Talk:Discovery doctrine/Archive 1

Archive 1

Criticism Section Needs Expansion Suggestion

Has no one challenged this doctrine on the basis of a First Amendment objection to the specification that the monarch be, "Christian"?

Further, how did the Supreme Court reconcile the doctrine with the First Amendment in 1823? I daresay that if the First Amendment wasn't even considered, who ever represented the interests of the indigenous people was either incompetent to do so, or grossly negligent.

What is the progress of the United Nations Economic and Social Council Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues' investigation?

For that matter, what's to protect any nation that has no monarch, considering that most nations no longer have one? According to this doctrine, all the Native Americans need do is select a monarch who is a Christian, and "Discover" all the lands that were taken from them, and suddenly the rest of us will reside here only on their sufferance. (Yes, I know that the Supreme Court held that successors to Christian monarchs are also entitled, but its decisions are hardly binding upon other national governments!)

Yes, the paragraph above is original synthesis. That's why it's here, rather than in the article. Once again, in the process of urging that the Criticism section be expanded, I'm asking whether it's really possible that no one in authority has raised these issues. Downstrike (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Inter caetera

I see no mention here of the Inter caetera, the Papal bull that was used as precedent for US law. Yet the Doctrine of Discovery, the title often given to the entire European religious and legal justification for colonization of the Americas from 1492 to the present redirects here.FriendlyFred (talk) 13:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Doctrine Predates USA

The doctrine of discovery massively predates that United States Supreme court and has its roots in papal statements from the Middle Ages. I think this entire article is wrong.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Doctrine has NOTHING to do with Johnson v. M'Intosh in 1823.

What the Firetruck???

This article says the doctrine originates with Johnson v. M'Intosh. That court decision has nothing, nothing, nothing to do with the doctrine of discovery!!!

I am nominating this article for deletion ASAP. It's opening statement is just plain FALSE!!!--WickerGuy (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm surprised no mention is made of

the various concerns in Tribal sovereignty in the United States: that because of treaties signed, the Nations have already been acknowledged to be independent - and (see the article). It seems strange for the Supreme Court to claim otherwise and not explain why these reasons have suddenly disappeared. (Well, the reasons are obvious, but let's pretend that arguments and discussion mean something for a moment...) ELSchissel (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Fixing this Article

Is there anyone with expertise in this subject who can fix up this article? It boggles my mind how wrong this is with its strong focus on the United States. I've noticed that others have pointed out over the past few years that the origin of the Doctrine of Discovery has absolutely nothing to do with the US – it originates from a Papal Bull for goodness sake! Where's the discussion of that in detail!? Or how about how it was applied by the Spanish in South America? Or the Doctrine's relation to other old concepts like terra nullius? I'd fix this myself if I had more than basic general knowledge. Really all I can do myself is copyedit and raise these other issues when I see them on the appropriate talk page. Goddale120 (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

The opening paragraph of this article leads to a significant misunderstanding of the history & concept of the 'doctrine of discovery' with it's focus on US law decisions (Johnson v. M'Intosh). The article should really be re-written with more historical context to refer to papal bulls from as early as 1452, with Bull Dum Diversas and the followup in 1455, Romanus Pontifex, that Christian European monarchs (especially Portugal) were encouraged / allowed to seize non-Christian lands and enslavement the native, non-Christian peoples in Africa and the New World. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbye (talk • contribs) 06:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree completely. At the very least, the article needs a warning that the opening paragraph ignores the long history of the doctrine. Alternatively, the article should be re-titled as "History of the Discovery Doctrine in the USA". 67.71.38.45 (talk) 14:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I believe I've dealt with this. It's pretty much exactly the same article, just properly organised chronologically, with an emphasis on the preceding history (by over three hundred years) first, rather than later American history. Craig (t|c) 08:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

anyone else think that the doctrine itself is missing from the article?

what is this doctrine? as in: can we read it?

or is it just a kind of vague idea that we have a name for, and a "use" for, but there's nothing else to it?

relatedly, what kind of thing it is? a philosophy? a law? a theory? what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianPansky (talk • contribs) 16:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you can. It's in the references. It's a Papal Bull. The terms "discovery doctrine" and "doctrine of discovery" seemed to have been coined later. --Craig (t|c) 21:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

More specifically, it's in the "external links". --Craig (t|c) 22:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Discovery in international law

Hello all,

I have added this section to more fully explain the position of discovery in international law, and that the doctrine of discovery is contested. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

History

Hello all

I have expanded this section to give a fuller background of the relevant history and some of the areas of dispute. I have removed some unsourced editorial comments and replaced then with sourced information. I have added information on the historical critiques of the doctrine of discovery. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

North American jurisprudence

Hello all

I have changed the heading to North American jurisprudence which is more accurate because Canadian cases are discussed. I have added a concise summary of Justice Marshall’s conception of the doctrine up front in order to make the subsequent discussions easier to follow.

I have changed the wording in some of the discussions of case law so that they better reflect the issues at stake and are more concise.

Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Change to lead

Hello all

I have rewritten the lead to better reflect the new content of the article. In summary, the doctrine of discovery is no longer a principle of international law, and many scholars state that it never was. The idea that mere discovery gave the discovering nation both soverieignty over indigenous peoples and beneficial title to their land was always contested. The doctrine of discovery is probably best thought of as an interpretation of international law formulated by Justice Marshall and incorporated into US municipal law in Johnson. Other common law countries such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand have been influenced by Johnson, but have developed their own distinctive approaches to indigenous sovereignty and land rights. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:20, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

US English

Hello all

The established language of this article is US English. I have added a banner and a note to editors to that effect. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Reference

The reference to Kent McNeil (4) is incomplete. 73.100.33.40 (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've added the full citation. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Vatican repudiation of doctrine

Hello all

I have summarised a few recent contributions about this because the amount of space devoted to the Vatican statement smacks of recentism: Wikipedia:Recentism. It also more logically belongs in the advocacy section because the Doctrine of Discovery is a (disputed) legal doctrine and the Vatican isn't a court of US or International law. It is one of many advocates for change in the residual legal and political effects of the doctrine. Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)