What do you think?
Rate this book
Pagans in the Promised Land: Decoding the Doctrine of Christian Discovery
Pagans in the Promised Land provides a unique, well-researched challenge to U.S. federal Indian law and policy. It attacks the presumption that American Indian nations are legitimately subject to the plenary power of the United States.
224 pages, Paperback
First published January 29, 2008
37 people are currently reading
400 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
October 9, 2020
The premise of the book is that the United States applies the Biblical cognitive metaphors of “Chosen nation vs Canaan”, “Promised Land”, and other Old Testament conquest language to shape its own treatment of Native American nations.
However, the scholarship is abysmal. The basic issue is that the author is not familiar with source languages and NEVER actually quotes, references, or cites the primary sources themselves. As a result, everything related to Spanish, Latin, and Portuguese never actually references the original texts, but instead relies on paraphrasing and commentary from secondary sources.
The author is obsessed with applying an “idealized cognitive model” to everything, but constantly gets word origins, language families, and language relationships wrong – even the words are wrong sometimes, because the author consistently relies on bad translations of the Romance languages. As a result, the ICMs are based on the associations entirely personal to the author, rather than anything based in either statistical analysis of word usage across a corpus of texts or on a rigorous analysis of historical linguistics and language evolution.
In addition, the author collapses history, linking ancient Israel, Christian Rome, Crusaders, Reconquista Iberians, and 20th century Americans in a vast chain of conquest ideology. That might be possible, except the author never engages with source texts or intellectual history, but instead just makes declarative statements based on objectively wrong premises, and creates convoluted connect-the-dots between people and societies who are hundreds of years and hundreds of miles apart. Why would 19th century America – a secular Protestant common law country – have the same legal and religious ideology of conquest as 15th century Castile – a confessional Catholic civil law country? The answer is that they did not, because they were different societies with different ideologies of empire, each of which evolved over time.
A breakdown is below, but fundamentally the author engages in bad history, bad linguistics, bad historiography, bad law, bad religion, and just generally shoddy work all around. I will throw this book in the garbage so that other people are not tempted to read it.
Chapter 2 The Metaphorical Experience and Federal Indian Law
p. 15 There is an extended explanation of how colony is derived from the Latin colere, and related to cultivation. However, the author then says that “another root metaphor of colonization is colo “to remove solids by filtering” and “to wash gold”. This is nonsense. “Colo” is related to cultiavation, and is the first person indicative of “colere from above. The author then goes on to describe how filtering is related to the “colon”. This is also nonsense, since “colon” is from Greek, not Latin.
p. 16 There is a lengthy explanation that “capacious swallow” is referring to a big swallow.
p. 17 – 18 “Does a tree have a front or back without us imaginatively projecting a front or back onto a tree. The answer is no. Attributing fronts or back to trees involves a process of mentally project the conception of the front and back of the human body onto trees.” How? Why does “front” now only refer to the human body? The author can’t just declare his personal definition to be the “true” meaning and everything else a “metaphor”, this should at least be backed up in a study of usage.
Chapter 3 The Conqueror Model
p. 23. “In cognitive theory, we find two main metaphors that express a state of being: A STATE IS A BOUNDED REGION IN SPACE and STATES ARE LOCATIONS. Thus the phrase a state of domination is unconsciously conceptualized as a region, area, or location of domination, exercised and maintained within well-defined boundaries.” What does “find a metaphor” mean? Are metaphors transhistorical, transcultural, and translingual acts that can apparently be projected hundreds of years into the past to people across the planet?
p. 24 “The ICM of the Conqueror model posits a central figure . . . who is considered to be divine.” Again, in which culture and language are we talking about? What does “divine” mean? What separates “divine” from “non-divine”?
p. 24 “The conqueror has the divine right to exert control or force.” What if the conqueror is deemed an illegitimate tyrant and is penalized or executed?
p. 27 “In the Johnson ruling, John Marshall wrote a lengthy section that drew up on the prototype of what he termed the conqueror. He did not write about any specific conqueror in history; rather, he wrote in terms of a conqueror ICM.” Or, John Marshall wrote a great deal of nonsense to justify an unjust usurpation of land. I don’t think it is really necessary to dive into cognitive theory to explain a post-hoc justification for material gain.
p. 28 “The Old World idea of property was well expressed by the Latin dominium: from “dominus” which derived from Sanskrit “domanus”. This is nonsense. Sanskrit and Latin are different languages that are equally old and thousands of miles apart. The people of Latium did not acquire their basic vocabulary from northern India.
p. 29 “The term due, which is embedded in the word subdue, is derived from Latin debere, to owe.” This is also wrong. “Subdue” is derived from either sub+do or sub+ duco, entirely different from debere.
p. 31 “This is the basis for the Vatican’s call in a number of papal bulls or documents . . . “ The Vatican did not exist and was not a concept in the 1400s, when the Pope ruled Central Italy. Referring to the Papacy as “the Vatican” is completely anachronistic.
p. 34 In regards to the Requerimiento, the author writes: “The phrase “their Highnesses” uses the UP-DOWN image-scheme and the metaphor CONTROL IS UP to conceptually position the monarchs above indigenous people.” Problem is that “their highnesses” is from a bad second-hand translation. The actual phrasing is “sus majestades”, but apparently language doesn’t matter anyway in this LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS so who cares.
