I'm glad substack provides opportunity for discussions among writers! Steve and I have been conversing for a few years now.... This opens it to a wider audience.
As to Thomas: I don't look to him as an 'ally' in any other sense than willingness to engage in a discussion.
I have yet to encounter anyone in the judiciary whom I consider an ally. I would identify an ally as someone who is convinced of two truths: 1) that the peoples of the Native Nations have a right to their original free and independent existence in accordance with the international laws and usages that were so much a part of life on Turtle Island before the eurochristians invaded and, 2) that even in American constitutional law, properly construed, these nations have a right to be treated as independent sovereign states with whom the United States has binding treaty obligations that it is not free to alter unilaterally and which must be interpreted in light of the international laws and usages that antedate the eurochristians as the supreme law of the United States.
I would love to see a live conversation between you and Peter. It seems to me that you both agree that the foundations of Indigenous law are rotten but disagree somewhat in how you view the focus of how to manage the beast created, now regulated by laws, some of which can be interpreted to bring out lesser evil. It would be great to hear you discuss in a relational way because where as my understanding is you are more liberal and he is more conservative as evidenced in your lens, yet what you have in common in your regard for the sacredness of life and your clear-headedness on the lack of sanctity in the papal bulls that originated most of colonialization and subsequent acceptance of domination as the basis for nationhood and subjugation of the dominated. I see in your arguments the seeds of "right wingism" and also in Peter's the seeds of fascist leftism.
Hey Peter - it's interesting how you read that, which kind of makes me think of Yin/Yang, Deloria and Jung, along with the Fowler McCormick/Rockefellers/Harvard and Jung's first encounter with Indigenous thought.
I actually don't think either you or Steven are ring wingers or leftist fascists, but if anything I see more of the right in you and the left in him. I like the way you use Clarence Thomas but I don't trust him. I am happy to be corrected but it seems to me that you lean a bit right if you had to be pegged politically. I like the way Steven uses the part of the constitution related to Treaty law being the Supreme law of the land, but while his comment about states shows me the roots of right wingism, what I interpret (correct me if I'm wrong) as his advocacy for broader federal control, - -which I also interpret in light of his love for Bernie Sanders as he expresses on his political website...is equally rooted in genocide and expansionism. Hence all problems get solved at the root, where common ground lies among nearly all people of good faith brave enough to look and willing to find a gracious way forward that reckons with the horrors upon which Western Civ is built.
Yes. The key is integrity, which Peter has in abundance. The presentations to which he refers can be found on https://www.redthought.org. If I had to identify a difference in our positions, I would say that I suspect I am more inclined to give the James Wilson wing of the framers of the Constitution and the founders of the country more of the benefit of the doubt as to their sincerely trying to free themselves from the system of domination inherent in the eurochristian invasion of this continent. Instead of viewing the period since that invasion as one long genocidal assault on the peoples of the Native Nations, I view the assaults more as coming in waves and then partially receding (although never to the status quo ante). In short, I do not think of James Wilson as guilty of genocide although he certainly helped found a state that is. There is, in other words, even within the American constitutional system, a claim that can be raised as to what “justice” for the Native Nations would involve. This would obviously be inadequate relative to what justice would involve under the international laws and usages of Turtle Island that preceded the eurochristian invasion. That would require the restoration of their original free and independent existence. But perhaps the recognition of their full and independent sovereignty in American constitutional law could be a step in that direction…
That is a very good articulation. Why are you inclined to trust the good will of James Wilson? I get the same bad feeling from him I have of others I've later researched and found confirmation in what I have found (I admit confirmation bias, however what I have found is objectively verifiable.)
There’s a chapter on Wilson’s jurisprudence in my book that seeks to answer that question. In a nutshell, I see it as a question of whether the American people are capable of acting with trustworthy, reciprocal, and consensual conduct towards all life; of recognizing all living beings as our kith and kin and acting accordingly. Wilson spoke of the obligation on all nations to love one another and of the cultivation of a warm spirit of benevolence towards all the inhabitants of the world. Now “benevolence” is not respect and love, but it does seek to move in that direction. I suppose it’s a question of what if anything that’s worth and whether any eurochristians are truly capable of better…
Do you see a potential for it to justify the rape of the earth while compensating people for it, thereby giving state and corporation a sense of washing their hands of accountability if they give a tiny fraction of their exploits back to those it harms? Do you think it could seem good but be actually a way to make those in power self-satisfied with their ethical obligations and the people complacent feeling that the gov is doing its best in the face of evil corporations, whilst being in bed with same corporations, as well as shaping policy through clubs of elite membership etc?
The CT proposal is virtue signaling. It adds nothing except more verbiage to cover the emperor's nakedness. States (and the US) already claim to 'own' 'public land' and have 'eminent domain' over everything else... and claim to exercise these powers 'in the public interest'. Moreover, any claim that the 'trust' was violated would have to be brought in the state's court system... the 'trustee' thereby regulating itself.
All this is familiar to people who understand the working of federal anti-Indian law: the US 'trustee' for 'Native peoples' robs them and harms them repeatedly.
I noted to language of Trust and that caused me to want to share it with you. Thank you for your thoughts. Mine as well, thought you know far more about the topic! <3
I'm glad substack provides opportunity for discussions among writers! Steve and I have been conversing for a few years now.... This opens it to a wider audience.
As to Thomas: I don't look to him as an 'ally' in any other sense than willingness to engage in a discussion.
Really interesting thoughts. I encouraged my son to go read some more of your book while I read your article (and my husband joined too!)
Who in the judiciary (supreme, district, state, or other) is an ally? How would a person know if they were? Would that justice or judge agree?
