In the history of statehood, separatism is a natural phenomenon rather than something unusual. Separatism is mostly perceived as a group’s seeking to separate one part of the territory of a given country from the rest in order to create a new state organism (secessionism) or to unify within one country lands inhabited by people that form a single ethnocultural community (irredentism). Sometimes the idea of separatism serves as a negotiating strategy for a regional group to get from the state (...) authorities benefits that are minor in comparison to territorial separation, e.g., the governance of a regional community within the framework of territorial autonomy, or better conditions for a region’s integration with the rest of the country. It is often the case, especially during a long-lasting intensification of a regional conflict, that separatism becomes the ideological legitimization for the outbreak and continuance of armed conflict, while the conflict itself turns into a way of life for at least some of its initiators and participants. Postcolonial Africa has been and will be experiencing conflicts of a separatist nature. One example of separatism in Africa that is extremely complex and interesting to the researcher in such problems is the conflict that has taken place since 1983 in the Senegalese region of Casamance. (shrink)

Reshaping our methodological research tools for adequately capturing injustice and domination has been a central aspiration of feminist philosophy and social epistemology in recent years. There has been an increasingly empirical turn in recent feminist and political theorization, engaging with case studies and the challenges arising from conducting research in solidarity with unequal partners. I argue that these challenges cannot be resolved by merely adopting a norm and stance of deference to those in the struggle for justice. To conduct philosophical (...) research in an engaged and solidaristic manner, I suggest that deference be supplemented by three methodological and normative principles: 1) epistemic humility, 2) accountability, and 3) co-producing knowledge. I situate these principles within contemporary philosophical work on solidarity, and show how they might help confront power imbalances and other methodological hazards that arise when conducting research in solidarity with others. I arrive at these principles in part by critically reflecting on my own attempt to conduct research in solidarity with women’s rights activists in Senegal. (shrink)

The Age of Enlightenment is more global and complex than the standard Eurocentric Colonial Canon narrative presents. For example, before the advent of unscientific racism and the systematic negligence of the contributions of Others outside of “White Europe,” Raphael centered Ibn Rushd (Averroes) in his Vatican fresco “Causarum Cognitio” (1511); the astronomer Edmund Halley taught himself Arabic to be more enlightened; The Royal Society of London acknowledged the scientific method developed by Ibn Al-Haytham (Alhazen). In addition, if we study the (...) Transatlantic texts of the late 18th century, it is not Kant, but instead enlightened thinkers like Anton Wilhelm Amo (born in present-day’s Ghana), Phillis Wheatley (Senegal region), and Toussaint L’Ouverture (Haiti), who mostly live up to the ideals of reason, humanism, universalism, and human rights. One obstacle to developing a more balanced presentation of the Age of the Enlightenment is the influence of colonialism, Eurocentrism, and methodological nationalism. Consequently, this paper, part II of two, will also deal with the European Enlightenment’s unscientific heritage of scholarly racism from the 1750s. It will be demonstrated how Linnaeus, Hume, Kant, and Hegel were among the Founding Fathers of intellectual white supremacy within the Academy. Hence, the Age of Enlightenment is not what we are taught to believe. This paper will demonstrate how the lights from different “Global Enlightenments” can illuminate paths forward to more dialogue and universalism in the 21st century. (shrink)

As climate change continues to intensify, particularly in dryland regions, conflicts over vital natural resources such as land and water are becoming increasingly frequent and complex. A recent study by Olofsson et al. (2025) sheds light on these tensions by examining the distribution and perception of power among various actors in Brazil, Senegal, and Spain—countries with differing income levels but similar environmental vulnerabilities.

