Episode 9: McGirt v. Oklahoma: Revealing and Concealing Domination

WORDS: REVEALING AND CONCEALING Our springboard today is the 2020 Supreme Court decision, McGirt v. Oklahoma , that upheld US criminal law jurisdiction over "major crimes" in "Indian country" (via the 1885 Major Crimes Act, an act based on the claim of a right of domination by the US over the Original Nations). We focus on the way the US claim of "a right of domination" under federal anti Indian law is both visible and invisible in the majority opinion (authored by Justice Gorsuch). We discuss how the widespread media and professional celebration of the decision as a "win" for the Creek Nation missed or ignored the decision's continuing claim of a right of domination. The celebration of McGirt pointed to the fact that the court said the Creek still exist as part of "Indian country". The celebration ignored or missed clear language in the decision saying Congress has power to abolish the Creek "at any time" it wishes, but it hasn't done so yet. We also discuss the US argument that a slew of federal attacks on the existence of the Creek had abolished the Nation and show how that argument reads like a confession of attempted genocide. Our conversation moves beyond McGirt into other claims of a right of domination—including claims of "bureaucratic expertism" that seek domination over all people. We say that free existence requires free inquiry into all claims of a right of domination. Transcript Download an AI Generated Transcript of this conversation Resources McGirt v. Oklahoma /