The Anglican Church of Canada’s top aboriginal bishop says formally renouncing the Doctrine of Discovery ”” the historic legal claim underlying the conquest of the New World by Anglo-Italian sailor John Cabot and other early European explorers ”” “is a matter of basic justice” for the First Nations dispossessed by the arbitrary regal pronouncement.
National Indigenous Bishop Mark MacDonald, a U.S.-born cleric who was trained in Canada before becoming the Anglican Church’s principal voice on native issues in 2007, was responding to news the U.S. arm of the church has renounced the doctrine and asked Queen Elizabeth ”” the titular head of the global Anglican community ”” to “disavow and repudiate” it publicly.
[Comment deleted – please be careful how you express yourself – Elf]
So when is the Anglican Church of Canada going to sell all its lands and give the money to poor Native Americans?
Yeah, I thought not.
BTW, I’m 1/64th Native American, so I wonder which part of me can stay here and which parts have to return to England, Wales, France and Germany.
There’s a lot of old stuff that we don’t have much truck with these days – an earth-centric solar system or the divind right of kings come to mind. But why do churches feel compelled to “renounce” them in this time? Even if renunciation of silly secular ideas is a useful function of churches (I know, I know, my examples had theological overtones), why did the General Convention think it mete that the Presiding Bishop should engage Her Majesty Elizabeth II on the subject? Are we concerned that our modern Queen Bess has something up her sleeve re new conquests? It is utter silliness.
Immigrants to Canada like MacDonald (a suspiciously colonialist-sounding name, mon) should be more courteous to the country that gave him refuge and a home.
I’ll bet HM has a better sense of humo[u]r than you Elves.
Why should the Church address theological beliefs are the very reasons that are showing through responses like those above. If there were no more prejudice, ill feelings toward, or that we all shared a sense of the incredible harm done to the nations that were here first the need to address it at the root would not exist. The resolution does not request the return of land or its abandonment. It is an acknowledgment that our present resentments and divisions between native and none-native people have roots and we continue to carry attitudes that betray that fact.
See#5. Tell me, what nations”were here first?” Do you know?Who were they? Do you know? What is their relationship to those Amerinds now here? Did these present Amerinds “own” the territory such that those who followed are by definition usurpers? Are those Amerinds here now “native” to this area or did they take them from some previous Amerind? (As the Sioux and the Iriquois did, or with genocide in mind, as theMohawks sought for the Hurons.) If so, are they not invaders?
Larry
I am struck by the juxtaposition of this with the struggles of Dio SC.
On one hand is an institutional occupation with an historical concept (no longer at play with the respective governments), which is presented as a “basic justice” issue requiring institutional repentence and repudiation.
On the other hand is the Dio of SC’s struggle with how to further the kingdom of God and defend the faith while being corporately bound to an institution controlled by those departing from the faith.
Such a difference in focus is rather remarkable. Imagine a football team in which 7 of the players left the field to play video games or sudoku, 2 joined the other team, and 2 remained seeking to advance the ball against the defense.
🙄
I’m always a little skeptical of calls for apologies from and by the Church, Congress, or whatever. I mean, I think it boils down to what is the motive behind the apology? Is it truly to try and combat a systemic problem, or is it self aggrandizement?
If its the later, basically a pandering ploy to look good, then I don’t want any part of it regardless of venue.
Larry beat me to the punch. As someone of blended heritage myself (1/32nd Amerind and 31/32nds European), I have often pondered these very issues. Mitochondrial DNA research indicates at least 5 distinct prehistoric groups migrated into the Americas. (In point of fact…we are ALL related, by blood.) There is ample archeological evidence of intertribal warfare, territorial disputes, and conquests conducted by these immigrants to the Americas (as was the case on all of the continents with all peoples). By what right did these early settlers claim “ownership” of the territories that they settled in and defended? There has been (in my opinion) a rather condescending line of thought that the Amerind settlers had no concept of “property”. But the historical record indicates that they did indeed have “territories” and that they even fought over them. There were subjugations of one tribe over another (slavery) and tributes demanded and received by one tribe from another.
I agree that much of the “colonization” of the Americas by Europeans was marked by the worst sort of exploitation, yet was this different from what the earlier settlers had done among themselves? Also, the history of New England and English settlers demonstrates that, at least initially, the English bought and paid for the land. There were deeds drawn up (that still exist), boundaries laid, and payments made. I know for a fact that much of southwestern Connecticut was paid for multiple times over a few generations. (New leaders would arise in the local Amerind population and demand payment for the land…again.) Yes, there was a war with the Pequot (Destroyers) tribe, and it included other “native” Americans fighting the Pequot tribe. The Pequots had been at war with the Narragansetts and there was also a civil war between them and the Mohegans. The Pequots had demanded tribute from the Nehantics and Nipmucs as well as tribes on Long Island. They were the local center of power and they exerted it.
