Category: Action

Categories
Action Global Conflict

Repudiate the Doctrine of Discovery

Our friend has spoken of the barbarities [extreme cruelties] which have been practiced towards the Indians, and of their present condition of degradation in contrast with their condition when William Penn landed on this continent.

Lucretia Mott, 1869

 

After showing the film “Two Who Dared” about the Sharps, a Unitarian couple who saved thousands of children from the Nazis, Charlie Clements asked for questions. I stood and asked what current conditions are analogous to German fascism that should spur us to action.

Charlie cited Darfur. This region of Sudan has been at war for a decade now, with three hundred thousand people slaughtered. It is not the usual genocide, however, where the conflict is based on religion or race. The two warring parties are both Muslims and of similar ethnicity, but one group is semi-nomadic and the other sedentary agriculturalists. Theoretically these two groups should coexist peacefully, but that is far from the case in Darfur! It seems that this conflict is over resources in that sparse land.

Right after asking Charlie my question, I thought of another situation analogous to Nazi Germany. This human tragedy is closer to home, however.

Our European forbearers invaded a prosperous land that supported its indigenous population very well. Native Americans helped some of the European settlers when they first arrived. How did we thank them? by uprooting them, waging devastating wars and introducing fatal diseases.

Using both bullets and disease, the European invaders killed off 80 or 90% of Native Americans. We came close to wiping out the people who had first rights to North and South America.

How could the medieval Europeans justify this massacre? The roots of this tragedy go back to the first half of the second millennium of Christianity. The Roman Catholic Church’s policy at that time was forced conversion of infidels (and of other enemies). Sometimes conversion was bypassed and the poor souls were killed directly. The Church ruled with fear and an iron fist.

Intolerance of diversity affected many groups. Fanaticism inspired the Crusades, resulting in the massacre of millions of Muslims. The last, Albigensian

Crusade was in Europe, against the Cathars, a Christian sect who protested the power of the Church. Cathars were obliterated in 1244 with the burning of the last 200+ of these protestants.

A single religious policy, the Doctrine of Discovery, made the conquering and massacre of Native Americans possible. Indeed, this Doctrine made it imperative that Christian Europeans conquer and convert in the name of Jesus. To quote Pope Nicholas V’s Papal Bull Romanus Pontifex of 1455, European monarchs were “…to invade, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans and other enemies of Christ… to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery [and] to take away all their possessions and property….”

In 1823 the US Supreme Court upheld the continued right of Europeans to own and control property that once belonged to Indians in the case of Johnson v. M’Intosh. The Court maintained that the US Government, as the discovering sovereign’s successor, does have the right to nullify Indians’ interest in their lands. Thus indigenous people had no right to their own lands! This Doctrine became the cornerstone of USA Indian policy and was the basis for a Court decision as recently as 2005.

The world has changed vastly since 1455. Both the Church and secular laws have changed immeasurably. Our society is much more egalitarian; now every person has value. By today’s standards many of the dirty deeds that the Europeans did would be unconscionable. We should be careful not to judge the past by today’s values, but also must be sure that today’s laws and practices don’t perpetuate the dark past.

What should we of European descent do to make it right with Native Americans? It is impossible for us to provide complete recompense; too much has happened since 1492. For instance, many of European descent live on land formerly used by the Utes, and we are unwilling and unable to move.

            A first step is to become aware of past history. I don’t remember learning about the Doctrine of Discovery in school, yet it is a vital part of history. A public apology is in order; this essay is my personal apology. I understand that there are treaties between the Federal Government and Native Americans that the government has consistently broken. We should ask Washington to live up to its promises to our indigenous hosts. Finally, we must work to prevent similar unethical policies that lead to genocide.

                                           © Richard Grossman MD, 2013

Categories
Action Contraception Population Reproductive Health Women's Issues

Smash Amendment 62

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”
Bill of Rights, Constitution of the United States

Imagine this scenario. Anne, a young mother of three small children, recently noted low abdominal discomfort and bloating. She is horrified to learn that she may have ovarian cancer—but even more horrified to learn that the necessary surgery cannot be performed in Colorado.
If Amendment 62 passes it would make removing a diseased ovary illegal. Worse, a doctor who performs such a lifesaving surgery would be punished for murder!
Here is what the proposed Amendment 62 says: “Person defined. As used in sections 3, 6, and 25 of Article II of the state constitution, the term “person” shall apply to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being.”
Anyone who graduated from an eighth grade health class knows that the start of the biological development is the human egg, and that girls are born with all the eggs that their ovaries will ever contain. So removing an ovary (even if diseased) would mean the removal of thousands of “persons”.
A woman whose doctorate is in biochemistry and is loosely associated with Georgetown University wrote this wording. An ethicist against abortion, what she has framed is so poorly defined that the above scenario is possible. A lawyer—or even a physician—could have done better!
This proposed amendment is laughable. It is unclear, it is unsupportable, it is misogyninistic and it would cost the state of Colorado millions of dollars to implement. Only the lawyers would profit if it is passed.
Let’s look at the problem of implementation. The word “person” appears in over 20,000 laws in our state. One current legal definition of “person” is “an autonomous being”. This foolish proposed amendment would certainly change that, since a fetus, embryo or egg are anything but autonomous! Passing the amendment would make major changes in the legal world, and would keep Colorado’s lawyers employed for years trying to figure out the ramifications.
You will remember that just two years ago a similar amendment was put forward. Proposed amendment 48 was a real loser! It lost in all Colorado counties. It lost by a huge margin—73 percent of voters were against it. Why did the Colorado Right to Life people do this again? Apparently they have received a message from God that this is their calling. This is clearly a case of infringement of our constitutional rights when one person’s religion interferes with the ability of another person to seek medical care. The proposed amendment would establish one set of religious beliefs as the law of the state. Doesn’t our Constitution’s Bill of Rights prohibit this?
The supporters of this proposed amendment don’t stop with facts. View their incredible misrepresentation of truth at: youtube.com/user/PersonhoodUSA.
Many of the same people who are against abortion are also against any contraception. They claim, against the judgment of most reputable scientists, that IUDs, emergency contraception and even “the pill” work by causing an abortion. If this crazy amendment were passed, all of these birth control methods might become unavailable in Colorado. Furthermore, miscarriages would have to be investigated (to be sure that the woman hadn’t caused the pregnancy loss intentionally), adding to the parents’ emotional pain.
Oh, what about abortion? There is no provision for cases of rape, incest or when a pregnancy endangers the mother’s life. This proposed amendment would make interrupting a pregnancy illegal—including saving the life of the mother! Even the strict “Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops” allows interrupting an ectopic (tubal) pregnancy, because the pregnancy threatens a woman’s life. This would not be possible under Colorado’s proposed Amendment 62. Aborting a pregnancy for a woman who had been a victim of rape or of incest would also be punished as first-degree murder.
Proposed Amendment 62 is stupid. It is poorly written and therefore would tie up lawyers and the court system. If passed, 62 would endanger women’s health care. It would make it difficult for couples to plan their families, and the already high undesired pregnancy rate would skyrocket.
Please vote in this midterm election. And please vote NO on proposed Amendment 62. To do anything else would be irresponsible!

© Richard Grossman MD, 2010

This article may be copied or published but must remain intact, with attribution to the author. I also request that the words “First published in the Durango Herald” accompany any publication. For more information, please write the author at: richard@population-matters.org.