvin, it is woven into our society, and into our laws even today.
And we who stand in the Universalist tradition must respond.
The Doctrine of Discovery is a principle of international law
dating from the late 15th century. It has its roots in the decree issued by
Pope Nicholas V [read by Kelly earlier] that specifically sanctioned and
promoted the conquest, colonization, and exploitation of non-Christian
territories and peoples: “ to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue
and ... to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery” and then to “appropriate”
(that is to say steal) all their lands and goods for the profit of the King of
Portugal.[ii]
After Columbus returned from America, the King and Queen of
Spain went to the Pope Alexander and asked for clarification about which lands
could be claimed by Spain and which by Portugal. The pope, responded with 3
papal bulls, [a portion of which Kelly read earlier]. He reasons that since the
inhabitants were not Christian, did not dress like Europeans, and appeared to
be pesco-vegetarians, and since there were plenty of “gold, spices, and very
many other precious things” for the taking, the Pope would gave the Spanish rulers “divine
clemency to bring under your sway the said mainlands and islands with their
residents and inhabitants.” And so with these words the Pope gives the Catholic
kings of Spain claim to the entire “New World” and he gives Africa and India to
Portugal. In just a few pages the Popes of European Christianity wiped out tens
of thousands years of prior claim by native nations.
The principles found in those papal bulls became enshrined in
US law in the 1823 United States Supreme Court decision of Johnson v. McIntosh.
It seems that in 1773 and 1775 Thomas Johnson bought land from Piankeshaw
Indian tribes. Then in 1818, William M'Intosh bought the same land from the
United States Congress. When they realized this, Johnson's heirs sued M'Intosh
in the United States District Court to recover the land. The District Court
ruled for M'Intosh, reasoning that M'Intosh's title was valid since it was
granted by Congress; the Piankeshaw could not legally sell the land because
they never “owned” it.
The Supreme Court upheld the finding for M'Intosh, ruling
that individuals could not buy land directly from American Indians because the United States
government had acquired ultimate title to Indian lands through the "doctrine of discovery."
Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in his opinion that European nations had
assumed "ultimate dominion" over the lands of America under the
Doctrine of Discovery, and that upon "discovery" the Indians lost
"their rights to complete sovereignty, as independent nations," and
retained only a right of "occupancy" in their lands. Supreme Court Justice
Joseph Story wrote, "As infidels, heathens, and savages, they (the
Indians) were not allowed to possess the prerogatives belonging to absolute,
sovereign and independent nations."
The Court concluded that European and U.S.
practice treated American Indians "as an inferior race of people, without
the privileges of citizens, and under the perpetual protection and pupilage of
the government."[iii] Chief
Oren Lyons says of the Johnson v M’Intosh decision “this is where they
installed it in US Law”
There is no question this is one of the most disturbing parts
of our history as a nation. It is so disturbing, in fact, that the mind rejects
it. Or rationalizes it. Because everyone was doing it, right? During the period
of history when Columbus “discovered” America, colonization was a powerful phenomenon guiding
international movement around the globe. And right at the beginning of this
international land grab the Pope himself gave it the religious stamp of
approval. This idea that the highest authority in Christianity would call on
“intrepid champions of the Christian faith ... to invade, search out, capture,
vanquish, and subdue” is, frankly, what gives Christianity a bad name. This is
what Rebecca Parker was talking about when she wrote:
“The way the name of God has been so easily on
the lips of those who bless acts of war is only the most recent example of
people leaning on God to rationalize human actions that are far from holy”[iv]
In Australia and other areas
it was the legal concept of Terra Nullius or “empty land” which allowed
European Nations to “Discover” those lands. The logic of Terra Nullius runs
that the land was here to discover because there were no Christian people here,
no REAL people, therefore the land was empty. In the words of Oran Lyons, Faithkeeper of the Turtle clan of
the Onondaga Nation, the Doctrine of Discovery rests on the notion that native
people are “something less than people, they are not eligible for human rights”
[v]
There is hardly an atrocity that can be imagined that was not
committed during this period of aggressive colonization and these acts cannot
be undone. It will always be a part of the history of our country and of the
human race that must be remembered so that it can never happen again. And yet
we long to forget. We long to imagine that this is a historical anecdote that has
nothing to do with us today, but most of the land we now inhabit in this
country was land we took by force from other peoples.
