philippine history /spanish colony

8/14/2019 Philippine History /Spanish colony

1/7

Here is an interesting papal dogma called the papalbull- Romanus Pontifex.Imagine Ferdinand Magellan and Miguel Legazpi doingthis to Maharlika Islands and claiming possession ofthe islands and renaming it after King Phillip II ofSpain the Philippines instead of Cristopher Columbusand you get the picture of Spanish colonization and

what happened to the fate of the indigenous tribes...also in the Philippines

Papal Bulls Burning!

FIVE HUNDRED YEARS OF INJUSTICE:The Legacy of Fifteenth Century Religious Prejudice(1992)

by

Steve Newcomb(Shawnee/Lenape Legal Scholar)

When Christopher Columbus first set foot on thewhite sands of Guanahani island, he performed aceremony to "take possession" of the land for the kingand queen of Spain, acting under the internationallaws of Western Christendom. Although the story ofColumbus' "discovery" has taken on mythologicalproprtions in most of the Western world, few peopleare aware that his act of "possession" was based on areligious doctrine now known as the Doctrine ofDiscovery. Even fewer people realize that today --fivecenturies later-- the United States government stiluses this archaic Judeo-Christian doctrine to deny therights of Native American Indians.

Origins of the Doctrine of Discovery

To understand the connection between Christendom'sprinciple of discovery and the laws of the UnitedStates, we need to begin by examining a papal documentissued forty years before Columbus' historic voyage.In 1452, Pope Nicholas V issued to King Alfonso V ofPortugal the bull Romanus Pontifex, declaring waragainst all non-Christians throughout the world, andspecifically sanctioning and promoting the conquest,colonization, and exploitation of non-Christiannations and their territories.

Under various theological and legal doctrinesformulated during and after the Crusades,non-Christians were considered enemies of the Catholicfaith and, as such, less than human. Accordingly, inthe bull of 1452, Pope Nicholas directed King Alfonsoto "capture, vanquish, and subdue the saracens,pagans, and other enemies of Christ," to "put theminto perpetual slavery," and "to take all their


2/7

possessions and property." [Davenport: 20-26] Actingon this papal privilege, Portugal continued to trafficin African slaves, and expanded its royal dominions bymaking "discoveries" along the western coast ofAfrica, claiming those lands as Portuguese territory.

Thus, when Columbus sailed west across the Sea ofDarkness in 1492-- with the express understanding thathe was authorized to "take possession" of any lands he"discovered" that were "not under the dominion of anyChristian rulers"--he and the Spanish sovereigns ofAragon and Castile were following an alreadywell-established tradition of "discovery" andconquest. [Thacher: 96] Indeed, after Columbusreturned to Europe, Pope Alexander VI issued a papaldocument, the bull Inter Cetera of May 3, 1493,"granting" to Spain--at the request of Ferdinand andIsabella--the right to conquer the lands whichColumbus had already found, as well as any lands which

Spain might "discover" in the future.

In the Inter Cetera document, Pope Alexanderstated his desire that the "discovered" people be"subjugated and brought to the faith itself."[Davenport: 61] By this means, said the pope, the"Christian Empire" would be propagated. [Thatcher:127] When Portugal protested this concession to Spain,Pope Alexander stipulated in a subsequent bull--issuedMay 4, 1493--that Spain must not attempt to establishits dominion over lands which had already "come into

the possession of any Christian lords." [Daven- port:68] Then, to placate the two rival monarchs, the popedrew a line of demarcation between the two poles,giving Spain rights of conquest and dominion over oneside of the globe, and Portugal over the other.

During this quincentennial of Columbus' jouney tothe Americas, it is important to recognize that thegrim acts of genocide and conquest by Columbus and hismen against the peaceful Native people of theCaribbean were sanctioned by the above mentioned

documents of the Catholic church. Indeed, these papaldocuments were frequently used by Christian Europeanconquerors in the Americas to justify an incrediblybrutal system of colonization-- which dehumanized theindigenous people by regarding their territories asbeing "inhabited only by brute animals." [Story:135-6]

The lesson to be learned is that the papal bulls


3/7

of 1452 and 1493 are but two clear examples of how the"Christian Powers," or "different States ofChristendom," viewed indigenous peoples as "the lawfulspoil and prey of their civilized conquerors."[Wheaton: 270-1] In fact, the Christian "Law ofNations" asserted that Christian nations had a divineright, based on the Bible, to claim absolute title toand ultimate authority over any newly "discovered"

Non-Christian inhabitants and their lands. Over thenext several centuries, these beliefs gave rise to theDoctrine of Discovery used by Spain, Portugal,England, France, and Holland--all Christian nations.

