Where Are We Now? Why Domination Is the Beginning of the Conversation, Not the End

Episode 23: Bishops, Papal Bulls, and the Problem of Domination

In this episode, Peter d’Errico interviews Steve Newcomb about a May 2026 Catholic bishops’ symposium on the Doctrine of Discovery in Edmonton, Alberta. Steve reflects on the event, the call to revoke Inter Caetera, and the danger of language that hides domination behind softer terms such as “discovery,” “renunciation,” and “reconciliation.” Subscribe on YouTube Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/dominationchronicles/exclusive-content [https://redcircle.com/dominationchronicles/exclusive-content]

Where Are We Now? Why Domination Is the Beginning of the Conversation, Not the End

In this episode of Domination Chronicles [https://dominationchronicles.com], Steven T. Newcomb and Peter d’Errico explore why “domination” has become a slogan instead of a serious inquiry—and why language, law, history, and power must be carefully unpacked. Subscribe on YouTube Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/dominationchronicles/exclusive-content [https://redcircle.com/dominationchronicles/exclusive-content]

Episode 21: “Tribal Sovereignty” 101: Limited Sovereignty, Federal Domination, and the Language Trap

In this episode, Steven T. Newcomb and Peter d’Errico return to one of the most repeated phrases in federal Indian law and public advocacy: “tribal sovereignty.” But what does the phrase actually mean within the legal framework of the United States? Steve and Peter argue that “tribal sovereignty” is an oxymoron when it is defined by federal anti-Indian law as “limited sovereignty” or as sovereignty that the United States has not yet extinguished. Drawing on definitions of sovereignty from Jean Bodin and Sterling Edmonds, they explain that sovereignty means a claim of supreme and unlimited authority. If Native nations are said to be sovereign only to the extent that the United States permits, then the phrase no longer describes free and independent existence. It describes domination. The conversation turns to Felix Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law, often treated as the “Bible” of federal Indian law, and examines how its framework converts original Native independence into a legal system of U.S. supremacy. Steve and Peter also discuss treaty rights, land claims, religious freedom, consultation, “federal lands,” and the danger of accepting the opponent’s premise. The episode concludes with a discussion of the Pe’ Sla / Black Hills drilling controversy and how legal and environmental advocacy can unintentionally reproduce the very domination framework it seeks to resist. Resources mentioned: Felix Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law Pe’ Sla drilling analysis Complaint filed in the Pe’ Sla case Subscribe on YouTube Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/dominationchronicles/exclusive-content [https://redcircle.com/dominationchronicles/exclusive-content]

UNTRUSTWORTHY “TRUST”: DOMINATION, FEAR, AND FEARLESSNESS

Today we deep dive into the legal and philosophical foundations of the "federal Indian law trust doctrine." We argue that the term "trust" is a euphemism for a relationship of domination rather than a protective legal obligation. Subscribe on YouTube Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/dominationchronicles/exclusive-content [https://redcircle.com/dominationchronicles/exclusive-content]

Episode 19: LORETTA AFRAID OF BEAR-COOK: “LIVING IN OGLALA LAKOTA COMMUNITY”

A deep conversation between hosts Steven Newcomb and Peter d'Errico and guest Loretta Afraid of Bear-Cook, about the preservation of Oglala Lakota traditions, the power of indigenous language, and the resistance against systems of domination and modern convenience. Subscribe on YouTube Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/dominationchronicles/exclusive-content [https://redcircle.com/dominationchronicles/exclusive-content]