Each year when we gather to celebrate Thanksgiving we, as
people of conscience, have to choose what story we tell. We were taught as
children the story of happy pilgrims and Native Americans sharing their harvest
bounty. But now we know this story to be more of a cultural myth which is not
only rife with historical inaccuracies, but obscures a larger story in which
those pilgrims were part of a systemic call
“to invade, search out, capture, vanquish.” And we know this story ends
in a trail of tears. When we remember what comes after that mythical harvest
celebration, we don’t really feel like celebrating any more.
As I was reading about the doctrine of discovery to prepare
for this morning‘s service. I felt overwhelmed by grief, overwhelmed by the
magnitude of what has happened, and overwhelmed by how we cannot change this
story that is already written. But our
Unitarian heritage calls us to faithfulness to the truth. And if there is more
than one version of a story to be told, our faith calls us to listen even to
the hard stories, the difficult stories, because we believe in the free and
responsible search for truth and meaning, and we know we don’t get to pick and
choose which truth we should include.
I found some circumspection in these words by the
UU minister Alice Blair Wesley who wrote “It is terribly arrogant to suppose
that because we can see, with hindsight, mistakes of the generations before us,
it's okay to demonize them. Without demonizing them, we need to be as clear as
we can be about their gifts to us and their mistakes, because the consequences
of both still shape us.”
Our
purpose here today is not to demonize 15th century popes and
monarchs, but to understand the consequences of their actions. The problem is
that in subtle and not so subtle ways we are still living out the legacy of the
doctrine of discovery today. In City
of Sherrill, New York v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York the U.S. Supreme Court said in footnote
1: “Under the ‘doctrine of discovery…’fee title [ownership] to the lands
occupied by Indians when the colonists arrived became vested in the
sovereign—first the discovering European nation and later the original states and
the United States.’”[vi]
The 1832 decision has never been overturned, and has been referred to in legal
decisions in Federal courts as recently as 2010.[vii]
As we trace the impact
of the Doctrine of Discovery, it leads to another troubling set of questions: Are
policies toward “undeveloped nations” based on the premise that these
undeveloped peoples are not sovereign? That they need to be “under the
perpetual protection and pupilage of the government”? Is “undeveloped” just the
modern way of saying “savages”? The Doctrine of Discovery is still used today
to take mineral rights from native lands or take away their water rights. I am
guessing that many of you, like property owners throughout New York State have
wrestled with the decision about whether or not to lease the mineral rights to
your land. The people who live on Native lands have no such right, because of
this doctrine.
How can we justify selling someone else’s land, and stripping
mineral rights against the will of the people who live there unless we believe
that indigenous people occupying their ancestral lands have no rights. That is
to say, they are “something less than people, they are not eligible for human
rights”
As people of conscience, it is time to interrupt this story.
We do not believe in a God who commands us to “invade, search out, capture,
vanquish, and subdue” those who are not like us. Universalism is the radical notion that there
are no inferior peoples, no superior people, just people, all of whom have
inherent worth and dignity.
I have heard UU historians and theologians say that in a day
when there is very little talk about hellfire and damnation in the mainstream
media the importance of Universalism has faded. But I encourage you to keep
your ears out for political decisions that affect the lives of millions of
people which are based on the assumption that the lives of some folks are just
worth more than the lives of other folks. In the public policy debates of
today, listen for the assumption that some folks should have sovereignty and
others should be under their patronage.
At the Justice GA in Phoenix 2 years back, delegates from
churches like this one all over the country passed a business resolution
repudiating the Doctrine of Discovery:
"BE IT RESOLVED that we, the
delegates of the 2012 General Assembly of the Unitarian Universalist
Association, repudiate the Doctrine of Discovery as a relic of colonialism,
feudalism, and religious, cultural, and racial biases having no place in the
modern day treatment of indigenous peoples." [viii]
It called on all our fellow Unitarian Universalists to study
the Doctrine and eliminate all vestiges from the current-day policies,
programs, theologies, and structures of Unitarian Universalism.
