The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Vatican Repudiates "Discovery Doctrine"
Last month, Chief Justice Marshall's opinion in Johnson v. McIntosh turned 200 years old. Most 1Ls read this case in property. In this canonical decision, Marshall explained that European explorers "acquired" land in the Americas pursuant to the discovery doctrine. Of course, indigenous people already resided on this territory, but those "fierce savages," as Marshall called them, did not have any property rights. Thus, European explorers could "discover" these new lands, as if they were uninhabited.
Here is how Marshall described the discovery doctrine:
Discovery is the foundation of title, in European nations, and this overlooks all proprietary rights in the natives… All the proprietary rights of civilized nations on this continent are founded on this principle. The right derived from discovery and conquest, can rest on no other basis; and all existing titles depend on the fundamental title of the crown by discovery….
On the discovery of this immense continent, the great nations of Europe were eager to appropriate to themselves so much of it as they could respectively acquire. Its vast extent offered an ample field to the ambition and enterprise of all; and the character and religion of its inhabitants afforded an apology for considering them as a people over whom the superior genius of Europe might claim an ascendency. The potentates of the old world found no difficulty in convincing themselves that they made ample compensation to the inhabitants of the new, by bestowing on them civilization and Christianity, in exchange for unlimited independence. But, as they were all in pursuit of nearly the same object, it was necessary, in order to avoid conflicting settlements, and consequent war with each other, to establish a principle, which all should acknowledge as the law by which the right of acquisition, which they all asserted, should be regulated as between themselves. This principle was, that discovery gave title to the government by whose subjects, or by whose authority, it was made, against all other European governments, which title might be consummated by possession. The exclusion of all other Europeans, necessarily gave to the nation making the discovery the sole right of acquiring the soil from the natives, and establishing settlements upon it. It was a right with which no Europeans could interfere. It was a right which all asserted for themselves, and to the assertion of which, by others, all assented.
The discovery doctrine was grounded, in part, on religion. Christians were superior and the native people were inferior. Indeed, according to the doctrine, Christians were helping the native people by bestowing "civilization and Christianity" on them. The Catholic Church, in particular, had endorsed these principles when it approved various European expeditions. Indeed, some of these papal decrees stretch back to the 1400s.
The doctrine was laid out in a series of papal "bulls," or decrees; the first one was issued in 1452. They authorized colonial powers such as Spain and Portugal to seize lands and subjugate people in Africa and the "New World," as long as people on the lands were not Christians.
Scholars widely note three bulls: Pope Nicholas V's Dum diversas (1452) and Romanus Pontifex (1455); and Pope Alexander VI's Inter caetera (1493).
Now, the Vatican has taken the action to repudiate these decrees. Or more precisely, the Vatican stated that these decrees were never actually part of the teachings of the Catholic church:
5. It is in this context of listening to indigenous peoples that the Church has heard the importance of addressing the concept referred to as the "doctrine of discovery." The legal concept of "discovery" was debated by colonial powers from the sixteenth century onward and found particular expression in the nineteenth century jurisprudence of courts in several countries, according to which the discovery of lands by settlers granted an exclusive right to extinguish, either by purchase or conquest, the title to or possession of those lands by indigenous peoples. Certain scholars have argued that the basis of the aforementioned "doctrine" is to be found in several papal documents, such as the Bulls Dum Diversas (1452), Romanus Pontifex (1455) and Inter Caetera (1493).
6. The "doctrine of discovery" is not part of the teaching of the Catholic Church. Historical research clearly demonstrates that the papal documents in question, written in a specific historical period and linked to political questions, have never been considered expressions of the Catholic faith. At the same time, the Church acknowledges that these papal bulls did not adequately reflect the equal dignity and rights of indigenous peoples. The Church is also aware that the contents of these documents were manipulated for political purposes by competing colonial powers in order to justify immoral acts against indigenous peoples that were carried out, at times, without opposition from ecclesiastical authorities. It is only just to recognize these errors, acknowledge the terrible effects of the assimilation policies and the pain experienced by indigenous peoples, and ask for pardon. Furthermore, Pope Francis has urged: "Never again can the Christian community allow itself to be infected by the idea that one culture is superior to others, or that it is legitimate to employ ways of coercing others."
7. In no uncertain terms, the Church's magisterium upholds the respect due to every human being. The Catholic Church therefore repudiates those concepts that fail to recognize the inherent human rights of indigenous peoples, including what has become known as the legal and political "doctrine of discovery".