The Doctrine of Discovery in U.S. Law

In 1823, the Christian Doctrine of Discovery wasquietly adopted into U.S. law by the Supreme Court inthe celebrated case, JOHNSON v. McINTOSH (8 Wheat.,543). Writing for the unanimous court, Chief Justice

John Marshall observed that Christian European nationshad assumed "ultimate dominion" over the lands ofAmerica during the Age of Discovery, and that--upon"discovery"--the Indians had lost "their rights tocomplete sovereignty, as independent nations," andonly retained a right of "occupancy" in their lands.In other words, Indian nations were subject to theultimate authority of the first nation of Christendomto claim possession of a given region of Indian lands.[Johnson: 574; Wheaton: 270-1]

According to Marshall, the United States--uponwinning its independence in 1776--became a successornation to the right of "discovery" and acquired thepower of "dominion" from Great Britain. [Johnson:587-9] Of course, when Marshall first defined theprinciple of "discovery," he used language phrased insuch a way that it drew attention away from itsreligious bias, stating that "discovery gave title tothe government, by whose subject, or by whoseauthority, the discovery was made, against all otherEuropean governments." [Johnson: 573-4] However, whendiscussing legal precedent to support the court'sfindings, Marshall specifically cited the English

charter issued to the explorer John Cabot, in order todocument England's "complete recognition" of theDoctrine of Discovery. [Johnson: 576] Then,paraphrasing the language of the charter, Marshallnoted that Cabot was authorized to take possession oflands, "notwithstanding the occupancy of the natives,who were heathens, and, at the same time, admittingthe prior title of any Christian people who may havemade a previous discovery." [Johnson: 577]


4/7

In other words, the Court affirmed that UnitedStates law was based on a fundamental rule of the "Lawof Nations"--that it was permissible to virtuallyignore the most basic rights of indigenous "heathens,"and to claim that the "unoccupied lands" of Americarightfully belonged to discovering Christian Europeannations. Of course, it's important to understand that,

as Benjamin Munn Ziegler pointed out in TheInternational Law of John Marshall, the term"unoccupied lands" referred to "the land in Americawhich, when discovered, were `occupied by Indians' but`unoccupied' by Christians." [Ziegler: 46]

Ironically, the same year that the JOHNSON v.McINTOSH decision was handed down, founding fatherJames Madison wrote: "Religion is not in the purviewof human government. Religion is essentially distinctfrom civil government, and exempt from its cognizance;

a connection between them is injurious to both."

Most of us have been brought up to believe thatthe United States Constitution was designed to keepchurch and state apart. Unfortunately, with theJohnson decision, the Christian Doctrine of Discoverywas not only written into U.S. law but also became thecornerstone of U.S. Indian policy over the nextcentury.

From Doctrine of Discovery to Domestic DependentNations

Using the principle of "discovery" as its premise,the Supreme Court stated in 1831 that the CherokeeNation (and, by implication, all Indian nations) wasnot fully sovereign, but "may, perhaps," be deemed a"domestic dependent nation." [Cherokee Nation v.

Georgia] The federal government took this to mean thattreaties made with Indian nations did not recognizeIndian nations as free of U.S. control. According tothe U.S. government, Indian nations were "domesticdependent nations" subject to the federal government'sabsolute legislative authority--known in the law as"plenary power." Thus, the ancient doctrine ofChristian discovery and its subjugation of "heathen"Indians were extended by the federal government into amythical doctrine that the U.S. Constitution allowsfor governmental authority over Indian nations and


5/7

their lands. [Savage: 59-60]

The myth of U.S. "plenary power" over Indians--apower, by the way, that was never intended by theauthors of the Constitution [Savage: 115-17]--has beenused by the United States to:

a) Circumvent the terms of solemn treaties thatthe U.S. entered into with Indian nations, despite thefact that all such treaties are "supreme Law of theLand, anything in the Constitution notwithstanding."