It calls on us to “[Affirm]
that indigenous peoples are equal to all other peoples, while recognizing the
right of all peoples to be different, to consider themselves different, and to
be respected as such,”
It also calls for more concrete action:
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that we call
upon the United States to fully implement the standards of the U.N. Declaration
on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the U.S. law and policy without
qualifications.
This Declaration was an “aspirational declaration” (which
means that it is not legally binding.) It
was passed by the United Nations in 2007 and President Obama signed it in 2010
but it was endorsed without any implementation. If it were submitted as a
treaty to the US Senate, it would take on the power of law. This is what we UUs are calling for- to
turn aspiration into law.
Chief Oren Lyons says questioning Doctrine of Discovery in
international law “Really shakes the root… of colonization”[ix] Which
must be why we have avoided public discussion of this Doctrine because so much
is built on it. We have in fact built our very presence here on this legal
precedent, these papal bulls in terms of who can claim land. This is huge. It’s like when you realize that not only is
your shower leaking, but that it’s been leaking for 400 years, and probably the
wood underneath is not so stable any more. We have built hundreds of years of
law on this Doctrine, It would open many things for question if this doctrine
were re-examined.
When I was in Canada a few
years back a colleague encouraged me to go visit the “women are persons”
monument. The monument is a tableau of larger-than-life statues of the five Alberta women who fought a legal and political battle in
the 1920s to have women recognized as persons.
Because of their efforts, in 1929 the Privy Council ruled that the word
“person” includes both men and women. It made quite an impression on me,
standing among the statues of these activists, remembering there was a time
when women were not considered persons. It hardly seems possible now, does it?
Women like me who lived in New York State could not own property until the
“Married Women‘s Property Act” of 1838. Imagine the upheaval such a great legal
turning must have caused in the minds and hearts and realities of our women, of
men, of nations was huge. And yet today this seems very ordinary and
reasonable.
As people of conscience we cannot refuse to reconsider the structures
of our society when the moral foundation they are built on is rotten. We cannot
overlook the doctrine of discovery and the “entire framework of laws that rest
on the Doctrine of Discovery”[x] just
because the implications of repudiating it would ripple so far and wide.
Our religious heritage does not allow us to walk away from
this issue, not only in spite of but perhaps because of the magnitude of what
this could mean. Because we believe in the inherent worth and dignity of every
person. Because we believe that “God’s love embraces the Whole Human Race” and because we believe those things, we know
that any legal question about the personhood of any human being on this planet
has only one possible answer.
This month, as we gather to celebrate Thanksgiving, I
challenge us to do so with two stories in our mind. Not only the story of
Indigenous peoples and recent immigrants to their land sitting down together in
a feast of harvest gratitude, but also the story of peoples coming together
right now in 2013 in dialogue and understanding. It finally is time to not only
proclaim, but to bind into law the worth and dignity of every person.
[i] [Pope Nicholas V issued to King
Alfonso V of Portugal, the bull Romanus
Pontifex.]
[ii] [Pope Nicholas V issued to King
Alfonso V of Portugal, the bull Romanus
Pontifex.]
[iii] [from
http://americanindiantah.com/history/nar_19thcenturyrelations.html]
[iv] http://www.sksm.edu/info/journal_images/dialogue.pdf
“An Open Letter to
the Rev. Bill Sinkford,
UUA President” Rev. Dr. Rebecca Ann Parker
[v]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yVZDbqh7WgM
[vi] http://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/united-states/christian-discovery-and-indian-sovereignty#sthash.dmlVwH2Q.dpuf
[vii]
http://www.uua.org/multiculturalism/dod/230890.shtml
Report from the UUA Board of Trustees on the Doctrine of Discovery January 2012
[viii] http://www.uua.org/statements/statements/209123.shtml
[ix]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yVZDbqh7WgM
[x] (study guide lesson 2) http://www.uua.org/documents/lfd/dod_discuss_guide.pdf