Johnson v. McIntosh remains good law. If there is any reason to cancel John Marshall, this is it.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"The discovery doctrine was grounded, in part, on religion. Christians were superior and the native people were inferior."
And we now doubt this?
So you have any idea how savage the native people were?
Oh, I'm sure they could be quite brutal to each other. I suppose we could say that wiping out most of them, forcing them to convert to Christianity, or confining them to the least desirable land as they were "civilized" was justified by this. I wouldn't, but some people might.
Disease wiped out the indians. It was inevitable from the time humankind split up unless you expected medieval Europeans to have the foresight to postpone all voyages until germ theory was developed or some other miracle.
If you still want to assign blame on who spread it it seems rather arbitrary to blame the 5123434 step of the spread passed through whites but not the 7023233 step of the spread passed from indian to indian or the 34 step in whatever distant country the disease originated.
Not all indigenous peoples died from disease. Assume 75% did, for the sake of argument. Now explain to me why the descendants of the other 25% don't currently own all of the United States, or at least the parts they didn't validly sell down the line. I think that's a fascinating legal problem, and one that doesn't necessarily have an easy non-racist answer.
Actual estimates are that 90% of the native American population died due to disease.
It's hard to overestimate the devastating effect the diseases that the Europeans brought over to the Americas and the massive effect they had. For a society to lose 90% of its population is just brutal. It breaks any real resistance once can muster to an invasion.
So, when Europeans came over, they found an "empty land". Which they just took.
For a (libertarian) lawyer that's an awfully hand-waivy answer to "how come these people own this?"
"Ah, I came to this house, and there was no one around, so I just made myself at home..."
Just admit you were making up numbers and walk away with a little bit of dignity.
You mean like above, when I said: "Assume 75% did, for the sake of argument."?
My point is/was that there is no legally relevant difference between 75% and 90%.
"Adverse possession" is in fact a legal thing.
It is, and it may well be part of the answer, at least as far as private law goes. I don't think adverse possession exists in international law, so it doesn't explain how the European nations came to govern North America in the first place.
They conquered it.
Like your country did in the East Indies.
Or they just migrated there, found it empty, and settled.
Like I wrote below, that might solve the legal problem. But then, why didn't Justice Marshall just say that? Jurisdiction by right of conquest wasn't exactly unknown in 1823. It's why the UK gets to run Northern Ireland, for example.
Continuing my thought, the issue may well be that right of conquest explains why a given state has jurisdiction over a given territory, but not how a given person came to own a given piece of land. In property law an owner typically traces their title back through a chain of previous owners, back to the dawn of time. (Which, famously, at Common Law is 1189 AD.)
"why didn’t Justice Marshall just say that? "
Because he was a bad judge?
It’s hard to overestimate the devastating effect the diseases that the Europeans brought over to the Americas and the massive effect they had. For a society to lose 90% of its population is just brutal. It breaks any real resistance once can muster to an invasion.
I'm not sure how reliable that 90% figure is. A Britannica article said that estimates are fairly uncertain and still controversial, as the estimates of pre-contact total population have a large uncertainty. 90% seems likely to be an "as high as" kind of estimate, unless you care to provide something more solid.
Besides, disease making the population more vulnerable to invasion doesn't relieve the invaders of moral responsibility for further devastation. Not to mention that not all of the diseases were European, given that some came from the importation of African slaves, particularly into the Caribbean. Nor was 90% of the population (assuming it to be accurate) wiped out by disease alone or in just a few years. It undoubtedly took generations, combined with food shortages due to the reduced capacity to find and grow food as disease took its toll. Then there were ecological changes as imported crops and invasive species displaced their prior food supplies.
So, when Europeans came over, they found an “empty land”. Which they just took.
This is wholly contradictory. Disease couldn't have wiped out that much of a population to make the land "empty" prior to Europeans coming over in significant numbers. A reduced ability to resist when the Conquistadors arrived with armies, sure, but we don't hear about the Spanish waltzing into deserted Aztec and Inca territory, now do we?
Yes the earliest Spanish did find populous cities. Go to Spain and Portugal and get them to pay up. Or maybe the current inhabitants can take money out of their left pocket and put in in their right. Or maybe have every immigrant from south of the border pay a conquistador tax that will go to the indians. Either way it seems odd, aside from being a prog who wants to bring back the concept of blood debt to blame people who arrived in North America centuries later because of their skin color over people who by the standards of blood are more to blame.
https://phys.org/news/2016-01-aftermath-native-american-depopulation-impacted.html describes a study that found 87% population loss to disease in just a 60-year span (in the area being studied). https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2019/05/05/columbus-brought-measles-new-world-it-was-disaster-native-americans/ quotes a study giving the estimate as "upwards of 80–95 percent". Sadly, 90% is more of a best or typical estimate than an "as high as" number.
