Beveridge further spurred his fellow Americans by reminding them that “we are conquering race, and that we must obey our blood and occupy new markers and new lands.
Beveridge further spurred his United Stated went to war against Spain. To the delight of the expansionists, the United Stated went to war against Spain. Inflammatory reports of Spanish atrocities generated popular sympathy for insurgents, until a policy of non-intervention was disregarded, and war with Spain was viewed as the sole remedy to the Cuban situation. United States should engage in overseas expansion. The Cuban insurrection against Spain had become a central theme in the debates about whether the The stimulus in the United States was to push for the adoption of the expansionists’ platform. There were calls for continued westward progress of the Caucasian race, “carrying civilization and blessing in its march.” There was agitation for greater glory beyond the territorial borders of the country, which echoed the same rhetoric used to justify the conquest to the Native Americans. By the end of the nineteenth century, the United States has established itself not only as a sovereign nation worthy of inclusion into the international community, but had also asserted itself as a world power. The westward expansion of the United States did not stop with the adjacent states.
This legacy was brought to the New World by the colonizers and used to support a set of legal privileges that discriminated against indigenous peoples and denied them rights of self-rule because of their deviation from European standards. This cultural racism was applied with the same force against any race of peoples, whose religion, civilization, or form of culture, differed from Christian European norms. However, it was mostly a “violent, imperialistic process by which the West was wrested from its original owners.” Scholars have traced this attitude to the medieval era when the crusading theory of practice of the Church produced a highly refined legal tradition denying non-Christian peoples the rights of self-rule and jurisdictional authority over the lands they occupied and the property they possessed. Many accounts of the settlement were crafted as the triumph of a people over the challenges of nature. The judicial doctrines in the United States have been explained as a result of racist attitudes that prevailed during the settlement of the United States. The United States as a legatee of this policy was, therefore, not bound to recognize any rights belonging to indigenous peoples. Simply put, that Court has held that neither the discovery of the New World under international law, nor the resulting English colonial policy, requires the recognition of Indian title. Ironically, the United States Supreme Court that decided Cariño has been less than willing to recognize similar rights for the indigenous peoples’ of North America. It will show that the Cariño decision haws been continuously misinterpreted in both jurisdictions.Ĭariño is significant because the judicial recognition of indigenous peoples’ ownership of their ancestral domains is uncommon. This case has generated considerable discussion, but it has also been pointed out that Cariño and its subsequent interpretation by courts in the Philippines and United States. It stated that lands held since time immemorial are private lands protected by the Bill of Rights. Insular Government, the United States Supreme Court, exercising appellate jurisdiction over the Philippine courts, is a case in point.
Repeated efforts have been made to point out that the Philippine legal system has long recognized that indigenous peoples’ ownership rights over their ancestral domains.
0 kommentar(er)