Chapter 4 Colonizing the Promised Land
p. 40 “Similarly, the Old Testament portrays the Lord (dominus) as a conqueror.” A great deal is made of the relation between the title “dominus” and the concept of domination. However, the Bible was written in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, NOT Latin. Why are we analyzing the Latin Bible, and not any of the actual source languages for the Bible? Why are we just assuming that this portrays the Lord as a conqueror, instead of referencing any of the medieval Bible commentaries? What did medieval Jews think? Does the Talmud has opinons? Why is the author just declaring interpretations based on dubious linguistics and no evidence?
p. 43 “During the 15th, 16th, and later centuries, the monarchies and nations of Christendom lifted the Old Testament narrative of the chosen people and the promised land from the geographical context in the Middle East and began carrying it over to the rest of the globe.” CITE SOME SOURCES FOR THIS!!!
p. 44 “From such a perspective, the peoples of Christendom could claim that specific passages of the Bible proved that they had a divine Christian mandate and therefore, the right to possess . . . any non-Christian peoples and their land throughout the world.” CITE SOME SOURCES FOR THIS!!
P. 44 “As one scholar has framed the matter . . . “ That is not a primary source.
p. 45 “C. Raymond Beazly explains how the Portuguese conceptualized themselves in terms of the Old Testament . . . “ No, Beazley, in 1911, is explaining THEIR interpretation of how God favored the Portuguese, not how the Portuguese saw themselves.
p. 44 - 45 “Yet another example of the conquistors of Christendom viewing themselves in terms of the chosen people of the Old Testament is provided by Enrique R. Lamadrid in the essay “Luz y Sombra: The Poetics of Mestizo Identity.” The example is “In their chronicles, these children of the True Cross likened themselves to the children of Israel.” That might be true, but we don’t know that because this is COMPLETELY UNSOURCED. At no point is the thesis ever supported with evidence from primary sources.
p. 46 The author collapses the Doctrine of Discovery with 15th century Papal Bulls, without any explanation of how they are remotely connected.
p. 48 “The following is an example of the Portuguese crusaders applying the language of the chosen people to themselves . . . : In the earlier Portuguese expeditions . . . “ Ok, I am going to stop you right there. 1) You are quoting Beazley again, the author from 1911, and 2) Beazley is applying the language of the chosen people to the Portuguese, he is referring to them in the third person. This is not actually a primary source. This does not explain how the Portuguese saw themselves, this explains how 20th century Americans saw the Portuguese.
p. 50. The author references “Pedro de Santander, an official of the Catholic Church.” Who was Pedro de Santander? What was his title? What was his role? Why was he advising the king? What is the context? The author is appalling lazy by failing to even identify who this person is and why they matter.
Chapter 5 The Chosen-People Promised Land Model
p. 55 In order to explain Ronald Reagan’s vaguely biblical language, the author cites two theologians – W. Burueggemann and G. Lilburne. Neither is from Reagan’s denomination.
Ch. 6 The Dominating Mentality of Christendom
p. 59 “The term dom in the word Christendom evokes the ICM of the Conqueror.” How? The root dom relates to state or status.
p. 59 “The 19th century political philosopher Francis Lieber revealted that the word freedom . . . is actually derived from the German word freithom “baron’s estate.” This is wrong. English is categorically NOT derived from German. Proto-Germanic, maybe, but not German. Also, this is wrong, and the author should start reading 21st century linguists instead of 19th century philosophers to get their etymologies correct.
p. 59 “Christendom is a word that refers to Christian imperialism.” Again, citation needed.