We only know how many people lived in Pre-Columbian Americas based on extrapolations from the people observed by the Spanish. But the disease often spread faster than the Europeans, so as you say it's a very difficult thing to estimate.
Neil Armstrong doesn't own the entirety of the moon simply because he was the first to plant his ass on it. Starting from the premise that some mythological united Indian state 'owns' the US is a nonsensical concept.
You're mixing up several things there, as you probably know.
Firstly, there is state jurisdiction over territory and private law ownership. The former is logically prior to the latter.
Secondly, both states and individuals can acquire property if it is genuinely a res nullius. The question here is whether (North) America was reasonably a res nullius, and if not how else we might root the jurisdiction of the colonial governments.
(Post-1776, the US government had jurisdiction by right of conquest, but that doesn't necessarily answer all the questions about private property rights.)
Thirdly, you're the first one to mention some kind of " mythological united Indian [sic] state". Neither being united nor being a state is either necessary or sufficient for it to have jurisdiction over territory.
A question complicated by the tendency to stretch the terra nullius concept to include territory that was inhabited but not organized.
A 1992 case in Australia dealt with these issues with respect to the Murray Islands lying in the Torres Strait south of New Guinea and annexed by Queensland in 1879 before Australian independence. The High Court held that the validity of the extension of sovereign domain was a question of international law and not justiciable under the laws subsequently imposed, but nevertheless common law private ownership rights of the inhabitants survived even though theirs was not an organized society according to European standards.
"easy non-racist answer"
Europeans, with vastly superior arms and technology, waged a series of wars against weak, scattered tribes.
Europeans were fighting much worse wars in Europe, killing many, many more than in America.
As per my comments above, that works for international law and constitutional law, but I'm not sure it answers the challenge under property law. (Which is, after all, how we came to be talking about Johnson v. McIntosh.)
Adverse possession might do that, but that carries its own difficulties.
Tribes signed treaties to the US ceding their interests.
"So you have any idea how savage the native people were?"
I sure do! They were really, really savage.
Kind of like Europeans in that regard. Raping and pillaging is still rape and pillage when the Vikings do it. Burning witches, or Joan of Arc, isn't particularly civilized behavior. If you want something more recent we can talk about the Holomodor or Holocaust, which I'm pretty sure weren't committed by Native Americans.
Or Rwanda or the Zulu or Aztec empires, or the Mongols, or Vlad the Impaler. People across the globe have a pretty deep capacity for savagery.
The Spainish Inquisition, the Thirty Years War, burning heretics, hanging witches, 'kill them all God will know his own.'
As a Jew, I strongly doubt that Christians were superior. Or less savage.
Those “savages” never slaughtered entire herds of Buffalo and left them to rot. The “Christians” did though.
"Those “savages” never slaughtered entire herds of Buffalo and left them to rot."
Actually, they did, at the buffalo jumps. They didn't do the almost extermination level of killing, because they didn't have the capability.
Opinions are divided about whether the megafauna extinctions a few millennia earlier were human caused.
In both of those cases, slaughtered animals were not left to rot. "Primitive" hunters did not kill for sport, they were too busy trying to survive.
"In both of those cases, slaughtered animals were not left to rot"
I believe you are mistaken; the herd that went over the cliff could be much larger than the band could process. My source is the signs at the buffalo jump just south of Great Falls, MT.
delete button plz
'For Christ sake!' takes on a whole other meaning.
Dear God,
I don't think you really exist but if you do, please smite the people who have appropriated and abused your and Jesus's name for their personal, ugly, selfish and decidedly unChristian goals.
Your humble servant,
apedad
PS. Can I have a boat?
A big boat!
Apedad,
The smiting: On it, but have patience (I'm timeless, it may take awhile in your reference frame).
Your skepticism: I get it - the uneven quality and prominent moral depravity in my written Word, my capricious callousness at watching tens of thousands of human generations perish unenlightened before bothering to intervene, the dearth of hard evidence concerning my very existence, and my vaunted willingness to punish all and sundry for failing to believe in me for *no good reason* - all this and more made *rational* belief in my omni-whateverness a mite challenging. And frankly I never was good at the gig. So I'm turning over a new leaf, now fully support you reason-and-evidence types, and will soon retire to an undisclosed planet with plenty of open space and few - no, *zero* - worshipers.
