BongBongLand (Philippine) Discussion Thread

[Pasong Tirad]

They could have overwhelmed the city, they could have charged the tanks in, they could have gone with a naval landing or even paratrooped soldiers in. There were literally a dozen options for them and they chose the one that would lead to the least number of American casualties - and yes, it must have also meant the least number of Filipino casualties. There's even no telling how many Filipinos were killed not by the Japanese but by American shelling.

See, that's where I think you're wrong. We were already developing diplomatic ties with Japan, attempting to get them to support our revolution. These kinds of diplomatic dealings would have been a good option. Choosing no colonial master would have been a bad decision but it was the best bad decision we had.

Sure there were other options, but that would just have caused just a longer battle with more deaths, and not necessarily less destruction.
The question is not if there was other options, the question is were their better options?

No city fight has every left a city intact. Sadly the Japanese were no going to leave, and where going to kill and destroy as much as they could.
They were even worse than the Germans in some cases such as this one. At least the German commander in Paris refused to destroy the city or fight in it. Had he decided to do what Japan did Paris would have suffered the same.

Japan had at the time had a long history of backstabbing. Japan had diplomatic ties with Korea too, but that did not work out so well.
"Diplomatic ties" with Japan of the time was simply a way for Japan to get a foot in the door. Then the would occupy you, murder your leader, and annex you. Plus they certainly were not going to fight a war to stop the British or Germans from going in if they did not. Japan was planning to invade and occupy if the US had not taken over. They had ships waiting to strike. And as you yourself admitted the government was going to fail, had the US not gone in there would have been a civil war, chaos and someone else doing it. Possibly with the Philippines even being partitioned before Japan threw everyone else out.

Can you name on case where Japan did not do such a thing to nearby islands? There was literally not a single pacific island that stayed independent.

At best you would have gotten treatment similar to China.

It's also pretty difficult to argue with the fact that you believe in the benevolence of American colonialism. Very Manifest Destiny. We could have also been colonized, as you say, by the Germans or even the British - possibly even the French in Indochina or maybe even the Dutch down south of us. Not to mention the fact that independence was a good and valid choice. There definitely would have been a better option than American imperialism.

BTW on a similar yet unrelated note, I just remembered one of my lectures in college about how most battles in the Phil-Am war were decided because the Americans would bring in the cannons and the Filipinos were just like "nope nope nope fuck dat let's bolt" and apparently it was less like the brutal and heroic mano y mano bayonet vs bayonet fighting. Pretty cool, actually - and smart.

[Novus America]

Sure there were other options, but that would just have caused just a longer battle with more deaths, and not necessarily less destruction.
The question is not if there was other options, the question is were their better options?

No city fight has every left a city intact. Sadly the Japanese were no going to leave, and where going to kill and destroy as much as they could.
They were even worse than the Germans in some cases such as this one. At least the German commander in Paris refused to destroy the city or fight in it. Had he decided to do what Japan did Paris would have suffered the same.

Japan had at the time had a long history of backstabbing. Japan had diplomatic ties with Korea too, but that did not work out so well.
"Diplomatic ties" with Japan of the time was simply a way for Japan to get a foot in the door. Then the would occupy you, murder your leader, and annex you. Plus they certainly were not going to fight a war to stop the British or Germans from going in if they did not. Japan was planning to invade and occupy if the US had not taken over. They had ships waiting to strike. And as you yourself admitted the government was going to fail, had the US not gone in there would have been a civil war, chaos and someone else doing it. Possibly with the Philippines even being partitioned before Japan threw everyone else out.

Can you name on case where Japan did not do such a thing to nearby islands? There was literally not a single pacific island that stayed independent.

At best you would have gotten treatment similar to China.

It's also pretty difficult to argue with the fact that you believe in the benevolence of American colonialism. Very Manifest Destiny. We could have also been colonized, as you say, by the Germans or even the British - possibly even the French in Indochina or maybe even the Dutch down south of us. Not to mention the fact that independence was a good and valid choice. There definitely would have been a better option than American imperialism.

BTW on a similar yet unrelated note, I just remembered one of my lectures in college about how most battles in the Phil-Am war were decided because the Americans would bring in the cannons and the Filipinos were just like "nope nope nope fuck dat let's bolt" and apparently it was less like the brutal and heroic mano y mano bayonet vs bayonet fighting. Pretty cool, actually - and smart.

Eh, I never said American imperialism was all benevolent, as it was most certainly not. But it was not all evil either. It is important to remember too the US being a democratic country was not a hive mind either. Some people in the US had good motives, some did not, and most somewhere in between. Certainly the US was better than most in most respects though.

And again immediate independence, or at least lasting independence was simply not going to happen. It did not happen anywhere else in the Pacific.
It was a question of who would colonize you. And the most likely would have been Japan or partition. How would either be better? What makes you think the Dutch or French would have been better? And the Japanese would have taken Manila for certain, at best the Philippines would have been carved up like China.