The rest of the chapter criticizes Columbus, which I am generally fine with. However, again the basic problem is that the author never once cites Columbus or a contemporary author, but rather cites later interpretations. For example,
p. 65 – 66 “Columbus was the product of “a new crusading spirit [that] swept through western Christendom in the mid-fifteenth century.” Paolo Emilio Taviani points out that it was this “spirit” of crusade that “nourished the impetus of the Portuguese to expand overseas, not only for down to earth commercial reasons, but in the fervent hope of spreading Christianity and converting heathens.” He further says that Columbus “was part of this same crusading spirit.” Delno C. West and August Kling, in their English publication of the above-referenced Libro de Profecias, declare “that the vision of Columbus was one of a missionary and a crusader.” . . . For example, West and Kling cite a passage from the Latin Vulgage Version of the Bible that reads as follows: O clap your hands . . . “
Ok, so I agree with the author that the Libro de Profecias has some Crusading connections, because I have read it (would not recommend). But here is the problem – not once, NOT ONCE, in this entire section about Columbus, does the author actually cite Columbus. He only cites people who are interpreting Columbus. This is bad history – the author needs to support their claim with evidence from the text. I included the Vulgate quote because it is egregious – besides the fact that the author is linking a pre-Christian Hebrew poem, a 5th century Roman translation of the Bible, the medieval Crusades, 15th century mariners, and 20th century historiography, the author isn’t event quoting the Vulgate. The Vulgate is Latin, categorically any English version is not actually the Vulgate.
p. 69 Sovereignty’s prefix sover contains the over and is derived from the Lati super, meaning “over” or “above” When the words sover and reign are combined (and contracted by dropping one r) we get sovereign “to reign over”. This is all wrong. “Sover” does not contain “over”, they are different morphemes from different language families (sover is Romance, over is Germanic). Sovereign is not sover+ reign, sovereign is from soverain, from superanus, while reign is ultimately from regnum. The author needs to study basic linguistics or just use an etymology dictionary, instead of deciding that words come from each other based on the modern spellings happening to look similar.
Chapter 7 Jonson v. M’Intosh
There is a lengthy explanation of the case, along with some writing from Associate Justice Story for a DIFFERENT case which mentions Inter Caetera. Here is where the basic problem emerges:
p. 84 “The point here is that Justice Story identified a Vatican papal bull issued in 1493 as the origin of the principle of discovery that his friend and mentor John Marshall incorporated into the Johnson ruling. The Vatican promulgated that principle for the religious purpose of overthrowing heathenism and propagating the Christian religion.”
1. By the author’s own admission, all of the Story quotes are from a book published “one decade after the Johnson ruling was handed down,” (82) – i.e., AFTER the Johnson ruling, so they cannot be a basis for it.
2. Story is not Johnson, they are different people. Story writing an account YEARS after the Johnson ruling is not the same thing as Johnson himself thinking something at the time.
3. More importantly – Inter Caetera and the various Papal bulls regarding Castile and Portugal are categorically NOT doctrine of discovery. The doctrine of discovery is the idea laid out by Johnson that whichever Christian nation discovers the “heathens” first, gets the heathens and their land. The papal bulls reserved land for Castile/Portugal BEFORE they even discovered it, and banned all other Europeans from it. They are two completely different ideological models.
4. Story DID cite the Papal bulls for doctrine of discovery, which is weird because the Popes did not support the doctrine of discovery at all. Why did Story write “The principle, then, that discovery gave title to the government, by whose subjects or by whose authority it was made, against all other European governments . . . “? Why would a secular republic (US) based on an anti-Catholic Protestant monarchy (Britain) care about a Catholic Pope who banned them from empire? Papal bulls never came up at all during English colonization of the Americas because the English were not Catholics, so why would an American judge care? The author needs to engage with the text and figure out why Story is (mis)reading the bull, and why he is citing the bull as evidence now.
I am leaving off here, because cataloguing all the errors and bad logic is exhausting. If you want a good book about this topic, I would recommend “Lords of all the World” by Padgen, or Don’t bother with this book.
However, the scholarship is abysmal. The basic issue is that the author is not familiar with source languages and NEVER actually quotes, references, or cites the primary sources themselves. As a result, everything related to Spanish, Latin, and Portuguese never actually references the original texts, but instead relies on paraphrasing and commentary from secondary sources.
The author is obsessed with applying an “idealized cognitive model” to everything, but constantly gets word origins, language families, and language relationships wrong – even the words are wrong sometimes, because the author consistently relies on bad translations of the Romance languages. As a result, the ICMs are based on the associations entirely personal to the author, rather than anything based in either statistical analysis of word usage across a corpus of texts or on a rigorous analysis of historical linguistics and language evolution.
In addition, the author collapses history, linking ancient Israel, Christian Rome, Crusaders, Reconquista Iberians, and 20th century Americans in a vast chain of conquest ideology. That might be possible, except the author never engages with source texts or intellectual history, but instead just makes declarative statements based on objectively wrong premises, and creates convoluted connect-the-dots between people and societies who are hundreds of years and hundreds of miles apart. Why would 19th century America – a secular Protestant common law country – have the same legal and religious ideology of conquest as 15th century Castile – a confessional Catholic civil law country? The answer is that they did not, because they were different societies with different ideologies of empire, each of which evolved over time.