Your humbled god,
God (hey, I like the name)
PS. Parting tip: Tell your species to be *real* careful with that AI tech. I've lost more promising civilizations that way. Seriously.
PPS. The boat: Sorry, you'll have to make your own. I saw what you did last Tuesday.
How disgusting a level of character would need to be involved for anyone to still be a Catholic, Republican Penn State (or Baylor) fan?
“Certain scholars have argued that the basis of the aforementioned “doctrine” is to be found in several papal documents, such as the Bulls Dum Diversas (1452), Romanus Pontifex (1455) and Inter Caetera (1493).”
Yes, that’s where we keep such doctrines. We do that in order to draw clear lines between the opinions of various popes and the teachings of Jesus Christ, which are found in the New Testament. The system was far less effective than was hoped.
So great it has to be repeated:
“Never again can the Christian community allow itself to be infected by the idea that one culture is superior to others, or that it is legitimate to employ ways of coercing others.”
“Never again can the Christian community allow itself to be infected by the idea that one culture is superior to others, or that it is legitimate to employ ways of coercing others.”
The Holy See (not the Vatican, that's something else) doesn't like to overrule its own precedents, so it prefers to distinguish them or retroactively re-interpret them instead.
But yes, the doctrine of papal infallibility is a lot more complicated than people typically imagine.
The concept of papal infallibility has always been quite simple: It’s bunk. Just another doctrine found in papal docs and nowhere else.
I'm glad we've agreed that sometimes Catholics are wrong about things. Personally I'd add a few more things to that list, but I suppose it's a start.
"Papal bull" is definitely one of the more appropriately named concepts.
Papal infallibility did not exist until 1870, when Vatican I rubber-stamped the paranoid ravings of Pius IX (whose Papal States were about to get overrun by Italian troops, forcing him to retreat to what is now Vatican City). It’s only been invoked once, in 1950 by Pius XII, to declare that Mary did not die but was “assumed” into Heaven.
Vatican I was never closed; technically it can reconvene, and withdraw its declaration as to infallibility.
Nope: "The council never resumed and it was closed formally in 1960 before the formation of the Second Vatican Council (Vatican Council II)." https://vatican.com/Vatican-I/
Are they then going to return all of the wealth given to the church by the Spanish?
Perhaps, but how did you get to that from the OP?
They repudiate the pretext for conquering the Americas. It follows then that they repudiate the wealth that flowed from that conquest.
“You're thinking of this place all wrong. As if I had the money back in a safe. The money's not here. Your money's in Joe's house...right next to yours. And in the Kennedy house, and Mrs. Macklin's house, and a hundred others.”
-Pope George Bailey Francis
“Never again can the Christian community allow itself to be infected by the idea that one culture is superior to others, or that it is legitimate to employ ways of coercing others.”
Bullshyte.
I think our Christian culture is vastly superior to a lot of others.
Postwar Germany & Japan had our culture imposed on them.
I like Ann Coulter's response to 9-11 -- we should invade their countries. kill their leaders, and make them Christians.
". . . make them Christians."
So . . . you and Ann are clueless about religious freedom.
Got it.
"So . . . you and Ann are clueless about religious freedom."
Mr Ed is clueless about infinitely many things. Sometimes one wonders if, perhaps Ed is an AI bot programmed to respond with something dim -- sort of like Scott Adams or Jordan Peterson.
Really, you think that after World War II the US made Germany and Japan Christian? Have you ever been to Japan? Or seen it on TV?
And apparently Dr. Ed forgot about the "Gott mit uns" motto inscribed on German soldiers' belt buckles during WWI and WWII.
That might be taking it too far in the opposite direction. The Nazi's had a complicated relationship with the Catholic Church and the various protestant churches, but they weren't exactly warriors of Christ.
Nothing complicated about it.
They - like lots of 'Christians' today (and I'm NOT saying all Christians) - simply use God/Jesus/Bible/tea leaves/cow dung, etc., for their own selfish uses and not in devotion and service to God.
No, they were Christians.
Some of them were, to varying extents.
German was a VERY religious country, the conservative right even more so.
In some places it still is. And in other places it very much wasn't and isn't.
