Outcome Documents for
200 Years of Johnson v. M’Intosh (JvM): Indigenous Responses to the Religious Foundations of Racism
This website is the official archive of the outcome publications from the Henry J. Luce Foundation Grant Funded project “200 Years of Johnson v. M’Intosh (JvM): Indigenous Responses to the Religious Foundations of Racism". Professor Philip P. Arnold was the PI on this project which ran from 2022-2024. Project activities included a conference, podcasts, and various types of publications.
Summary
“200 Years of Johnson v. M’Intosh (JvM): Indigenous Responses to the Religious Foundations of Racism,” is a collaborative initiative made possible through relationships developed over 30 years between academic and Indigenous communities. At its core, the project seeks to interrogate and critically examine connections between the Doctrine of Christian Discovery (DOCD), the Catholic Papal Bulls that undergird the Doctrine, and the Doctrine’s pernicious influence on United States Indian Law today.
The 200th anniversary of JvM provides an excellent moment to challenge the theology and jurisprudence of DOCD and this critical Supreme Court decision. The project will deliver a range of digital products and written works combined with a host of public outreach activities to raise awareness about the harmful impacts of the DOCD and provide support for a global movement of Indigenous People’s that seek to repudiate it.
Intellectual Acknowledgement in Favour of Religious Freedom and Justice
This succinct essay addresses the issue of freedom of religion for Indigenous cultures. Freedom of belief cannot subsist without justice, i.e. equal recognition. By ignoring the intellectual achievements of Indigenous and other non-Western philosophies and non-Christian religions, scholarship (in the humanities and social sciences, as well as in interrelated education in schools, colleges, and universities) constitutes an important reason for the depreciation of freedom of religious beliefs and, thereby, injustice. I argue that the scientific and pedagogical methodology of the comparative history of religions (developed by theorists of the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries and continued and elaborated by non-Indigenous and Indigenous scholars and educators) should be included in education at schools, colleges, and universities to combat this structural inequity. A historical consciousness of intellectual culture worldwide would not only have an impact on contemporary Indigenous cultures, but also on cultures with an Indigenous heritage (as, for instance, Latino and Chicano cultures of the United States), and would contest antisemitism and prejudice against Islam. To exemplify the history of intellectual and religious multiplicity and complexity, I mention traditions of (ritual) time, writing and semiotic systems, moral ideas, political principles, and the (constitutional) governance of a few selected Indigenous cultures of the American continent to be further researched by Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars, and to be taught in schools and academia. Finally, I offer concrete recommendations for what is to be done for this new historiography.
Lars Kirkhusmo Pharo
Learning From Reflection and Looking to the Future: Two Years on from the UN Report on Freedom of Religion or Belief and Indigenous Peoples.
The following article discusses the UN Special Interim Report and its significance to the rights of Indigenous Peoples. The article reviews how the UN Special Interim Report of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief has been used as a critical tool for promoting and protecting the rights of Indigenous Peoples globally by emphasizing the need for meaningful engagement with Indigenous individuals and communities in decision-making processes, notably on issues that affect their traditional lands, waters and resources and their spiritual practices. The article also discusses how the UN Special Interim Report was developed through extensive consultations with Indigenous Peoples, community groups, and various stakeholders with the scope of revealing the challenges faced by Indigenous Peoples. Finally, the article will reflect upon the positive responses generated by the Report and the ongoing discourse to encourage further engagement with the findings.
Ahmed Shaheed
Jennifer Tridgell
Johnson v. M’Intosh and the Missing Cover of the Jigsaw Puzzle
February 28, 2023 marked 200 years since Chief Justice John Marshall delivered a unanimous decision for the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Johnson & Graham’s Lessee v. M’Intosh. This decision enshrined into the system of ideas and arguments called “U.S. law,” the assertion that the Christian nations of Europe, and their political successors, had a right of discovery and domination (“ultimate dominion”) against the original nations and peoples of this continent. At one point, the Court used the phrase “natives who were heathens,” language which is traced to the Bible and to Vatican documents from the fifteenth century.
Steven T. Newcomb
Johnson v. M’Intosh, Wi Parata v. Bishop of Wellington, and the Legacy of the Doctrine of Discovery in Aotearoa-New Zealand
Here in Aotearoa-New Zealand the doctrine of discovery is, for many, a very new concept. If people knew of it at all, they assumed it to be relevant to the history of the Americas, but not to Aotearoa-New Zealand. This is in part due to our preoccupation with the colonial fiction of a “kind settlement.” A concerted grassroots campaign organized during the 2019 national commemorations of James Cook’s invasion in 1769 resulted in heightened awareness of his imperial intent. Consequently, there has been a somewhat belated awakening for Aotearoa-New Zealand to the reality of how the doctrine of discovery arrived here and has come to shape our existence.
Tina Ngata