A breakdown is below, but fundamentally the author engages in bad history, bad linguistics, bad historiography, bad law, bad religion, and just generally shoddy work all around. I will throw this book in the garbage so that other people are not tempted to read it.
Chapter 2 The Metaphorical Experience and Federal Indian Law
p. 15 There is an extended explanation of how colony is derived from the Latin colere, and related to cultivation. However, the author then says that “another root metaphor of colonization is colo “to remove solids by filtering” and “to wash gold”. This is nonsense. “Colo” is related to cultiavation, and is the first person indicative of “colere from above. The author then goes on to describe how filtering is related to the “colon”. This is also nonsense, since “colon” is from Greek, not Latin.
p. 16 There is a lengthy explanation that “capacious swallow” is referring to a big swallow.
p. 17 – 18 “Does a tree have a front or back without us imaginatively projecting a front or back onto a tree. The answer is no. Attributing fronts or back to trees involves a process of mentally project the conception of the front and back of the human body onto trees.” How? Why does “front” now only refer to the human body? The author can’t just declare his personal definition to be the “true” meaning and everything else a “metaphor”, this should at least be backed up in a study of usage.
Chapter 3 The Conqueror Model
p. 23. “In cognitive theory, we find two main metaphors that express a state of being: A STATE IS A BOUNDED REGION IN SPACE and STATES ARE LOCATIONS. Thus the phrase a state of domination is unconsciously conceptualized as a region, area, or location of domination, exercised and maintained within well-defined boundaries.” What does “find a metaphor” mean? Are metaphors transhistorical, transcultural, and translingual acts that can apparently be projected hundreds of years into the past to people across the planet?
p. 24 “The ICM of the Conqueror model posits a central figure . . . who is considered to be divine.” Again, in which culture and language are we talking about? What does “divine” mean? What separates “divine” from “non-divine”?
p. 24 “The conqueror has the divine right to exert control or force.” What if the conqueror is deemed an illegitimate tyrant and is penalized or executed?
p. 27 “In the Johnson ruling, John Marshall wrote a lengthy section that drew up on the prototype of what he termed the conqueror. He did not write about any specific conqueror in history; rather, he wrote in terms of a conqueror ICM.” Or, John Marshall wrote a great deal of nonsense to justify an unjust usurpation of land. I don’t think it is really necessary to dive into cognitive theory to explain a post-hoc justification for material gain.
p. 28 “The Old World idea of property was well expressed by the Latin dominium: from “dominus” which derived from Sanskrit “domanus”. This is nonsense. Sanskrit and Latin are different languages that are equally old and thousands of miles apart. The people of Latium did not acquire their basic vocabulary from northern India.
p. 29 “The term due, which is embedded in the word subdue, is derived from Latin debere, to owe.” This is also wrong. “Subdue” is derived from either sub+do or sub+ duco, entirely different from debere.
p. 31 “This is the basis for the Vatican’s call in a number of papal bulls or documents . . . “ The Vatican did not exist and was not a concept in the 1400s, when the Pope ruled Central Italy. Referring to the Papacy as “the Vatican” is completely anachronistic.
p. 34 In regards to the Requerimiento, the author writes: “The phrase “their Highnesses” uses the UP-DOWN image-scheme and the metaphor CONTROL IS UP to conceptually position the monarchs above indigenous people.” Problem is that “their highnesses” is from a bad second-hand translation. The actual phrasing is “sus majestades”, but apparently language doesn’t matter anyway in this LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS so who cares.
Chapter 4 Colonizing the Promised Land
p. 40 “Similarly, the Old Testament portrays the Lord (dominus) as a conqueror.” A great deal is made of the relation between the title “dominus” and the concept of domination. However, the Bible was written in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, NOT Latin. Why are we analyzing the Latin Bible, and not any of the actual source languages for the Bible? Why are we just assuming that this portrays the Lord as a conqueror, instead of referencing any of the medieval Bible commentaries? What did medieval Jews think? Does the Talmud has opinons? Why is the author just declaring interpretations based on dubious linguistics and no evidence?
p. 43 “During the 15th, 16th, and later centuries, the monarchies and nations of Christendom lifted the Old Testament narrative of the chosen people and the promised land from the geographical context in the Middle East and began carrying it over to the rest of the globe.” CITE SOME SOURCES FOR THIS!!!
p. 44 “From such a perspective, the peoples of Christendom could claim that specific passages of the Bible proved that they had a divine Christian mandate and therefore, the right to possess . . . any non-Christian peoples and their land throughout the world.” CITE SOME SOURCES FOR THIS!!