The Nazi version of fascism has inherent tension with traditional Christianity, even before the Holocaust, because it implies a level and manner of state control over society that the church wouldn't have approved of. (Basically they were competing for true believers.)
Now you're just talking about the politics of it. It was a Christian country.
I'm not even sure that I know what "a Christian country" means. There were certainly more Christians in 1930s Germany than atheists, or members of another religion. But fascism, like communism, is a profoundly modernist ideology, which arose during an industrial age when society underwent many profound changes. So Nazi Germany certainly wasn't "a Christian country" in the same way that 1830s Germany or 1730s Germany were.
I'm sorry I've lost track of what point you're making or arguing with.
Martinned:
"So Nazi Germany certainly wasn’t “a Christian country” in the same way that 1830s Germany or 1730s Germany were."
I'm not sure what one might mean when speaking of the German country in 1730 or 1830.
Pre-Hitler Germany was heavily Christian - mostly Lutheran and Roman Catholic.
If Christian culture is so superior, how did it let Hitler rise to power?
The Nazis subverted it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchenkampf
Some resisted:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietrich_Bonhoeffer
If it was so superior, how did it let the Nazi's subvert it? Why did those that did resist not number enough to be effective at stopping it?
You didn't really answer bernard's question. Though, I think his question was rhetorical anyway.
"We demand freedom for all religious confessions in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or conflict with the customs and moral sentiments of the Germanic race. The party as such represents the standpoint of a positive Christianity, without owing itself to a particular confession...."
My guess is that by about 1946 the " conflict with the customs and moral sentiments of the Germanic race" would have led to the end of organized Christianity outside of the party structure.
Germany was Christian before WWII.
We did not impose Lutheranism or Catholicism on the Germans. And we did not impose Shinto and Buddhism on the Japanese.
we should invade their countries. kill their leaders, and make them Christians.
Both you and Coulter are utter scum.
And is this Pope the AntiChrist?
Don’t you have some Jews to Inquisition or something?
HA!
Love me some Mel Brooks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PR7hp0613QY
Phil Leeds, with his perfect delivery of one of the worst puns in movie history.
I have to say that I came into the comments on this post expecting the Spanish Inquisition.
The pope who actually lives and spreads Christ’s teachings? No, he’s not the anti-Christ.
No, Johnson is not still good law. Try to rely on it in any court anywhere, even in a case involving Native American claims, and you will get the eye-rolling scorn of the judge and of course your adversary.
Why students are subjected to this confusing case their first week of law school is a mystery and says a great deal more about the professors’ mentality than it does about American law. You’d think they would start off with some simple cases illustrating basic Property Law concepts. But no!
Josh is correct, though, about how the Church never admits that it’s overruling itself. You see this in the language of the latest “Joint Statement”.
Well, I'm not Catholic, so I am sticking with the concept in place in this country when the Europeans arrived and took up residence; to the victor the spoils.
The "Indians" here held land they won in battle, and so did/do we.
That might well be the legally cleaner solution. Title by right of conquest. As far as I know, that was a valid part of international law until the UN Charter was ratified.
Well, as a 'legal' matter, Kellogg–Briand pretty much made the concept non-operative before the UN Charter.
The Church gets to walk back papal statements not made ex cathedra.
Much of this discussion reminds me of what was said of the Panama Canal, "Of course it's ours! We stole it fair and square!"
For millennia, that's how international relations worked...
As summed up in "might makes right"?
Most 1Ls read this case in property.
I seriously doubt this. I know we weren't assigned this case when I went to law school -- though to be fair, in my day the case was rather recent. 🙂 I have flipped through a number of Property casebooks and hornbooks over the years and never saw it discussed or featured. (Maybe it was in a footnote?)
Having recently heard this assertion, I informally polled lawyers from different generations and they had never heard of it.
Not to mention that it is utterly useless for any practical purpose, won't be on the bar exam, and will never be encountered in practice.
Maybe we can do a poll here.
I started law school in 1989 and it was the first case in the book.
I graduated 2011 and we read it as well
Which casebook did you use?
Never heard of it before captcrisis mentioned it. Not taught in my law school.
Seems to me this is more a repudiation of the application of the doctrine than the doctrine per se. Doesn’t international law recognize it, or something like it, in places like Antarctica, where there are no natives?
For sure. Take any random ICJ case about some piece of rock or another. It always starts with the first known person to have visited it. (E.g. par. 58 of Nicaragua v. Colombia (2012).)
https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/124/124-20121119-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf
What an odd post. What does your ending there mean Josh? Care to explain why you defend Marshall's decision here? Because it kinda sounds like you disagree with the Vatican that peoples aren't superior to each other
This is what happens when you let a Jesuit be Pope.
