Jump to content

Vatican repudiates doctrine of discovery


Recommended Posts

VATICAN CITY (AP) — The Vatican on Thursday responded to Indigenous demands and formally repudiated the “Doctrine of Discovery,” the theories backed by 15th-century “papal bulls” that legitimized the colonial-era seizure of Native lands and form the basis of some property law today."

Responding to Indigenous, Vatican rejects Discovery Doctrine (msn.com)

This was a statement issued by the Vatican over 500 years ago.  I don't really see how something stated 500 years ago in the Vatican has any relevance to anything today in Canada.  Also, should a statement like this made today have any meaning or significance to how Canada is governed now?   Most of the world was settled or colonized by people migrating from one area to another.  That is how Europe was settled and developed.  So what is the difference in Canada or north America?  I don't see how aboriginals in north America have perpetual ownership of large areas of land that their ancient ancestors may have travelled across or just lived within a 1000 kilometers of centuries ago.  However, I can see this as being used as an excuse for more or continuing demands for compensation for colonization by past populations.  I don't think much of what is often being claimed is valid.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • blackbird changed the title to Vatican repudiates doctrine of discovery
23 minutes ago, blackbird said:

This was a statement issued by the Vatican over 500 years ago.  I don't really see how something stated 500 years ago in the Vatican has any relevance to anything today in Canada. 

It formed the legal basis for the claiming of the land by the British.  It basically said if you found land previously unknown to europe, your country gets to have it.  And it was the church that 'authorized' that back in the day so to speak.

Refuting it is like overturning roe vs wade.  It basically says that Britian really didn't have the right to claim canada essentially. When the king granted the hudsons bay company rights to 'all land that drains into hudson's bay', he had no right to do so essentialy.

So it does potentially have an impact on land claims today. 

I keep trying to tell you - the roman catholic church is every bit as much a political org as a religious org. You keep acting surprised and confused when they're involved in politics.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

It formed the legal basis for the claiming of the land by the British.  It basically said if you found land previously unknown to europe, your country gets to have it.  And it was the church that 'authorized' that back in the day so to speak.

Refuting it is like overturning roe vs wade.  It basically says that Britian really didn't have the right to claim canada essentially. When the king granted the hudsons bay company rights to 'all land that drains into hudson's bay', he had no right to do so essentialy.

So it does potentially have an impact on land claims today. 

I keep trying to tell you - the roman catholic church is every bit as much a political org as a religious org. You keep acting surprised and confused when they're involved in politics.

I read somewhere in one of the news articles this morning that the Papal bulls or decrees in the 15th century were given to Spain and Portugal.  They never mentioned Britain.  Britain broke away from Vatican control in the 1500s under Henry VIII. 

 I am not sure how the Papal bulls would be relevant since it was Britain that colonized the territory now called Canada except Quebec was colonized by France and later conquered by Britain.  Britain was not under Papal control in the past 400 years when most of the colonization occurred.  Don't know if Britain even recognized those doctrines when they colonized Canada.

I don't think Canada is under the direction or control of the Vatican.  But this is just another reason Canada should not be paying for the Pope's trip.  Paying for a Papal trip may somehow be agreeing that the Vatican has some say over Canadian affairs when they should not.  Sets a dangerous precedent.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I read somewhere in one of the news articles this morning that the Papal bulls or decrees in the 15th century were given to Spain and Portugal.  They never mentioned Britain.  Britain broke away from Vatican control in the 1500s under Henry VIII. 

It was still considered to be 'international law' at the time. All european countries still respected it. Again - not just religion, also politics.

21 minutes ago, blackbird said:

 I am not sure how the Papal bulls would be relevant since it was Britain that colonized the territory now called Canada

That's because you're not listening. THat's what passed for international law in those days and it was recognized by all countries. It is the principle they operated under.

21 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I don't think Canada is under the direction or control of the Vatican. 

There wasn't even a canada when this was happening, and wouldn't be for hundreds of years. But - the question is who has the right to the land.

If i steal the title to your house and sell it to someone and run off with the money - who owns the house? The people who bought did so in good faith and registered title, but they bought from someone who had no right to sell. The original owner didn't sell it and legally owned it - but now he doesn't have title to it and has recieved no compensation.

How do you resolve that. Either the buyer has to give up the home or the seller has to lose their property - or there has to be some species of compromise where they both take a  hit but get some compensation.