P. 44 “As one scholar has framed the matter . . . “ That is not a primary source.
p. 45 “C. Raymond Beazly explains how the Portuguese conceptualized themselves in terms of the Old Testament . . . “ No, Beazley, in 1911, is explaining THEIR interpretation of how God favored the Portuguese, not how the Portuguese saw themselves.
p. 44 - 45 “Yet another example of the conquistors of Christendom viewing themselves in terms of the chosen people of the Old Testament is provided by Enrique R. Lamadrid in the essay “Luz y Sombra: The Poetics of Mestizo Identity.” The example is “In their chronicles, these children of the True Cross likened themselves to the children of Israel.” That might be true, but we don’t know that because this is COMPLETELY UNSOURCED. At no point is the thesis ever supported with evidence from primary sources.
p. 46 The author collapses the Doctrine of Discovery with 15th century Papal Bulls, without any explanation of how they are remotely connected.
p. 48 “The following is an example of the Portuguese crusaders applying the language of the chosen people to themselves . . . : In the earlier Portuguese expeditions . . . “ Ok, I am going to stop you right there. 1) You are quoting Beazley again, the author from 1911, and 2) Beazley is applying the language of the chosen people to the Portuguese, he is referring to them in the third person. This is not actually a primary source. This does not explain how the Portuguese saw themselves, this explains how 20th century Americans saw the Portuguese.
p. 50. The author references “Pedro de Santander, an official of the Catholic Church.” Who was Pedro de Santander? What was his title? What was his role? Why was he advising the king? What is the context? The author is appalling lazy by failing to even identify who this person is and why they matter.
Chapter 5 The Chosen-People Promised Land Model
p. 55 In order to explain Ronald Reagan’s vaguely biblical language, the author cites two theologians – W. Burueggemann and G. Lilburne. Neither is from Reagan’s denomination.
Ch. 6 The Dominating Mentality of Christendom
p. 59 “The term dom in the word Christendom evokes the ICM of the Conqueror.” How? The root dom relates to state or status.
p. 59 “The 19th century political philosopher Francis Lieber revealted that the word freedom . . . is actually derived from the German word freithom “baron’s estate.” This is wrong. English is categorically NOT derived from German. Proto-Germanic, maybe, but not German. Also, this is wrong, and the author should start reading 21st century linguists instead of 19th century philosophers to get their etymologies correct.
p. 59 “Christendom is a word that refers to Christian imperialism.” Again, citation needed.
The rest of the chapter criticizes Columbus, which I am generally fine with. However, again the basic problem is that the author never once cites Columbus or a contemporary author, but rather cites later interpretations. For example,
p. 65 – 66 “Columbus was the product of “a new crusading spirit [that] swept through western Christendom in the mid-fifteenth century.” Paolo Emilio Taviani points out that it was this “spirit” of crusade that “nourished the impetus of the Portuguese to expand overseas, not only for down to earth commercial reasons, but in the fervent hope of spreading Christianity and converting heathens.” He further says that Columbus “was part of this same crusading spirit.” Delno C. West and August Kling, in their English publication of the above-referenced Libro de Profecias, declare “that the vision of Columbus was one of a missionary and a crusader.” . . . For example, West and Kling cite a passage from the Latin Vulgage Version of the Bible that reads as follows: O clap your hands . . . “
Ok, so I agree with the author that the Libro de Profecias has some Crusading connections, because I have read it (would not recommend). But here is the problem – not once, NOT ONCE, in this entire section about Columbus, does the author actually cite Columbus. He only cites people who are interpreting Columbus. This is bad history – the author needs to support their claim with evidence from the text. I included the Vulgate quote because it is egregious – besides the fact that the author is linking a pre-Christian Hebrew poem, a 5th century Roman translation of the Bible, the medieval Crusades, 15th century mariners, and 20th century historiography, the author isn’t event quoting the Vulgate. The Vulgate is Latin, categorically any English version is not actually the Vulgate.
p. 69 Sovereignty’s prefix sover contains the over and is derived from the Lati super, meaning “over” or “above” When the words sover and reign are combined (and contracted by dropping one r) we get sovereign “to reign over”. This is all wrong. “Sover” does not contain “over”, they are different morphemes from different language families (sover is Romance, over is Germanic). Sovereign is not sover+ reign, sovereign is from soverain, from superanus, while reign is ultimately from regnum. The author needs to study basic linguistics or just use an etymology dictionary, instead of deciding that words come from each other based on the modern spellings happening to look similar.
Chapter 7 Jonson v. M’Intosh
There is a lengthy explanation of the case, along with some writing from Associate Justice Story for a DIFFERENT case which mentions Inter Caetera. Here is where the basic problem emerges:
p. 84 “The point here is that Justice Story identified a Vatican papal bull issued in 1493 as the origin of the principle of discovery that his friend and mentor John Marshall incorporated into the Johnson ruling. The Vatican promulgated that principle for the religious purpose of overthrowing heathenism and propagating the Christian religion.”
