Episode 15: “STOLEN LAND”: THE DANGER AND LIMITATION OF PERFORMATIVE SPEECH

On • Duration 49:24

Powered by RedCircle

Introduction

Pop culture meets legal theory: The sound and fury provoked by Billie Eilish’s statement at the 2026 Grammy Award ceremony, “no one is illegal on stolen land” includes an Opinion Editorial in the Washington Post by Richard Epstein and Max Raskin, two law professors, “No, Billie Eilish, Americans are not thieves on stolen Land”.

We look at the dynamics of the furor, showing how what may seem to be a national discussion about American history and law is actually only performative speech, words signaling claims of virtue and expertise. The apparent discussion obscures and cuts off the possibility of actually digging into American history and law.

Our conversation does this digging, examining how concepts like ‘property’ and ‘theft’ are emanations of frameworks claiming a right of domination.

Summary of Key Discussions

  • Performative Speech: Peter identifies two types of performative speech. The first is speech that acts as a legal deed, such as claiming land for a monarch or a Supreme Court ruling. The second is "empty" speech used for social approval without accompanying action, such as modern political apologies or celebrity statements.

  • The "Stolen Land" Controversy: The hosts discuss the backlash against singer Billie Eilish for her "stolen land" comments at the Grammys. They argue that while such statementstouch a "third rail" of American mythology, both the statement and the responses often fail to address the underlying legal framework of domination.

  • Legal Precedents of Domination: A central focus is the 1823 Supreme Court case Johnson v. McIntosh. The hosts explain how this ruling established U.S. land title based on the "extravagant pretension" that discovery by "Christian nations" conferred a right of domination over indigenous lands.

  • Etymology of Power: Steven traces the word "government" in historical Latin documents (specifically papal bulls) backto dominaciones (dominations). They argue that terms like "Lord" (dominus) and "civilization" are euphemisms that obscure a history of subjugation and physical force.

  • Critique of Legal Figures: The hosts criticize law professors andlate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for upholding the "right of domination". They suggest that Ginsburg's later "regret" over her opinion in Oneida v. Sherrill was a form of performative speech that failed to challenge the core legal claim that the U.S. holds the ultimate title to indigenous land.

Important Topics and Terms

  • Claim of a Right of Domination: The foundational mental and legal construct used by colonizing powers to justify the seizure of landand the subjugation of Native peoples.

  • Johnsonv. McIntosh (1823): The landmark Supreme Court case thatintegrated the "Doctrine of Discovery" into U.S. law,asserting that European discovery gave title to the land.

  • PerformativeSpeech: Language that either effects a change in status(like a legal decree) or is used as a "hollow" gesture to improve one's social standing without enacting substantive change.

  • Dominium/ Dominaciones: The Latin roots of terms like "dominion,""lord," and "government," which the hosts argue are fundamentally linked to the act of dominating or subduingothers.

  • American Exceptionalism: The belief that the United States is auniquely righteous nation, which the hosts argue serves to mask thehistorical reality of colonization and genocide.

  • Doctrineof Discovery: The historical principle, originating in Vatican papal bulls, used by Christian monarchs to claim their right to claim "discovered" lands for "non-Christian" lands.

Transcript

Download an AI Generated Transcript of this conversation

Resources:

Citation

Steve Newcomb and Peter d’Errico, "Episode 15 : “STOLEN LAND”: THE DANGER AND LIMITATION OF PERFORMATIVE SPEECH," Domination Chronicles (Podcast), 2026-02-19, https://dominationchronicles.com/e015-domination-chronicles-stolen-land.

Citation Downloads

Episodes

Our Lastest Podcast Epsiodes

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

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

Play Epsiode
Episode 22: Where Are We Now? Why Domination Is the Beginning of the Conversation, Not the End

Episode 22: Where Are We Now? Why Domination Is the Beginning of the Conversation, Not the End

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

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

Play Epsiode

About Host

Domination Chronicles Host

Peter d'Errico

Peter d'Errico

About Peter d'Errico

Peter d’Errico graduated from Yale Law School in 1968. He was an attorney at Dinébe’iiná Náhiiłna be Agha’diit’ahii, Navajo Legal Services, in Shiprock, 1968-1970.

Steven T. Newcomb

Steven T. Newcomb

About Steven T. Newcomb

Steven T. Newcomb (Shawnee/Lenape) has been researching the history of U.S. federal Indian law and policy for four decades.

Domination Chronicles Podcast