-/- Title: The Doctrine of Discovery: Origins, Global Impact, and Contemporary Rejections -/- Introduction -/- The Doctrine of Discovery emerged in the 15th century as a religious and legal justification for Christian European powers to claim lands inhabited by non-Christians. Codified through papal bulls such as Dum Diversas (1452), Romanus Pontifex (1455), and Inter caetera (1493), the doctrine laid the ideological groundwork for centuries of global colonization. Its devastating impact included the dispossession of Indigenous peoples, cultural destruction, and legal systems (...) that denied native sovereignty. This essay traces the doctrine’s origins, widespread application, and modern-day repudiations, while listing the many countries affected by its influence. -/- Origins of the Doctrine of Discovery -/- The Doctrine of Discovery was born from a series of 15th-century papal bulls issued by the Vatican: -/- Dum Diversas (1452) – Authorized the Portuguese to conquer Saracens and pagans. -/- Romanus Pontifex (1455) – Reinforced Portugal’s right to dominion over discovered lands. -/- Inter caetera (1493) – Granted Spain the right to claim newly discovered lands west of a demarcation line in the Atlantic. -/- These papal declarations were rooted in the belief that non-Christian peoples lacked the legal capacity to own land. As such, Christian monarchs were given divine authority to seize lands and convert or subjugate Indigenous peoples. -/- Global Application and Colonized Regions -/- The doctrine was employed by European colonial powers—Spain, Portugal, England, France, the Netherlands, and later others—to legitimize territorial conquest and control. The following are major regions and countries colonized under its framework: -/- 1. The Americas -/- North America -/- Canada: Colonized by France and Britain. -/- United States: Claimed by Britain, Spain, France. -/- Mexico, Central America: Colonized by Spain. -/- Caribbean Islands: Colonized by Spain, France, Britain, and the Netherlands (e.g., Cuba, Jamaica, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, Bahamas, Trinidad and Tobago). -/- South America -/- Brazil: Claimed by Portugal. -/- Rest of South America (e.g., Argentina, Peru, Colombia, Chile, Bolivia): Colonized mainly by Spain. -/- 2. Africa -/- North Africa: Claimed by France (e.g., Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco), Italy (Libya), and Spain. -/- West Africa: Colonized by Britain (Ghana, Nigeria, Sierra Leone), France (Mali, Senegal, Côte d’Ivoire), and Portugal (Guinea-Bissau). -/- Central Africa: Colonized by Belgium (Congo), France (Gabon, Chad), Germany (Cameroon), and Portugal (Angola). -/- East Africa: Britain (Kenya, Uganda), Germany (Tanzania), and Italy (Eritrea, Somalia). -/- Southern Africa: Britain (South Africa, Zambia, Zimbabwe), Portugal (Mozambique), and Germany (Namibia). -/- 3. Asia -/- India, Pakistan, Bangladesh: Colonized by Britain. -/- Indonesia: Colonized by the Netherlands. -/- Philippines: Colonized by Spain and later the U.S. -/- Sri Lanka: Colonized by Portugal, the Netherlands, and Britain. -/- Malaya and Singapore: British colonies. -/- Middle East (indirectly): Controlled under European mandates post-WWI, influenced by imperial frameworks rooted in the doctrine. -/- 4. Oceania -/- Australia: Colonized by Britain under the concept of terra nullius—an extension of the Doctrine of Discovery. -/- New Zealand: British colonization and the Treaty of Waitangi. -/- Pacific Islands (Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, Micronesia): Colonized by Britain, France, Germany, and the U.S. -/- 5. Others -/- Greenland and Arctic territories: Claimed by Denmark and other European powers. -/- Hawaiian Islands: Eventually annexed by the U.S., following missionary and settler pressure. -/- Legal and Cultural Consequences -/- In colonized regions, the doctrine justified: -/- Displacement of Indigenous peoples from ancestral lands. -/- Destruction of native religions, languages, and customs. -/- Denial of legal recognition of Indigenous governance. -/- Imposition of European legal and religious systems. -/- One stark example is the 1823 U.S. Supreme Court case Johnson v. M’Intosh, which enshrined the doctrine into American property law by ruling that Indigenous peoples could not hold legal title to land unless granted by the federal government. -/- Contemporary Rejections and Reconciliation Efforts -/- United States -/- Indigenous-led movements advocate for federal repudiation. -/- Some states and religious groups have officially denounced the doctrine. -/- Canada -/- The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (2008–2015) condemned the doctrine’s legacy. -/- Canada has committed to implementing UNDRIP, which affirms Indigenous land rights. -/- Australia -/- The Mabo v. Queensland (1992) decision overturned terra nullius, recognizing native title for Aboriginal peoples. -/- New Zealand -/- The Waitangi Tribunal addresses Māori land claims and treaty breaches. -/- Vatican (2023) -/- Officially repudiated the Doctrine of Discovery, calling it “not part of Catholic teaching” and acknowledging the harm it caused. -/- Conclusion -/- The Doctrine of Discovery fueled centuries of colonization, conquest, and cultural genocide. Its ideological foundations continue to shape legal systems and policies that marginalize Indigenous peoples. Today, the global movement toward reconciliation and justice is challenging the legacy of this doctrine, seeking to replace it with frameworks based on Indigenous rights, sovereignty, and mutual respect. Acknowledging and reversing this historical injustice is essential for building a more equitable and humane future. -/- References -/- Muldoon, J. (2005). Popes, Lawyers, and Infidels: The Church and the Non-Christian World, 1250–1550. University of Pennsylvania Press. -/- Miller, R. J. (2006). Native America, Discovered and Conquered: Thomas Jefferson, Lewis & Clark, and Manifest Destiny. Praeger. -/- Newcomb, S. T. (2008). Pagans in the Promised Land: Decoding the Doctrine of Christian Discovery. Fulcrum Publishing. -/- Vatican Press Office. (2023). Joint Statement on the “Doctrine of Discovery”. -/- United Nations. (2007). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). -/- Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. (2015). Final Report of the TRC. -/- High Court of Australia. (1992). Mabo v. Queensland (No. 2). -/- . (shrink)