Episode 16: COLONISTS, SETTLERS, INVADERS, EXPANSIONISTS, IMMIGRANTS

Introduction Today, we talk about a February 2, 2026, article in The Economist, titled “The Indian Removal Act, Unchecked Expansionism, and Disregard for the Rule of Law”, written by a history professor at the State University of Pennsylvania. The article is an opaque and confusing critique of current US immigration policy; opaque because it doesn’t really say that, and confusing in ways we discuss. The centerpiece of the article is an 1832 Memorial of the Muskogee Creek Nation protesting the uncontrolled invasion of their lands by “white settlers” eager to “remove” the Muskogee Creek people from the land. As the Memorial makes clear, the “expansionism” in the article title actually refers to colonial invasion / settler invasion / immigration as tools in the US effort to “remove” Native peoples from their lands. In short, despite the article’s effort to use the Muscogee Creek Memorial to critique enforcement of immigration laws, unfettered immigration is the target of the Memorial. The article title also refers to “disregard for the rule of law”, which is odd given that the Indian Removal Act was part of the rule of law: Congress passed the Act on May 28, 1830, seven years after the Supreme Court decision in Johnson v. McIntosh declared the US “owns” Native lands. So really, the problem was (and is) the use of “rule of law” as a weapon system used against Native nations and peoples for the purpose of domination. The Economist article is a disingenuous review of American and Native history that distorts the Muskogee Creek Memorial and tries to use it to critique US immigration policy. The author focuses on a couple of phrases from the Memorial about how the Muskogee Creek “helped” the poor white people when they first arrived and implies from this selective quotation that the Muskogee Creek were saying that immigration is not a problem. Actually, the Muskogee Creek Memorial protests “settler” invasion of their territory coordinated, organized, and supported by state and federal armed forces. If the author had admitted this the article would have been turned inside out into a condemnation of uncontrolled immigration as a danger. The refusal of the US to abide by its treaty promises to help Native nations defend their territories against “settlers” / “immigrants” / “invaders” was part and parcel of “Indian Removal”. Summary of Discussion Critique of The Economist Article The hosts contend that the article's author uses the 1832 Muscogee Creek Nation memorial disingenuously. They argue the author cherry picks quotes to suggest Native people were advising Americans on the "rule of law," whereas the original document was actually a protest against the uncontrolled invasion of their lands. The "Rule of Law" as a Weapon A central theme of the discussion is the subversion of the term"rule of law." The hosts point out: The Indian Removal Act was not a "disregard" for the law,but was itself the rule of law passed by Congress. Legal precedents like Johnson v. McIntosh (1823)established a framework for the U.S. to claim ownership of Native lands based on "discovery," a principle that still exists in the legal system today. They describe the legal system not as a neutral arbiter, but as a weapon system used to facilitate domination. Immigration vs. Colonial Invasion The hosts suggest that the historical movement of white settlers into Native territories should be accurately labeled as "unchecked colonial invasion" or "settler invasion" rather than just "expansionism". They argue that the "Empire of Liberty" was built on a system of domination that required swarming Native lands with immigrants to make property law systems operational. The Philosophy of Domination The conversation concludes by exploring how the system of domination extends beyond Native issues: It influences how Western civilization views nature as "inanimate"or "dead matter" to be used. It creates a"domination of liberty," where the only freedom allowed is the right to live under a system of control. They advocate for recognizing the original free existence of all peoples as a way to move past divisive contemporary politics. Important Terms Original Free Existence: The inherent state of Native nations being born free and never having been slaves or subjects to another power. System of Domination: The overarching structure (legal,political, and social) used to claim a right of control over others and their lands. Johnson v. McIntosh (1823): A landmark Supreme Court case cited by the hosts as the legal basis for the U.S. claim of ownership over Native lands. Indian Removal Act (1830): Federal legislation used to forcibly relocate Native nations from their ancestral homelands. Empire of Liberty: A term used by Thomas Jefferson that the hosts critique as a contradiction, representing the expansion of the American imperial system. Muscogee Creek Memorial (1832): A powerful historical document protesting the theft of Native lands and asserting the nation's original sovereignty. Vacant Lands: A legal fiction used to describe lands occupied by Native "heathens"but considered "unoccupied" because they were not held by Christians. Transcript Download an AI Generated Transcript of this conversation Resources: H. Doc. 22 102 Creek Indians. Memorial of the head men and warriors, of the Creek Nation of Indians. February 6, 1832.Referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs —https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/SERIALSET 00218 00 00 021 0102 0000/pdf/SERIALSET 00218 00 00 021 0102 0000.pdf “The Indian Removal Act: unchecked expansionism and disregard forthe rule of law”, by Christina Snyder. The Economist February 2, 2026 —https://www.economist.com/by invitation/2026/02/02/the indian removal act unchecked expansionism and disregard for the rule of law?giftId=Yjg2Y2NlYzktOGZkNi00ODYyLThhNWUtYmNkYzExYTRhOWNi The Indian Removal Act of 1830 —https://www.nativehistoryassociation.org/removal\ act.pdf Johnson v. McIntosh (1823) –https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/21/543/ Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) –https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/30/1/ Worcester v. Georgia (1832) –https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/31/515/ The International Law of John Marshall, by BenjaminMunn Ziegler (1939) —https://archive.org/details/internationallaw0000benj “Physics, Reality, and Human Consciousness” by Steve Newcomb https://stevennewcomb.substack.com/p/physics reality and human consciousness Citation Steve Newcomb and Peter d’Errico, "Episode 16: “COLONISTS, SETTLERS, INVADERS, EXPANSIONISTS, IMMIGRANTS," Domination Chronicles (Podcast), 2026 02 19,