This actually happens in Canada and there is law around it and it doesnt' favor the first nations.  So it's probably not going to have a MASSIVE impact. But - it can play a bit of a role and it's something the first nations have been pushing for for a very long time.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

There wasn't even a canada when this was happening, and wouldn't be for hundreds of years. But - the question is who has the right to the land.

According to FN red power activists they own the province or maybe the whole country.  In northwest B.C. the Gitskan live in a few villages in small areas, but the hereditary chiefs, who were unelected, claim over a thousand square kilometres far from their villages and have been trying to stop a natural gas pipeline from being built through northwest B.C.  The radical environmentalists take advantage of that and join them.  There have been illegal terrorist attacks up at the worksite too.  Yesterday they arrested some protesters who were breaking the law.  FNs have been given land in some places, lots of money, and lots of privileges.  But a minority of activists will never be satisfied.  They simply think no non-natives have a right to live in northwest B.C.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

THat's what passed for international law in those days and it was recognized by all countries. It is the principle they operated under.

Canada today is not under any requirement to follow any "international law" that was in force in the Holy Roman Empire 500 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coastal Indians had all their necessities on the beach /coastal strip lands, and the water.  There is virtually no indication of any Indian influence inland  from the Pacific coast.  Prairie tribes pursued a nomadic existence with their food source, the bison.  Prairie tribes have a legitimate claim, coastal tribes have a disputable claim to interior coastal land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nefarious Banana said:

Coastal Indians had all their necessities on the beach /coastal strip lands, and the water.  There is virtually no indication of any Indian influence inland  from the Pacific coast.  Prairie tribes pursued a nomadic existence with their food source, the bison.  Prairie tribes have a legitimate claim, coastal tribes have a disputable claim to interior coastal land.

You’re saying that the Secwepemc (Shuswap) people didn’t exist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

Canada today is not under any requirement to follow any "international law" that was in force in the Holy Roman Empire 500 years ago.

So then by what right does canada have ownership of this land? By what mechanism is this canada's land? Who gave 'canada' the land?

And yes canada absolutely is bound by laws that were in the past if they're still relevant today. We still recognize a shit tonne of old laws that we inherited.

It's just childish to say things like that.  You can't change the world by pouting and kicking your feet.  This is adult stuff, simply saying 'NOOoooOOoo don't like it"  is not a valid argument.

Yeash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

According to FN red power activists they own the province or maybe the whole country

First, I think red power is a racist term and is probably not a good idea to use that term if your goal is civil discourse.  
 

Second, If it was good enough for Britain back then to just claim Canada even though there were people already here, why get upset, or take offence, to an indigenous person saying that now, probably when they are saying it now to make a point, and not actually wanting to literally take your house?

Edited by TreeBeard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

red power is a racist term

No, it's not a racist term.  If red power is a racist term, so is black lives matter a racist term.  So is white supremacy a racist term.   It's only racist to the woke who refuse to live in reality.   Red power is a real thing.  Do you know what it means?  It's a political power group that thinks white people have no right to be in north America and everything belongs to them.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

Canada today is not under any requirement to follow any "international law" that was in force in the Holy Roman Empire 500 years ago.

Everyone, individuals institutions and governments alike, were under the same 2000 year old moral code that commanded them to unto others yadda yadda. They knew better than to behave the way they did.

In any case the only thing you're really responsible for is paying for the mistakes and crimes that our institutions committed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nefarious Banana said:

Coastal Indians had all their necessities on the beach /coastal strip lands, and the water.  There is virtually no indication of any Indian influence inland  from the Pacific coast.  Prairie tribes pursued a nomadic existence with their food source, the bison.  Prairie tribes have a legitimate claim, coastal tribes have a disputable claim to interior coastal land.

Coastal claims are often based on the watersheds that provide necessities critical to coastal people, like salmon for example.  Boundaries based on biogeophysical features such as watersheds are common throughout the world and have been for centuries.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Coastal claims are often based on the watersheds

What about the Fraser River watershed. That extends way to somewhere around Jasper in north east B.C. in the Rockie Moutains.   The Skeena River watershed extends from Prince Rupert on the coast  hundreds of kilometers inland into the northwest B.C.   Sounds like a good argument to claim half the province.  Just pick any geographic feature and make your claim.  Canada or B.C. will pay, and pay, and pay forever.  I grew up in the coastal mountains.  So the whole coastal mountain range is mine argument.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Everyone, individuals institutions and governments alike, were under the same 2000 year old moral code that commanded them to unto others yadda yadda.