I have yet to encounter anyone in the judiciary whom I consider an ally. I would identify an ally as someone who is convinced of two truths: 1) that the peoples of the Native Nations have a right to their original free and independent existence in accordance with the international laws and usages that were so much a part of life on Turtle Island before the eurochristians invaded and, 2) that even in American constitutional law, properly construed, these nations have a right to be treated as independent sovereign states with whom the United States has binding treaty obligations that it is not free to alter unilaterally and which must be interpreted in light of the international laws and usages that antedate the eurochristians as the supreme law of the United States.
Great response!
Great question!
I would love to see a live conversation between you and Peter. It seems to me that you both agree that the foundations of Indigenous law are rotten but disagree somewhat in how you view the focus of how to manage the beast created, now regulated by laws, some of which can be interpreted to bring out lesser evil. It would be great to hear you discuss in a relational way because where as my understanding is you are more liberal and he is more conservative as evidenced in your lens, yet what you have in common in your regard for the sacredness of life and your clear-headedness on the lack of sanctity in the papal bulls that originated most of colonialization and subsequent acceptance of domination as the basis for nationhood and subjugation of the dominated. I see in your arguments the seeds of "right wingism" and also in Peter's the seeds of fascist leftism.
We have conversed in various Redthought presentations... we have a good time !
What 'fascist leftism' do you see in my writing??
Hey Peter - it's interesting how you read that, which kind of makes me think of Yin/Yang, Deloria and Jung, along with the Fowler McCormick/Rockefellers/Harvard and Jung's first encounter with Indigenous thought.
Would you be willing to share any of them?
The presentations, that is...
I actually don't think either you or Steven are ring wingers or leftist fascists, but if anything I see more of the right in you and the left in him. I like the way you use Clarence Thomas but I don't trust him. I am happy to be corrected but it seems to me that you lean a bit right if you had to be pegged politically. I like the way Steven uses the part of the constitution related to Treaty law being the Supreme law of the land, but while his comment about states shows me the roots of right wingism, what I interpret (correct me if I'm wrong) as his advocacy for broader federal control, - -which I also interpret in light of his love for Bernie Sanders as he expresses on his political website...is equally rooted in genocide and expansionism. Hence all problems get solved at the root, where common ground lies among nearly all people of good faith brave enough to look and willing to find a gracious way forward that reckons with the horrors upon which Western Civ is built.
Yes. The key is integrity, which Peter has in abundance. The presentations to which he refers can be found on https://www.redthought.org. If I had to identify a difference in our positions, I would say that I suspect I am more inclined to give the James Wilson wing of the framers of the Constitution and the founders of the country more of the benefit of the doubt as to their sincerely trying to free themselves from the system of domination inherent in the eurochristian invasion of this continent. Instead of viewing the period since that invasion as one long genocidal assault on the peoples of the Native Nations, I view the assaults more as coming in waves and then partially receding (although never to the status quo ante). In short, I do not think of James Wilson as guilty of genocide although he certainly helped found a state that is. There is, in other words, even within the American constitutional system, a claim that can be raised as to what “justice” for the Native Nations would involve. This would obviously be inadequate relative to what justice would involve under the international laws and usages of Turtle Island that preceded the eurochristian invasion. That would require the restoration of their original free and independent existence. But perhaps the recognition of their full and independent sovereignty in American constitutional law could be a step in that direction…
I love the integrity you BOTH have! It inspires me greatly.
That is a very good articulation. Why are you inclined to trust the good will of James Wilson? I get the same bad feeling from him I have of others I've later researched and found confirmation in what I have found (I admit confirmation bias, however what I have found is objectively verifiable.)
There’s a chapter on Wilson’s jurisprudence in my book that seeks to answer that question. In a nutshell, I see it as a question of whether the American people are capable of acting with trustworthy, reciprocal, and consensual conduct towards all life; of recognizing all living beings as our kith and kin and acting accordingly. Wilson spoke of the obligation on all nations to love one another and of the cultivation of a warm spirit of benevolence towards all the inhabitants of the world. Now “benevolence” is not respect and love, but it does seek to move in that direction. I suppose it’s a question of what if anything that’s worth and whether any eurochristians are truly capable of better…
It would be interesting to bring a legal case that wasn't funded by the NCAI
Love your thoughts on this, and anyone elses:
https://open.substack.com/pub/intellectualdissatisfaction/p/connecticut-senate-proposes-constitutional?r=2phurm&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&comments=true
A baby step in the right direction in my opinion
Do you see a potential for it to justify the rape of the earth while compensating people for it, thereby giving state and corporation a sense of washing their hands of accountability if they give a tiny fraction of their exploits back to those it harms? Do you think it could seem good but be actually a way to make those in power self-satisfied with their ethical obligations and the people complacent feeling that the gov is doing its best in the face of evil corporations, whilst being in bed with same corporations, as well as shaping policy through clubs of elite membership etc?
Yes. See my comment on James Wilson elsewhere on this thread
Yes!
The CT proposal is virtue signaling. It adds nothing except more verbiage to cover the emperor's nakedness. States (and the US) already claim to 'own' 'public land' and have 'eminent domain' over everything else... and claim to exercise these powers 'in the public interest'. Moreover, any claim that the 'trust' was violated would have to be brought in the state's court system... the 'trustee' thereby regulating itself.
All this is familiar to people who understand the working of federal anti-Indian law: the US 'trustee' for 'Native peoples' robs them and harms them repeatedly.
I noted to language of Trust and that caused me to want to share it with you. Thank you for your thoughts. Mine as well, thought you know far more about the topic! <3