b) Steal the homelands of Indian peoples livingeast of the Mississippi River, by removing them fromtheir traditional ancestral homelands through theIndian Removal Act of 1835.

c) Use a congressional statute, known as theGeneral Allotment Act of 1887, to divest Indian people

of some 90 million acres of their lands. This act,explained John Collier (Commissioner of IndianAffairs) was "an indirect method--peaceful under theforms of law--of taking away the land that we weredetermined to take away but did not want to takeopenly by breaking treaties."

d) Steal the sacred Black Hills from the greatSioux Nation in violation of the 1868 Treaty of FortLaramie which recognized the Sioux Nation's exclusiveand absolute possession of their lands.

e) Pay the Secretary of the Interior $26 million

for 24 million acres of Western Shoshone lands,because the Western Shoshone people have steadfastlyrefused to sell the land and refused to accept themoney. Although the Western Shoshone Nation'ssovereignty and territorial boundaries were clearlyrecognized by the federal government in the 1863 RubyValley Treaty, the government now claims that payingitself on behalf of the Western Shoshone hasextinguished the Western Shoshone's title to theirlands.

The above cases are just a few examples of how theUnited States government has used the JOHNSON v.McINTOSH and Cherokee Nation v. Georgia decisions tocallously disregard the human rights of Nativepeoples. Indeed, countless U.S. Indian policies havebeen based on the underlying, hidden rationale of"Christian discovery"--a rationale which holds thatthe "heathen" indigenous peoples of the Americas are"subordinate to the first Christian discoverer," orits successor. [Wheaten: 271]


6/7

As Thomas Jefferson once observed, when the stateuses church doctrine as a coercive tool, the result is"hypocrisy and meanness." Unfortunately, the UnitedStates Supreme Court's use of the ancient ChristianDoctrine of Discovery--to circumvent the Constitutionas a means of taking Indian lands and placing Indian

nations under U.S. control-- has proven Madison andJefferson right.

Bringing an End to Five HundredYears of Injustice to Indigenous Peoples

In a country set up to maintain a strict

separation of church and state, the Doctrine ofDiscovery should have long ago been declaredunconstitutional because it is based on a prejudicialtreatment of Native American people simply becausethey were not Christians at the time of Europeanarrival. By penalizing Native people on the basis oftheir non-Christian religious beliefs and ceremonialpractices, stripping them of most of their lands andmost of their sovereignty, the JOHNSON v. McINTOSHruling stands as a monumental violation of the"natural rights" of humankind, as well as the mostfundamental human rights of indigenous peoples.

As we move beyond the quincentennial of Columbus'invasion of the Americas, it is high time to formallyrenounce and put an end to the religious prejudicethat was written into U.S. law by Chief Justice JohnMarshall. Whether or not the Americanpeople--especially the Christian right--prove willingto assist Native people in getting the Johnson rulingoverturned will say a lot to the world community aboutjust how seriously the United States takes its ownfoundational principles of liberty, justice, andreligious freedom.

As we approach the 500th anniversary of the InterCetera bulls on May 3 and 4 of 1993, it is importantto keep in mind that the Doctrine of Discovery isstill being used by countries throughout the Americasto deny the rights of indigenous peoples, and toperpetuate colonization throughout the WesternHemisphere. To begin to bring that system ofcolonization to an end, and to move away from a


7/7

cultural and spiritual tradition of subjugation, wemust overturn the doctrine at its roots. Therefore, Ipropose that non-Native people--especiallyChristians-- unite in solidarity with indigenouspeoples of the Western Hemisphere to impress upon PopeJohn Paul II how important it is for him to revoke, ina formal ceremony with indigenous people, the InterCetera bulls of 1493.

Revoking those papal documents and overturning theJOHNSON v. McINTOSH decision are two important firststeps toward correcting the injustices that have beeninflicted on indigenous peoples over the past fivehundred years. They are also spiritually significantsteps toward creating a way of life that is no longerbased on greed and subjugation. Perhaps then we willbe able to use our newfound solidarity to begin tocreate a lifestyle based on the first indigenousprinciple:

"Do all the good you can,To all people you can,In everyway you can."

philippine history /spanish colony

Documents