I'm sure one could dig into history somewhere to find anything they wished to use to make a claim.  yadda yadda argument.   Didn't Columbus discover north America in 1492? Or was it some viking around 1000 A.D.  So who owns north America? 

What about Captain James Cook in the 1700s who explored and mapped the B.C. coast?  Captain Vancouver?  What about Confederation in 1867?  Does that mean anything?  Or the formation of the colony of B.C. in the 1800s?

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, herbie said:

So we can't even discuss how the Pope finally corrected an historic decree? We instantly must distract everyone into anti-native rants instead? Can't even discuss what the hell it had to do with Canada?

Typical

Uhhh - you get that this is a native issue right? The first nations is who was asking for this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

Sounds like a good argument to claim half the province.

An even better argument is to point at the fact that Governor General's dispatched by England to BC, with orders to negotiate with people who lived here and get them to cede sovereignty to the Crown, didn't, couldn't or wouldn't follow those orders.

So in addition to doing unto others yadda yadda, people back then also knew they couldn't just walk on in and take over the joint without a by-your-leave from the people who were already here. If there were no international laws explicitly stating this there were certainly international expectations that anyone claiming lands in the so-called New World did so in a process that applied to any newcomers competing here - you secured your claim by negotiating something, formal surrender or whatever with the people who lived here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

The Pope is not the ruler of Canada.  But if something he said makes you feel good, great.

WTF does the 'ruler' of Canada have to do with the Vatican's Doctrine of Discovery? S.F.A.!

Pretend there's a nun beside you and whack yourself with your imaginary "ruler".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, eyeball said:

you secured your claim by negotiating something, formal surrender or whatever with the people who lived here.

 

47 minutes ago, eyeball said:

An even better argument is to point at the fact that Governor General's dispatched by England to BC, with orders to negotiate with people who lived here and get them to cede sovereignty to the Crown, didn't, couldn't or wouldn't follow those orders.

So in addition to doing unto others yadda yadda, people back then also knew they couldn't just walk on in and take over the joint without a by-your-leave from the people who were already here. If there were no international laws explicitly stating this there were certainly international expectations that anyone claiming lands in the so-called New World did so in a process that applied to any newcomers competing here - you secured your claim by negotiating something, formal surrender or whatever with the people who lived here.

That's true.  There has been treaties signed over the years and negotiated at times through an official process.  That just shows there is no need for the Pope to get involved by repudiating the doctrine of discovery from 500 years ago.  Things have developed with negotiations and treaties in the past couple hundred years without the need for the Pope to be involved.  He is not the ruler of Canada, likely knows nothing about Canada's complex history, and has no business in meddling in the affairs of Canada.  

"

History of Treaties in B.C.

Treaties were promised through the Royal Proclamation of 1763.

When Europeans began to settle in the eastern part of North America, before Canada was a country, Britain recognized that those people who were already living here (First Nations people) had title to the land: the Royal Proclamation of 1763 declared that only the British Crown could take possession of lands from First Nations, and only by treaties.

In most parts of Canada, the British Crown established treaties with First Nations before Canada was formed. Canada continued this policy of making treaties before the west was opened up for settlement, but in B.C. this process was never completed. In 1991, the British Columbia Claims Task Force, which established the B.C. treaty process, recommended the creation of a British Columbia Treaty Commission to facilitate the negotiation process."

History of Treaties in B.C. - Province of British Columbia (gov.bc.ca)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

What about the Fraser River watershed. That extends way to somewhere around Jasper in north east B.C. in the Rocky Mountains.   The Skeena River watershed extends from Prince Rupert on the coast  hundreds of kilometers inland into the northwest B.C.   Sounds like a good argument to claim half the province.  Just pick any geographic feature and make your claim.  Canada or B.C. will pay, and pay, and pay forever.  I grew up in the coastal mountains.  So the whole coastal mountain range is mine argument.

Fact is that there was no reason to stray inland from the 'coastal strip' . . . . old growth stands of  hemlock/spruce/red cedar on the west side of VI and north coast are virtually barren in regard to understory/brush/berry/food producing vegetation.  There was no need to penetrate the coastal vegetation to any great degree because everything to sustain the coastal tribes was at their fingertips along the coast.  Their claims of everything 'as far as the eye can see' are bogus, and should be treated as such.

The horse cultures of the prairies were a different story however . . . mobile natives competing with other mobile tribes for a mobile/seasonal food source . . . . the old scars run deep back there.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...