Historical injustice has been a part of the Philippines history. Many injustices have already been resolved or left in the vestiges of time. Today, there are still many issues that are unresolved, and one of these issues is the historical injustice in Mindanao. Flow Simulation Ltd. (2015) defines injustice as “the practice of being unjust or unfair”. The unfairness that is happening in Mindanao is graft and corruption, human rights abuse, land conflicts and many more. According to Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes against Humanity (2005) pointed out that “abuses perpetrated against indigenous peoples represent perhaps the largest number of historical injustices” (par.4). From this, it is apparent that historical injustices in Mindanao were mostly derived from discrimination of a certain group of people. The same also happened in Mindanao, wherein there was a conflict of interest of different parties involved in the negotiation of BBL. The existence of the conflict of interest came from the movement for freedom of the Moros (Quevedo, n.d.). This movement for …show more content…
The BBL is considered to be the result of the mediation between the Government of the Philippines and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (Pamaos, 2014). From this, it is clear that the Bangsamoro Basic Law is the movement of the government and the MILF towards the unresolved issue of historical injustice in Mindanao. According to Pamaos (2014), “the House Bill No. 4994 states that ‘an act providing for the basic law for the Bangsamoro and establishing the autonomous region in Muslim Mindanao, repealing for the Republic Act No.9054’, Entitled ‘an act to strengthen and expand the organic act for the Autonomous region in Muslim Mindanao’ and the Republic Act No. 6734, entitled ‘an act providing for an organic act for the Autonomous region in Muslim Mindanao’ and for other purposes”
Additionally, world wars, civil strife and the rise of Communism, were overrunning their homeland. The Hmong had to choose a side. As America’s luck with have it, they chose the side democracy as the lesser of the two evils. The Hmong, like other indigenous world people soon find out that capitalism and communism are quite similar. For their efforts, and as treaties of peace were signed, the Hmong were relocated to the United States.
The government eventually passed the native title in which stated that the laws and regulation for the courts follows in future claims. This had all happened in 1993. Many non- indigenous people did not understand why Mabo had put so much effort into all this when it was just land. They did not realize the issue that Mabo was stating, butF why would the non-indigenous people see a problem.
The Mabo decision was a lengthy legal battle beginning back in 1982. One of the key elements of this was that Terra Nullius land did not belong to anyone during the time of the European Settlement
This caused over 4,000 innocent lives to be ended. This was a mistake, Americans were forcing Native
One of the most serious consequences is the loss of Indigenous land rights. The agreement acknowledged Indigenous land ownership and sovereignty, which some Indigenous organizations have exploited in judicial struggles over land rights and title. Furthermore, the proclamation created a precedent for Indigenous peoples' right to be consulted and accommodated in decisions affecting their lands and resources. The proclamation, however, had a devastating impact on Indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples' forcible displacement from their homelands resulted in a loss of traditional knowledge and language, as well as substantial trauma and social dislocation.
Hoganson’s approach of the annexation purely for cultural reasons rather Painter’s, which is more agricultural. She saw America taking over The Philippines as a way for The Philippines to mature. Even though both authors have two different perspectives on the annexation, they both still are complementary to each other. They both provide valid arguments for there reasoning of the takeover of The
In 1494, the Treaty of Tordesillas was established in order to evenly divide unclaimed lands between Portugal and Spain. This led to the Line of Demarcation, in which the non-European world was divided into two zones. Portugal had rights to the eastern hemisphere, and Spain had rights to the western hemisphere. This allowed Spain to colonize areas in the New World. Even though they had this opportunity, they were not able to colonize specific areas in North America due to competition with other European countries.
They were fighting against the claim, which ended as the verdict, that since they had been so integrated into modern society by marriage, migration, language, and religion, that they no longer held the tribal culture needed to be considered a legal tribe. A culture that had been decided and discovered by
As Albert J. Beveridge pointed out in Document B, “would not the people of the Philippines prefer the just, human, civilizing government of this republic to the savage, bloody rule… from which we have saved them?” Just, human, civilizing? Strict, biased, Christianizing was more like it. In these islands, the United States of America once again made the same mistake it had made with the Native Americans. Determined that there way was the best way, ‘the slaughter of the Filipinos’ (Doc.
A common belief at the time was that Filipinos were an inferior race and McKinley’s statements prove that be would probably agree with this belief. McKinley’s decision to annex the Philippines may not have been wrong but his justifications
Introduction Eddie Mabo was the man who initiated the land rights argument for indigenous people. He found out that where he was born and lived, at a place called Mer Island was not legally his or his peoples land. This news angered and upset Eddie Mabo and he began speaking out and telling people about his story. It was while Eddie Mabo was working as a gardener at James Cook University that he crossed paths with land rights advocates and some legal minds who would become influential in his later argument to have the indigenous right to land recognised by the courts. He received a great amount of support especially from fellow Indigenous people.
From history of hundreds of decades, we have witnessed the great progress made by human, in technology and in society. But injustice always exists everywhere in this world. Injustice and unfair treatment could not be erased from the world easily. Just like the situation described by John Steinbeck, the immigrants faced injustice. But there are too many injustices that even worse in the world.
Deciding the Annexation of the Philippines Assessment: On Google Docs you need to write a three paragraph essay arguing whether or not the United States should or should not annex the Philippines. You need to use 2 pieces of evidence from the documents per paragraph. Americans might have thought that all war and chaos would have ended and stayed in the year of 1898, when we (America) won over the Spanish, in the Spanish-American war. Although, we were partially right with allowing us to have some sort of peace, we did not figure that we may have to have annex a whole different country, taking away from our “peace”.
This reflection paper will first address the advantages of using retributive justice approach in three court-cases. Second, it will discuss the disadvantages of using retributive justice approaches by analyzing the three court-cases listed above. Third, it will elaborate on ways that the system could have used restorative justice processes in the cases, as well as present potential outcomes that could have been reached if restoration justice was taken into consideration. First, during lecture three, we talked about the notion of just deserts.
Injustices, tragedies, and unfortunate circumstances have plagued humankind for all of existence. Many of these problems have arisen from the society of man, and could not be found in nature. The hatred, selfishness, prejudice, and maliciousness seen in so many injustices man created unnecessarily, as well as all the suffering it causes does not need to exist. If an individual witnesses a crime or injustice occurring, it is their responsibility to defend the weak and fight for whatever is morally right, even at the cost of themselves.