1. By the author’s own admission, all of the Story quotes are from a book published “one decade after the Johnson ruling was handed down,” (82) – i.e., AFTER the Johnson ruling, so they cannot be a basis for it.
2. Story is not Johnson, they are different people. Story writing an account YEARS after the Johnson ruling is not the same thing as Johnson himself thinking something at the time.
3. More importantly – Inter Caetera and the various Papal bulls regarding Castile and Portugal are categorically NOT doctrine of discovery. The doctrine of discovery is the idea laid out by Johnson that whichever Christian nation discovers the “heathens” first, gets the heathens and their land. The papal bulls reserved land for Castile/Portugal BEFORE they even discovered it, and banned all other Europeans from it. They are two completely different ideological models.
4. Story DID cite the Papal bulls for doctrine of discovery, which is weird because the Popes did not support the doctrine of discovery at all. Why did Story write “The principle, then, that discovery gave title to the government, by whose subjects or by whose authority it was made, against all other European governments . . . “? Why would a secular republic (US) based on an anti-Catholic Protestant monarchy (Britain) care about a Catholic Pope who banned them from empire? Papal bulls never came up at all during English colonization of the Americas because the English were not Catholics, so why would an American judge care? The author needs to engage with the text and figure out why Story is (mis)reading the bull, and why he is citing the bull as evidence now.
I am leaving off here, because cataloguing all the errors and bad logic is exhausting. If you want a good book about this topic, I would recommend “Lords of all the World” by Padgen, or Don’t bother with this book.
August 30, 2025
I've read several book on the Doctrine of Discovery this year, and this one makes a genuine contribution, beyond a merely historical account, to a conceptual one, drawing on Steven Winter's theoretical frameworks, I found this to be fascinating and compelling. When words are put into a law to enact a norm on a society, what are those words doing? What does metaphorical language mean in a legal opinion like a Supreme Court case? Or religious language? When Johnson v. McIntosh (1823) refers to American Indians as "heathens" as part of its legal reasoning-- what does that say about the conceptual underpinnings of American Law and Indian Law in particular?
This is a really important contribution to a vital subject here in the United States. I'm as convinced as ever that we will never build a just society in this land until we reckon with the theft that lies at its foundation.
This is a really important contribution to a vital subject here in the United States. I'm as convinced as ever that we will never build a just society in this land until we reckon with the theft that lies at its foundation.
January 25, 2017
An excellent book that absolutely must be ready by anyone who genuinely wants to know about the founding of the "USA"
December 14, 2011
The Unitarian Universalist Association has invited Steven Newcomb to make a major presentation at the Association's annual meeting June 2012, in Phoenix, Arizona. Here's hoping that Unitarian Universalist congregations will be buzzing with conversation about the Doctrine of Christian Discovery, the relationship with Unitarian, Universalist, and Unitarian Universalist history, concepts that are part and parcel of world view, ethics, and preferred figurative language and our relationships with indigenous peoples, inside and outside our congregations.
Newcomb makes a strong argument - one that I hope is familiar to students of Biblical history and American history, but which may be sharply and painfully new for some. Because he's addressing how our language carries beliefs and stories (and beliefs and stories become how we relate to one another), some will be challenged at the center of their sense of self. Take it slowly and read with a diverse community of others for multiple perspectives, time to adjust, and time to think through myths, what we know to be true, and how we speak, as well as the law.
This is a dense text, and the writing is for advanced students. Religious educators and other religious professionals will want to do some translating, focus on storied examples, and mix video and music into the conversation (including videos of Newcomb discussing the work at hand).
Great reading. For more of the religious context Newcomb discusses, check out Bruce Feiler's _America's Prophet: Moses and the American Story_. To appreciate more of the variety of cultures, civilizations, and ways of being before Columbus, check out Charles Mann's _1491_.
Newcomb makes a strong argument - one that I hope is familiar to students of Biblical history and American history, but which may be sharply and painfully new for some. Because he's addressing how our language carries beliefs and stories (and beliefs and stories become how we relate to one another), some will be challenged at the center of their sense of self. Take it slowly and read with a diverse community of others for multiple perspectives, time to adjust, and time to think through myths, what we know to be true, and how we speak, as well as the law.
This is a dense text, and the writing is for advanced students. Religious educators and other religious professionals will want to do some translating, focus on storied examples, and mix video and music into the conversation (including videos of Newcomb discussing the work at hand).
Great reading. For more of the religious context Newcomb discusses, check out Bruce Feiler's _America's Prophet: Moses and the American Story_. To appreciate more of the variety of cultures, civilizations, and ways of being before Columbus, check out Charles Mann's _1491_.