So, in the non-sanitized historic record…who is the “owner” of the land? Does being the first to wander over a piece of ground make one the owner? Does building on the land make one an owner? Does tilling the soil make one an owner? Do war and bloodshed make one an owner? Does being born on a piece of land make one an owner?
The Scriptures teach us that God puts down and raises up nations and peoples for His own purposes. This does not excuse European actions or bad conduct, but neither does it exonerate Amerinds or any aboriginal people group from their actions or bad conduct.
Throughout history, myriad people groups have migrated and pushed upon each other like the waves on the sea shore. We all descend from Adam and Noah. We are all related by blood to one another. Whose land is it? What people are we? How are we different from any of our blood kin that happen to have been separated from us through history into the various clans?
In the end, it is God alone that owns the land. We are all His tenants.
Of course, General Convention did direct the Presiding Bishop to write a letter telling the Queen of England what to do about this. (I’d love to be in the room when Elizabeth opens that letter and see and hear the reaction.)
While we are fixing this problem, perhaps TEC can give the Church of England all the colonial church property it stole in the 18th century. Then the Presiding Bishop can write another letter to the Queen of England telling her to give all the Church of England property it stole back to the Bishop of Rome.
While TEC is fixing ancient wrongs, perhaps it can write to the leaders of the world to repudiate the edicts of Flavius Claudius Julianus.
Having done that, TEC can submit to the Roman Pontiff. After all schism is worse than heresy.
Larry: It is indefensible to argue that European people had any “right” to claim territory that was inhabited by other people prior to their arrival. It is indefensible to argue that European people were human and those already inhabiting this territory were something less than human. It is indefensible to claim that the way in which European Christians evangelized those in this territory under and with the power of the gun and government is recognizable as something that Jesus Would Do. I seem to remember a verse in the Gospel in which Jesus said, “if you are not received, then brush the dust from your feet” and move along. Instead the doctrine involves a conversion of people that supports the taking of their dust and territory whether or not they accepted that Gospel that was being presented.
We cannot justify our actions by comparing them to the actions of anyone else as you attempt to do. We should, on the other hand, take a hard look at what we have inherited from those who have went before us and provided for us the basis of a lifestyle we now have.
In answer to #8, we indeed should check our own motives. Our own baptismal vows direct us to reconciliation that involves all of God’s creation.
My question now is, “why is it so difficult for Christian people to recognize the harm to one people, the benefit of that same history to another people and not be willing to offer apology for our part in the harm?”
Even though there was conflict on this continent before the arrival of Europeans how does that justify our actions?
“We cannot justify our actions by comparing them to the actions of anyone else” – especially the dead who have experienced the particular judgment already, eh?
Do we baptize for the dead?
Should we pretend to apologize for them?
Really this is just intellectual and without consequence, which is why it’s recommended and embraced by the elitists who most benefited.
Sign up to return your stuff at __________________________?
#12:
I’m sorry that you have only engaged this subject intellectually. What I find in my experience is that the statements and actions of dead people do make a difference today. Does the Declaration of Independence ring a bell? People who are now dead wrote it and I continue to benefit from it. So word of dead people do continue to influence the present day by paving the way for what comes later. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa didn’t change the history – it changed the future. Repudiating the Doctrine of Discover is a step in changing the future here as well.
[blockquote]how does that justify our actions?[/blockquote]
our?
#14. Are you asking a question about how a dominant group in a society maintains its benefits passed from one generation to the next? There is a connection from the past to the present. We stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before us. How is this truth so evident when speaking about the heroism of other generations, but rarely owned when speaking of the harmful things that were done that continue to effect present day generations?
John, I made no such argument that Europeans had a right to American territory. The European appearance in America is however, fully justifiable in all its early stages. The Europeans thought that one bought land for money and that one thereby acquired ownership. The Amerinds historically did not see it that way, but the Puritans Paid for the land and the Amerinds took the money and signed treaties for the land grants. The evidence is clear from Bradford, and Winthrop and their peers. Moreover they sought to treat the Amerinds well and to protect them, hence the furor over Merrymount. But the troubles that followed had two sources, the French, and Sassacus wherein the newcomers were absolutely obliged to defend themselves. It is important to note that Sassacus’s war was started by Amerinds.
The later treatment was indefensible, e.g., the treatment of the Cherokees. But the destruction of the Five Nations was in large part the Amerinds own fault: They played for power and played well, but underestimated the strength of their eventual opponents.
At last, Christianity had little to do with what happened. The men on the wilderness’ edge were hard, tough, brutal men in a brutal world. And so were the coureurs de bois, even more so.
