Collection Of Reader Comments On Philippine History

Comment from a reader on "The Transfer Of Power In Philippine History":

Interesting that the writer ignores the "so-called" imperialist activities of other nations of Europe. Lets not forget that it was Europeans that settled America.

The sun never set on the British Empire, right? And Aussies were imprisoning their half-caste citizenry well into the 20th century- taking them from their mothers so they could not "propagate". Spanish, Germans, Dutch, French, British and others all spent a great deal of time and effort expanding their empires and the spoils of wars often were those holdings.

Lets don't even get into the Ottomans and that whole region. So I would think that on the big scale, the USA and it's "manifest destiny" activities are miniscule when compared to other countries.

And Another:

As per comments concerning abusive US government and policies. Where may I ask are you from? Perhaps heaven as you look down from above.

Are you now not enjoying the past efforts of my country on behalf of yours? Do you not reside in and enjoy the flood free and safe area built and paid for by the US.

Yes, the US has and does make mistakes, errors in policies and actions. But consider, would you rather have your life as you know it today or would prefer to be under control of the Japanese or Germans?

Your command of English leads me to believe you are neither. Check your history before you heap such scorn upon others who may have helped you and your country in the past.

And Another:

The respondent writes with the convictions of a true patriot, a position which I can only respect, even as I stand un persuaded by the rhetoric.

A point of disagreement relates to whether or not a legitimate government existed PRIOR to the arrival of American naval forces in May, 1898. The writer refers to a "functioning Filipino government."

I must assume that alludes to the dictatorial government set up by the pact of Biak-na-Bato in July, 1897, which was replaced in 1899 by the First Republic, Constitucion Politica de la Republica Filipina (Malolos Convention). Little evidence exists to establish that these fledgling experiments in self government were either legitimate, or functioning. Just because a dedicated group of revolutionaries set up shop and declare themselves to be representatives of an independent nation, does not necessarily a recognized political organization make.

Permit me to draw attention to the American Revolution and the birth of the United States as an independent nation. They didn't gain that status on July 4, 1776 just because a bunch of dedicated folks rose up in Philadelphia to affix their names to a document. Even in the 18th Century, legitimacy of government stemmed from recognition by the community of nations. To the British, the revolutionaries were nothing more than treasonous upstarts, to be treated with contempt and retribution.

Even after France officially recognized the U.S. as an independent nations, many nations did not. It would take five years of bloody revolution, and not with the full support of the people, before the new nation was fully accepted as an independent state. Had it not been for the French, it is probable that the revolution would have failed, and George Washington would now stand with Emilio Aguinaldo as a loser on the long list of nationalistic dreamers.. It is moot if the British would have treated George with the same consideration the Americans afforded Emilio when they captured him in 1901, bringing to an end the short lived First Philippine Republic.

And yes, there is no doubt that those pesky treaties are indeed the ploy of all nations of the world. True, some are violated before the ink is dry on the paper, but such is the making of history. It is a matter of fact that World history is fraught with examples of the strong exercising will over the less strong. Its called survival of the fittest.

I would quibble with the allegation that Spain and America were illegitimate occupiers. Given the accepted international laws of their respective eras, Spain's claim to the Philippine archipelago was legitimate, as was Britain's claim of Canada and the thirteen colonies in the America's. The U.S. claimed sovereignty over the Philippines, Guam, Puerto Rico and Cuba as the prizes of war and treaty. Compared to the European powers, and later the Japanese, the Americans were a bunch of sissies in the colonial business.

Few Americans will argue that the American expansionism of the late 19th Century was always just, or humanely executed, nor will I attempt to defend the concept of manifest destiny which was prevalent at the time. I would only ask of those who critique U.S. influence in the Philippines, "Where would the nation be today had it not come under the patronage of the hated Americans?" Nobody really knows, but using existing models from other former colonial countries, its not hard to come up with some good guesses.

My curiosity is piqued by the rather ambiguous statement that the Americans have been in the business of overthrowing regimes that stand in their way." Really? I can think of a few instances in which the U.S. has backed some real bums, willing advocates of a strategy that says, "My enemies enemy is my friend," but actually overthrow a regime?

For my edification, will somebody please cite me one single instance in which the U.S. has unilaterally used force to overthrow a regime. Such an action would surely have been cause for international condemnation, which I don't recall happening.

My worthy critic climbs a slippery slope when citing the experience of Hawaii and the Indian nations of the original American territory as examples of American interference in foreign affairs.

Hawaii became a territory, and later a state by choice of the people. The subjugation of the North American Indian, none of whom ever had anything close to a recognized independent government, started a long time before the United States became an independent nation. Whom of us shall apologize for the sins of the Spanish, French and English colonialists who set out to establish a "New World." I think, perhaps, the writer refers to the injustices perpetrated against the Indians in the westward expansion of the late 19th Century.

I see that as a domestic issue, in no way comparable to "overthrowing regimes." Didn't happen on my watch, Chief!