May 8, 2008
This is another book that looks into the American dogma of doctrine of discovery. It is a good critical analysis of how America developed this doctrine and how they still use it today in their relationship with Native nations.
December 18, 2020
This book was not an easy read, but I think it was worth the effort. It's an academic treatment of legal theory, so I had to put in some work to understand it. Learning about cognitive theory was really interesting and has made me think about language in different ways. The Chosen People/Promised Land Model put into words some ideas that have troubled me. I don't know that I left the book with any answers or solutions, but feel like I understand some of the issues a bit better.
September 22, 2019
Didn't finish - I read half of this book before returning to the library. It gave me a good sense of the origin of the Doctrine of Discovery.
October 4, 2013
I found this book to be a comprehensive study of language origins which were of interest to the author.
Quotable:
Federal Indian law is premised on the notion that the U.S. government has a legitimate plenary authority to place certain non-Indian conceptual constraints (otherwise known as laws, rules and regulations) on originally free and independent American Indian nations.
(T)he presumption that the United states has a legitimate right to lay down numerous laws and policies for Indian nations is rooted in the idea expressed by Chief Justice John Marshall in the Johnson (Johnson v. M’Intosh) ruling that the first “Christian people” to discover lands inhabited by “heathens” has ultimate dominion over and absolute title to those lands.
Present-day indigenous nations and peoples of this hemisphere are now compelled to utilize the language and conceptual system of the dominating society as a means of thinking, speaking, and writing about our own existence while challenging certain negative, oppressive, and dominating concepts that have been mentally, and, from an indigenous perspective, illegitimately imposed on our existence.
(The) context of domination is in keeping with the lord being conceptualized as exercising power “over all the earth” because he is dominus, ‘He who subdues,’ and dominus, ‘He who has subdued.”… Numerous Old Testament biblical passages… reveal that at the heart of the mentality and religion of Christendom is the intention and desire to conquer and subjugate “heather” nations and force them “under the feet” of Christians, which is in keeping with the Johnson ruling.
As grammarian and rhetorician Antonio de Nebrija put the matter with considerable insight in the mid-fifteenth century when addressing Queen Isabella, “Your Majesty, language if the perfect instrument of empire.”
(Chief Justice John) Marshall’s use of the concept discovery is further problematic because the Christian Europeans did not discover this hemisphere in the sense of locating a place that was unknown; initially, they merely happened upon lands that were already inhabited by, and extremely well known to, millions of indigenous people living here.
(A)rguement(s) (1.) (T)he doctrine of discovery is now a well-established and intrinsic part of U.S. law and therefore cannot be tampered with. (2.)(I)t is “too late” for us as Indian people to advocate removing the theological framework of “Christian discovery” from federal Indian law.
American Indian nations were rightfully free and independent when they made treaties with the United States. And even according to the international law of Christendom, a smaller nation could accept the protection of a more powerful nation without losing its independence. In keeping with the perspective, Indian nations that accepted the protection of the United States are entitled to retain their free and independent existence, with full territorial integrity. Yet despite the well-understood norm in federal Indian law that an Indian treaty is to be interpreted liberally in favor of the Indians and as the Indians would have understood the terms of the treaty at the time it was negotiated and signed, the United States has tacitly interpreted all Indian treaties within the context of the doctrine of discovery and the Johnson ruling. Thus Christian discovery and dominion serve as the context that the U.S. government uses for interpreting Indian treaties with the United States.
Because we are embodied beings who live socially and culturally in community with others, within a given ecosystem on Mother Earth, we unavoidably exist within a network of constraints; yet we also have the human ability to jointly construct reality within the sacred web of life and to powerfully affirm our human rights.
Love Your Life, Perfect Your Life, Beautify All Things
in Your Life.
Seek to Make Your Life Long and Its Purpose the Service
of Your People.
Prepare a Noble Death Song,
for the Day When You Go Over the Great Divide.
Always Give a Word of Salute When Meeting or Passing
a Friend,
or Even a Stranger When In a Lonely Place.
Show Respect to All People and Grovel to None.
When You Arise in the Morning,
Give Thanks for the Food
and for the Joy of Living.
If You See No Reason for Giving Thanks,
the Fault Lies Only With Yourself.
Abuse No One and Nothing,
for Abuse Turns the Wise Ones Into Fools
And Robs the Spirit of its Vision.
-attributed to Tecumseh
Quotable:
Federal Indian law is premised on the notion that the U.S. government has a legitimate plenary authority to place certain non-Indian conceptual constraints (otherwise known as laws, rules and regulations) on originally free and independent American Indian nations.
(T)he presumption that the United states has a legitimate right to lay down numerous laws and policies for Indian nations is rooted in the idea expressed by Chief Justice John Marshall in the Johnson (Johnson v. M’Intosh) ruling that the first “Christian people” to discover lands inhabited by “heathens” has ultimate dominion over and absolute title to those lands.