Is it indefensible to argue that Eurppeans were human and Amerinds subhuman? A meaningless distinction. Some argued this, but many of the Puritans did not. The simple fact is that the highly civilized, when faced with the “ncivilized” reach this conclusion often and the reasons are obvious. The Amerinds did not see themselves thus, obviously,but the sheer brutality of the Amerinds, both devised and incidental, took the Puritans by surprise – although the Thirty Years War tells us that European brutality was hardly second in the world’s annals.
Here is a simple fact: When it is your scalp or mine, and when there are few restraints, I fsavor taking your scalp. It’s that simple. There were precious few “good guys” in the New World, Europeans or Amerinds. The young George Washington left everything to be desired, but would you like Taunaghrisson for a neighbor? Your arguments are 20th-21st C arguments and have no relation to the world of the 16th-17th C in pre-colonial America, and if I were an Amerind, I would find your arguments subtly condescending and arrogant. They were once a great and powerful people, but they met a greater and they lost the wars which they chose to fight. There are no apologies owed on either side. War is what it is, (and will always be necessary) and nice guys do not ordinarily win it. Larry
Larry:
Thanks for a reasonable response. I have stuck in this blog to see if people will engage this issue with an appreciation for the complexity that history presents us. What you state is also documented in the PBS program “We Shall Remain.”
I do believe that the Church helped to hold back the hand of the US Cavalry from doing its worst as it encounter the Plains people after the Civil War. Bishop Whipple was on the forefront of that effort.
My point is and will remain: The Doctrine of Discovery along with other statements by the Pope formed the environment that linked power and arms to the encounter of European and Native people on this continent. As the European population grew on the east coast it was embolden to act differently to those already living within these territories.
The Christian Church was linked to this conflict in many ways. The head of the Anglican Church – the Crown – can be seen to set the dominos falling that led to such things as massacres at Wounded Knee, White Stone, Sand Creek, the forced removals and the Long Walk.
The Church has broadly recognized the history that led up to the Holocaust. It had long roots back to and through the Reformation and was acted out most violently through the German state.
It is a practice of Christians to not only confess that which was done deliberately that was off the mark, but also to confess those things that in time contributed to harming others.
Most Native people that I know are told by others to “get over it.” To get over the grief of the loss of loved ones and a way of life is not a simple matter. In their eyes the Church is difficult to distinguish from the State. Jesus is a white man’s religion.
Just to make sure that all reading this blog understand, it is my understanding that it was the white man who first took a scalp.
John
John
Hi John,
If you have not already read it, I think it would be worth your while to read about the Deerfield Massacre. I would also recommend reading “A Few Acres of Snow” by historian Robert Leckie. I think it will help you gain insight on the issue. The Amerinds didn’t paint with all the colors of the wind and the Europeans were not all escapees from Dante’s Inferno. I think you need to read about the Mohawks grabbing nursing babes from their mothers and dashing their heads against the nearest tree in order to begin to understand the mind set of the 18th Century European settlers. It would also be good for you to read the accounts of the Amerinds staking down their captives, stripping them to the waist, and having the Amerind children place hot coals on the exposed stomachs of their captives and then laughing at the contorted faces of their victims.
As you said, this is a complex issue and a one sided apology by 21st Century Europeans for what folks did 2 and 3 hundred years ago…without understanding the context of their actions…well, I think that it is a bit simplistic.
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention the ritualistic cannibalism done by the Amerinds.
Unless yhou’ve signed up tp give your stuff back, I’m not the only one dealing with intellectually the problem you seem so wrought up over.
18. We all know that humans engage in warfare. We are made aware of our common depravity in the pages of history and the pages of the daily paper. My point is that the Doctrine of Discovery made way for the coming of the Gospel of the Prince of Peace to a people that had not heard such Good News through the use of power and domination.
It should also be understood that many European settlers came to view the these people as “hostile” because they were defending their territory. The values of many tribes that I know are about generosity, beauty, harmony and the worship of the Creator.
And as for your addition in 19 – now you are painting with a very broad brush. Cannibalism is not something that is known throughout this continent. Cannibalism knows no racial boundaries.
In all of the posts that have responded to what I have written not a single one has addressed the single core issue that is before us as Christians: Was it the right of Christendom to engage in conquest based on a premise that Pagan people have no right to keep their land and if they become converts to the Faith that they give up their culture. No one has answered the addressed my comments and questions about the link of history to the present and the benefits it provides to members of the dominant society and the deficit for those whose are not.
And finally, #20 has chimed in once again with the question of giving back. You have missed the point if you think this is a discussion about giving it all back. It is about the way in which we approach the future. And to answer your question – I’ve given 18 years – happily I might add.
Now. I will leave this conversation and wish you all well.