Comments on: Arroyo’s Ghost

By: Bencard

Bencard — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:21:51 +0000

cvj, i gave you the FACTS, chew on them.

By: cvj

cvj — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 05:54:20 +0000

Bencard, you cannot give the excuse people suffered or died because it was war if it was your side that instigated it. Whatever concessions the US gave, the Filipinos fought for. (Perhaps the Americans were also bothered by their guilty conscience.) As to 'barbaric acts', if you have waterboarding today, your forefathers had water cure a century ago.

By: UP n student

UP n student — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 04:34:24 +0000

During the discussions about going to war against Spain, many US lawmakers feared McKinley was simply priming the island for annexation. When the US Congress approved for the US to go to war with Spain, it included the Teller Amendment authored by US Senator Henry M. Teller of Colorado. According to the clause, the U.S. could not annex Cuba but only leave “control of the island to its people.” After Spanish troops left Cuba in December 1898, the United States occupied Cuba until May 1902, and as promised in the Teller Amendment did not attempt to annex the island.

By: UP n student

UP n student — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 04:05:24 +0000

Food for thought: With the Treaty of Paris, Spain renounced all claim to Cuba, ceded Guam and Puerto Rico and its dependent islets to the United States, and transferred sovereignty over the Philippines to the United States for $20,000,000. The citizens of Guam and Puerto Rico were granted American citizenship.
(1) Guam – After the war, the Guam Organic Act of 1950, which established Guam as an unincorporated organized territory of the United States, provided for the structure of the island’s civilian government, and granted the people United States citizenship.
(2) Puerto Rico – A law – Jones Act 1916 – made Puerto Rico a United States territory which is “organized but unincorporated”. It also granted U.S. citizenship to all Puerto Ricans.
(3) Philippines — independence

By: Bencard

Bencard — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 01:30:02 +0000

cvj, call it whatever non-”weasel” word you want but the facts are: u.s. ALLOWED filipinos to govern themselves shortly after subjugating them, write their own constitution, organize their own government through free election, then gave them full independence. even under their brief military rule after aguinaldo’s capture, u.s was never accused of cruelty, oppression or barbaric acts.

lives were lost from both sides because, as you called it, it was a WAR. your “opposition” to u.s. invasion of the then spanish colony called philippines is a little too late and useless, i think.

the way you have been singing the praises of japan? you could have fooled me!

By: cvj

cvj — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 00:57:53 +0000

Bencard, benevolent assimilation is another weasel word. Do you know how many Filipinos suffered and died during the Philippine-American War? BTW, it is disingenuous to argue that just because i oppose the American invasion of the Philippines, i welcome Japan’s. Those are two different things.

By: Bencard

Bencard — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 20:24:05 +0000

you have to go back to real history again, cvj, instead of quoting commentaries that suits your argument, without understanding the context in which they were made. as a free country, u.s. had opposing forces with divergent opinions, much like it is today vis a vis iraq. mark twain happened to be on the side of “anti-imperialist” which was opposed to colonization of the philippines and in favor of outright independence. mckinley adopted the policy of “benevolent assimilation” whose core idea was to prepare the filipinos for self-government and eventual independence in due time. that was exactly what happened (albeit interrupted by your idols in japan).

take a cue from upnstudent. stop using other people’s comments to validate your argument. use your own and if you don’t have any, just zip it up!

By: cvj

cvj — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 18:46:28 +0000

Bencard, you can use the cover of legalisms again, but your acceptance of the right of the United States to undermine Philippine sovereignty is not shared by Americans living at that time, among them Mark Twain:

But I have thought some more, since then, and I have read carefully the treaty of Paris, and I have seen that we do not intend to free, but to subjugate the people of the Philippines. We have gone there to conquer, not to redeem…

It should, it seems to me, be our pleasure and duty to make those people free, and let them deal with their own domestic questions in their own way. And so I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land. – Mark Twain, New York Herald, October 15, 1900

His view is closer to the ideals that the United States fought for in its own war of independence.

By: Bencard

Bencard — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 18:18:19 +0000

cvj, if you’re perceptive enough, my “rationalization” is based on pure historical fact, not ideology or political pretensions or theories. i didn’t make up u.s. right to take over from spain. it was ordained by existing order of the time, i.e., conquest resulting from a declared war, and bilateral treaty entered into between two sovereigns.

By: Bencard

Bencard — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 16:51:41 +0000

upnstudent, btw, too bad u.s. has adopted and still poised to adopt more stringent immigration laws that immigrating to the u.s. would be as difficult as getting through the eye of a needle. that’s why most filipinos have to bite the bullet and opt for such explosive places as middle east, africa, and virtual no-man’s land where they could find work.