Steven Newcomb: Challenge system of domination in Indian law

Although the United States has forcibly imposed patterns of domination on the original Native nations of this continent, it is typical to see the courts of the United States and most legal scholars use the words “conquest,” “conqueror,” and “conquering” and not the words “domination,” “dominator,” and “dominating.” Professor Robert Miller (Shawnee), for example, titled his book Native America: Discovered and Conquered (2008). Theologian George “Tink” Tinker (Osage) titled his 1993 book “Missionary Conquest” and in my book Pagans in the Promised Land (2008), I refer to “the Conqueror” mental model and the idea of conquest.

In hindsight, I now see that it would have made more sense for me to write about “the Dominator” mental model. Think of the difference it would have made if George Tinker had titled his book Missionary Domination, and if Robert Miller had titled his book Native America: ‘Discovered’ and Dominated.” Referring to our nations as “discovered and conquered” makes it seem as if the fight is over and that the United States were “the winners” against “enemy” Native nations, and we get to live with that outcome forever.

Part of the process of decolonization involves embracing the need to consciously shift away from the colonizers’ terms of reference by no longer using “conquest,” and to begin using the term domination to reference the United States and the U.S. federal Indian law and policy system. This manner of framing suggests that the U.S. domination that is still being imposed on our original nations is invalid and in need of being challenged and ended.