This is what happens when gullible children of all ages (claim to) believe fairy tales are true:
It’s a shameful day for America as former President Donald J. Trump was indicted by a Manhattan grand jury. The Democrats have weaponized the legal system for their political gain while ignoring the current Administration’s faults and deficiencies. There’s only One who can save this country, and that is God and God alone. Why should He even hear our prayers when we have turned our back on Him? But I’m going to keep praying that God will intervene and save this nation so we will continue to be that beacon of hope for this very dark world.
That’s a tweet from superstition-addled heir and obsolete right-wing hayseed Franklin Graham.
Clingers — from Franklln Graham to Bob from Ohio, from the Volokh Conspiracy to FreeRepublic, from Donald Trump to Stormfront subscribers — are the culture war’s useless debris.
(Glenn Reynolds seems to be even more unhinged than Eugene Volokh recently. Which is no problem replacement will not solve.)
Dehumanizing rhetoric ("useless debris") and hoping for the deaths of those he doesn't like...
People like Kirkland are your people, liberals.
You used to be profess concern about the economic interests of people in flyover country while blaming right-wingers for distracting them with culture war issues.
Now you've dropped the mask, the culture war replaces any idea of economic justice, and you employ the rhetoric of dehumanization and death.
And you probably hate the old colonizers for dehumanizing the indigenous peoples, you no-self-awareness-having dillweeds.
People who formerly were sympathetic toward half-educated, superstitious people with poor judgment and inadequate skills (and declining-for-good-reason communities) may have reassessed their magnanimity when the shambling hayseeds took a hard turn toward bigotry, belligerent ignorance, and antisocial behavior.
Google: PragerU Are some cultures better than others?
(For some reason I seem to be having trouble posting hyperlinks.)
It seems to me that you can easily reconcile the idea one people doesn’t have the right to simply kill off another and take their land with a belief in absolute values. A dichotomy whereby you are forced to choose between complete cultural relativism on the one hand, and saying that people of “superior” culture have the right to take whatever they want from people of “inferior” culture on the other, is about as false a dichotomy as there can be.
The late 15th century was a bad time for the papacy. Martin Luther was a result.
Hasn’t the doctrine in fact been repudiated? A string of Gorsuch opinions would seem to stand for the proposition that Indians maintain aboriginal rigbts unless they explicitly waive them by treaty or the United States extinguishes them by act of Congress. Under that view of things, mere “discovery” does not confer any title to anything.
That said, treaties and acts of Congress pretty much extinguished most aboriginal rights. The Gorsuch opinions were about marginal leftover pickings, a few holes in treaties that didn’t explicitly take certain things away, quite possibly by oversight. So the issue is mostly moot.
Among the best arguments against Christianity -- well, aside from the superstitious nonsense problem -- are Christians, especially conservative Christians.
Carry on, clingers. So far as your superstition, old-timey bigotry, disdain for science, and disaffectedness could carry anyone in modern America, anyway.
Conservative Christians like Francis, the woke Pope?
By all means take down Marshall’s statue, bust, or whatever it is.
Sell it off to collectors. From Blackman’s tone, I suspect he might bid on it. Use the proceeds to reduce the deficit.
Do the same with every other statue, bust, commemorative plaque or other memorial to former politicians or high government officials. Reduce the deficit, eliminate the cost of maintaining this junk. Let private individuals or institutions who value this stuff buy it, display it to the public, melt it down or convert it to gravel. Whatever the new owners want to do with their property.
We need a Supreme Court. We do not need statues of former justices. Do not spend a penny of federal money on them.
Like ReaderY says, you can believe there are superior cultures and at the same time oppose wicked actions taken by allegedly superior cultures against allegedly inferior ones.
So the woke Pope stole a base on that one.
But taking the Vatican statement as a whole, they note that the Pope was denouncing the discovery doctrine in 1537. Though plenty of colonizers, preferring Mammon to God and seeking to steal indigenous peoples’ land, disregarded such strictures.
Not to mention the Las Casas/Sepúlveda debates, the Jesuit theocracy protecting South American Indians, etc.
Makes the whole thing seem nuanced, doesn’t it? Can’t have that!
No, we must unambiguously denounce all cultures from the past, and glory in our own modern culture where we would never call another culture inferior and wage war againt it on that basis.