Present-day indigenous nations and peoples of this hemisphere are now compelled to utilize the language and conceptual system of the dominating society as a means of thinking, speaking, and writing about our own existence while challenging certain negative, oppressive, and dominating concepts that have been mentally, and, from an indigenous perspective, illegitimately imposed on our existence.
(The) context of domination is in keeping with the lord being conceptualized as exercising power “over all the earth” because he is dominus, ‘He who subdues,’ and dominus, ‘He who has subdued.”… Numerous Old Testament biblical passages… reveal that at the heart of the mentality and religion of Christendom is the intention and desire to conquer and subjugate “heather” nations and force them “under the feet” of Christians, which is in keeping with the Johnson ruling.
As grammarian and rhetorician Antonio de Nebrija put the matter with considerable insight in the mid-fifteenth century when addressing Queen Isabella, “Your Majesty, language if the perfect instrument of empire.”
(Chief Justice John) Marshall’s use of the concept discovery is further problematic because the Christian Europeans did not discover this hemisphere in the sense of locating a place that was unknown; initially, they merely happened upon lands that were already inhabited by, and extremely well known to, millions of indigenous people living here.
(A)rguement(s) (1.) (T)he doctrine of discovery is now a well-established and intrinsic part of U.S. law and therefore cannot be tampered with. (2.)(I)t is “too late” for us as Indian people to advocate removing the theological framework of “Christian discovery” from federal Indian law.
American Indian nations were rightfully free and independent when they made treaties with the United States. And even according to the international law of Christendom, a smaller nation could accept the protection of a more powerful nation without losing its independence. In keeping with the perspective, Indian nations that accepted the protection of the United States are entitled to retain their free and independent existence, with full territorial integrity. Yet despite the well-understood norm in federal Indian law that an Indian treaty is to be interpreted liberally in favor of the Indians and as the Indians would have understood the terms of the treaty at the time it was negotiated and signed, the United States has tacitly interpreted all Indian treaties within the context of the doctrine of discovery and the Johnson ruling. Thus Christian discovery and dominion serve as the context that the U.S. government uses for interpreting Indian treaties with the United States.
Because we are embodied beings who live socially and culturally in community with others, within a given ecosystem on Mother Earth, we unavoidably exist within a network of constraints; yet we also have the human ability to jointly construct reality within the sacred web of life and to powerfully affirm our human rights.
Love Your Life, Perfect Your Life, Beautify All Things
in Your Life.
Seek to Make Your Life Long and Its Purpose the Service
of Your People.
Prepare a Noble Death Song,
for the Day When You Go Over the Great Divide.
Always Give a Word of Salute When Meeting or Passing
a Friend,
or Even a Stranger When In a Lonely Place.
Show Respect to All People and Grovel to None.
When You Arise in the Morning,
Give Thanks for the Food
and for the Joy of Living.
If You See No Reason for Giving Thanks,
the Fault Lies Only With Yourself.
Abuse No One and Nothing,
for Abuse Turns the Wise Ones Into Fools
And Robs the Spirit of its Vision.
-attributed to Tecumseh
February 10, 2015
I found this pretty interesting. But I was more interested in the cognitive theory than it's application to federal Indian law. So... I may return to this after reading "Metaphors We Live By" which is cited by Newcomb as being an important part of the genesis of "Pagans..."
The thrust of this book is arguing against Johnson v. McIntosh. Newcomb illustrates that this foundational decision violates the separation of church and state by virtue of the christian doctrine implicit in the attitudes the court had towards europeans and indigenous folk and their respective missons. I didn't need much persuading on this score, and the book does a lot of persuading. The amount of persuading (and the nature of the persuading) may be more engaging to another lawyer or a judge.
The thrust of this book is arguing against Johnson v. McIntosh. Newcomb illustrates that this foundational decision violates the separation of church and state by virtue of the christian doctrine implicit in the attitudes the court had towards europeans and indigenous folk and their respective missons. I didn't need much persuading on this score, and the book does a lot of persuading. The amount of persuading (and the nature of the persuading) may be more engaging to another lawyer or a judge.
November 13, 2019
Absolutely eye opening.
As a white person living in rural Wisconsin where native artifacts are found often, I appreciated the straight forward legal view because guilt in affiliation to white Christian ancestry can be difficult.
There is much to be done in reparation and corrections must be made in the legal system which discriminate against native Americans.
I recommend this book highly!
As a white person living in rural Wisconsin where native artifacts are found often, I appreciated the straight forward legal view because guilt in affiliation to white Christian ancestry can be difficult.
There is much to be done in reparation and corrections must be made in the legal system which discriminate against native Americans.
I recommend this book highly!
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews