The Doctrine of Discovery, or Terra Nulliuswas set up in the XVe century by the Catholic Church. As I want to keep this text digestible while you are sipping your Saturday morning coffee, I will simplify by saying that the Church, through this doctrine, came to morally justify the taking of territories, resources and humans. (yes, humans) who were on the new world. Didn’t spit out your coffee? Perfect ! Let’s go on…
According to the Catholic Church (and the colonizing countries), the Aboriginal peoples did not have the sufficient level of civilization to be the owners of their territories, of the resources found there and to decide for themselves. Moreover, they were not Christians. Said Church, by putting in place this doctrine, came to confirm that it was justified, and justifiable, to take the lands of others without asking permission. Practical, right? In the same breath, it was asserted that the Europeans had indeed “discovered” a new world. Easier to achieve the same goal: to expand his empire and exploit the resources, including the original inhabitants of these lands, from Africa to America.
Not so old as doctrine
“Yes, but no more government, no person was actually using this doctrine anyway. »
This sentence, I heard it in all its forms this summer during the visit of Pope Francis 1er in Canada. However, this is totally false. As late as 2005, the doctrine of discovery was used in the United States Supreme Court by none other than the famous Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the case Sherrill v. Oneida Nation. In her decision, Judge Ginsburg came to deny the tribal immunity of the Oneida Nation on lands that she had once inhabited, that she had been taken without consent and had to buy back at great expense, piece per room, in the real estate market. The Oneida claimed rights there and the Supreme Court came to refuse them, citing that the concept of sovereignty over these lands was inapplicable since the Oneida had not continuously inhabited them.
Normal, they had been stolen.
Why am I telling you about this case involving the United States? It is because this discourse, this defence, is not specific to our neighbors to the south. It’s kind of the same here in Canada.
Indeed, when the First Peoples apply for a comprehensive land claim with the federal government, they must prove a continuous occupation of the territory. And it is sometimes difficult. You know why now.
But let’s go back in time a bit. Let’s say, randomly… 1492. Christopher Columbus, then employed by the Spaniards, arrives in the Caribbean with his trio of beautiful sailboats. He meets people who live there. He thinks he is in India, so he will call them Indians. A beautiful monolithic block that doesn’t speak the right language, doesn’t have the right skin color, doesn’t have a king and doesn’t know how to read or write. In addition, women have a say in decisions that concern them, children live freely without strict discipline and the inhabitants do not know how to exploit the resources since they respect and take care of them and do not, in the eyes of the Spaniards, no god. Or not the good one, in any case… What a barbaric way to live! (sic) Columbus wants gold and he does everything to find it, even killing and torturing thousands of people.
But to take territories and their resources in this way, to reduce thousands of people to slavery, is not really Catholic. You have to find something to be absolved of all these sins.
The document Inter Caetera, the last of a list of Catholic papal bulls, signed this time by Pope Alexander VI in 1493, will see the light of day in response to this problem. But there is behind that, if I understand correctly, big politics. This act will prevent the King of Portugal from seizing the new territories since the pope of the moment, also a Spaniard, will intervene in favor of the Crown of Castile, Catholic, to allocate to it all the lands west of the Azores with a view to to evangelize the so-called “Indians”. The mission is much more noble that way.
Enough on this historical return.
Anyone who knows the Indian Act knows that this law finds its echoes at the heart of this doctrine. Otherwise, why would we, as members of the First Nations, still be pupils, minors in the eyes of the State, even today? Why would boarding schools for Aboriginals have been made compulsory by this law if it were not to evangelize us and “bring us to the level of civilized people”?
This doctrine of discovery still lurks among us. How many times have we tried to deny the indigenous presence during the construction of pipelines or dams, to name only that?
So no, this archaic doctrine is not extinct or dormant. It has insinuated itself insidiously into thoughts and actions, from yesterday to today.
It was high time for the Church to repudiate this doctrine which should never have been. And high time that we all took note.