Talk:Discovery doctrine

Wrong claims
Aemilius Adolphin, the onus should be on you, not on me. You changed this some time ago to the current version, claiming that France and England did not use the Discovery Doctrine. The three sources I provided (and you deleted) explicetely claim in a straightforward way the contrary of your theory: France and England used the discovery doctrine for their rights in North America. Instead, the sources you are referring to only claim they did not recognize the Papal authority, (that is to say, they refused to recognize that everything belonged to Portugal and Spain). They had their own version of Discovery Doctrine, disputing the papal version: it does NOT mean that they rejected the doctrine as a whole. You keep confusing the two things and making the article confusing for everyone else. When Spain objects to France colonising New France it's not doing so on the ground that New France wasn't discovered by France, since it obviously was discovered by France, it's doing it on the ground that it was to the west of the Papal line of demarcation. (Also, France and the Papacy came to an agreement on the issue, but that's another story).

Barjimoa (talk) 10:10, 8 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The current version of the article isn't my theory, it's an accurate summary of the cited sources. You only need to read the quotes in the article and the cited sources themselves to see this. For example,
 * "France and England also disputed the notion that discovery by itself could provide title over lands inhabited by non-Christians. In 1541, French plans to establish colonies in Canada drew protests from Spain. In response, France effectively repudiated the papal bulls and claims based on discovery without possession, the French king stating that "Popes hold spiritual jurisdiction, and it does not lie with them to distribute land amongst kings" and that "passing by and discovering with the eye was not taking possession." "
 * "Similarly, when in 1580 Spain protested to Elizabeth I about Francis Drake's violation of the Spanish sphere, the English queen replied that popes had no right to grant the world to princes, that she owed no allegiance to the Pope, and that mere symbolic gestures (such as erecting monuments or naming rivers) did not give property rights. "
 * "Summarizing the practices European states used to justify their acquisition of territory inhabited by indigenous peoples, McNeil states, "While Spain and Portugal favoured discovery and papal grants because it was generally in their interests to do so, France and Britain relied more on symbolic acts, colonial charters, and occupation." "
 * “There is also scant support for the version of discovery theory espoused by Chief Justice Marshall, which holds that European powers agreed amongst themselves that the first state to discover an American territory held exclusive rights of access there. Both France and Britain took the view that they were free to trade, travel, and pursue colonial ventures in any American territories not actually settled or controlled by other European states. Mere acts of discovery, exploration and token occupation did not confer exclusive rights, even among European powers.” (Slattery, op cit. p. 72).
 * There are dozens of other sources from eminent legal acholars and historians which make the same point. The 'doctrine of discovery' is a disputed interpretation of international law as it developed from the fifteenth century to the early nineteenth century. International law at the time was established by state practice and treaties. No one is denying that Britain, France and Holland sometimes used discovery to claim territory when it suited them, but the consensus of scholarly opinion now is that the discovery doctrine as articulated by Marshall was not a norm of internation law in 1823. As the article says, "Benton and Strauman argue that European powers often adopted multiple, sometimes contradictory, legal rationales for their acquisition of territory as a deliberate strategy in defending their claims against European rivals."
 * If you have other sources which tell a different story please provide a full citation so they can be checked and evaluated. If they appear to be reliable sources then perhaps we can find agreed wording to modify the current text. Random links to google books along with your own commentary on these links won't do. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 11:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)


 * It's fine to me to write that they also used it when it suited them. However the article doesnt say it and actually gives the readers the idea they never did. At the very least is should be said for North America.


 * -"England and France also participated in the development of Discovery. Both countries utilized the international Doctrine of Discovery and claimed the rights and powers of first discovery in North America".(https://books.google.it/books?id=bGVMAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA57&dq=England+and+France+also+participated+in+the+development+of+Discovery.+Both+countries+utilized+the+international+Doctrine+of+Discovery+and+claimed+the+rights+and+powers+of+first+discovery+in+North+America&hl=it&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj-gPa7tZr-AhU6QvEDHeXyC3EQ6AF6BAgEEAM)


 * Barjimoa (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would be happy if the article made it more explicit that France and England sometimes used the discovery principle to claim that they had a superior rght to colonisation. I have made the change. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Conflict between Wiki articles
According to its introductory paragraph, this topic has to do with a U.S. Supreme Court case.

However, another article describes the Discovery Doctrine topic thusly,

=
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples

Catholic Church and doctrine of discovery See also: Catholic Church and the Age of Discovery

The doctrine of discovery is a legal and religious concept, tied to the Roman Catholic Church, which rationalized and "legalized" colonization and the conquering of Indigenous peoples in the eyes of Christianized Europeans.

=
==

Someone more qualified than I must straighten out this confusing conflict within wikipedia. LarryWiki115 (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem lies with this article. Past editors have approached the topic with a USA centered mindset and used US-specific sources as if they reflect the doctrine. Someone should rearrange this article, which is not a simple task. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem lies with the Indigenous article. "The Discovery Doctrine" is an interpretation of international law regarding the acquisition of territory which was first articulated by the US Supreme Court, as the sources cited in this article state. This interpretation of International law is contested by other scholars and jurists. I will try to edit the other article so that it reflect a borader range of reliable sources and is better harmonised with this one. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you saying the term "discovery doctrine" was first used in relation to this USA court decision, and this article is about that case? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I am saying that the term "discovery doctrine" was first used in relation to this USA court decision, and that the article is about the history of the term and scholarly analysis of whether "discovery" was ever a tenet of international law. It is also about the subsequent history of the doctrine in law and protests by Indigenous rights groups against what they see as the adverse consequences of the adoption of the legal doctrine in the USA and other settler societies. I have quickly read the Indigenous article and my comments are:
 * 1) The section on Discovery Doctrine is too long, based entirely on one source, and present the view of that source as "the truth" about the discovery doctrine whereas the reality is more complex.
 * 2) The structure of the article is bizarre. It is supposed to be about Indigenous peoples but is mostly about European colonisation of Indigenous peoples. There is alsready an article about colonisation so most of the stuff about colonisation in the Indigenous article should be summarised.
 * As I said, I will try to summarise and rework the section about Discovery Doctrine in that article, based on a wider range of reliable sources. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If this article is about the US case and the court's definition of the 'discovery doctrine', which it appears to be, then shouldn't the title be disambiguated? The doctrine pre-dates the US case by centuries, as this article confirms, as well as this source. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not only about the US Supreme Court case, as I made clear in my last reponse. It is about the discovery doctrine in toto, as the article makes clear. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll wait for your changes. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)