At least the US kept it intact, and did allow increasing autonomy and then full independence without you having a civil war. So that was certainly not all bad.
Not all good either, but certainly not all bad.

See the problem is the lack of a credible alternative.

As far as the Philippine American war went, that was pretty much the case. Initially the Filipino troops tried to fight some pitched battles with US forces, but quickly realized that was stupid, and then shifted to hit and run cat and mouse type fighting.

[Pasong Tirad]

It's also pretty difficult to argue with the fact that you believe in the benevolence of American colonialism. Very Manifest Destiny. We could have also been colonized, as you say, by the Germans or even the British - possibly even the French in Indochina or maybe even the Dutch down south of us. Not to mention the fact that independence was a good and valid choice. There definitely would have been a better option than American imperialism.

BTW on a similar yet unrelated note, I just remembered one of my lectures in college about how most battles in the Phil-Am war were decided because the Americans would bring in the cannons and the Filipinos were just like "nope nope nope fuck dat let's bolt" and apparently it was less like the brutal and heroic mano y mano bayonet vs bayonet fighting. Pretty cool, actually - and smart.

Eh, I never said American imperialism was all benevolent, as it was most certainly not. But it was not all evil either. It is important to remember too the US being a democratic country was not a hive mind either. Some people in the US had good motives, some did not, and most somewhere in between. Certainly the US was better than most in most respects though.

And again immediate independence, or at least lasting independence was simply not going to happen. It did not happen anywhere else in the Pacific.
It was a question of who would colonize you. And the most likely would have been Japan or partition. How would either be better? What makes you think the Dutch or French would have been better? And the Japanese would have taken Manila for certain, at best the Philippines would have been carved up like China.

At least the US kept it intact, and did allow increasing autonomy and then full independence without you having a civil war. So that was certainly not all bad.
Not all good either, but certainly not all bad.

See the problem is the lack of a credible alternative.

As far as the Philippine American war went, that was pretty much the case. Initially the Filipino troops tried to fight some pitched battles with US forces, but quickly realized that was stupid, and then shifted to hit and run cat and mouse type fighting.

The guerrilla warfare happened too late, unfortunately for us.

British rule would have been a credible alternative if you ask me. As would German rule. I speculate this through their treatment of their colonies. While not any better, it certainly wasn't as bad as American treatment was (which was historical fact). Thailand was able to retain its independence, by the way.

Also, I have to stress how difficult and nuanced it is to talk about an "intact" Philippines as the idea of a united "Filipino nationalism" was only coming to fruition. People were still in the process of seeing themselves as "Filipino" and not "Tagalog," or "Cebuano," or "Negros," so I'm not entirely sure a partitioning of the Philippine islands would have had any worse outcome than the already clear divides in Filipino society today.

[Novus America]

Eh, I never said American imperialism was all benevolent, as it was most certainly not. But it was not all evil either. It is important to remember too the US being a democratic country was not a hive mind either. Some people in the US had good motives, some did not, and most somewhere in between. Certainly the US was better than most in most respects though.

And again immediate independence, or at least lasting independence was simply not going to happen. It did not happen anywhere else in the Pacific.
It was a question of who would colonize you. And the most likely would have been Japan or partition. How would either be better? What makes you think the Dutch or French would have been better? And the Japanese would have taken Manila for certain, at best the Philippines would have been carved up like China.

At least the US kept it intact, and did allow increasing autonomy and then full independence without you having a civil war. So that was certainly not all bad.
Not all good either, but certainly not all bad.

See the problem is the lack of a credible alternative.

As far as the Philippine American war went, that was pretty much the case. Initially the Filipino troops tried to fight some pitched battles with US forces, but quickly realized that was stupid, and then shifted to hit and run cat and mouse type fighting.

The guerrilla warfare happened too late, unfortunately for us.

British rule would have been a credible alternative if you ask me. As would German rule. I speculate this through their treatment of their colonies. While not any better, it certainly wasn't as bad as American treatment was (which was historical fact). Thailand was able to retain its independence, by the way.

Also, I have to stress how difficult and nuanced it is to talk about an "intact" Philippines as the idea of a united "Filipino nationalism" was only coming to fruition. People were still in the process of seeing themselves as "Filipino" and not "Tagalog," or "Cebuano," or "Negros," so I'm not entirely sure a partitioning of the Philippine islands would have had any worse outcome than the already clear divides in Filipino society today.

Well even if the guerilla warfare had started sooner it would not have altered the outcome.

Thailand was not an island in the Pacific. And had been independent long before. It had not recently tried to become independent. So a very different case.
And German rule?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_an ... a_genocide
Not always better. And this again would have just meant transition to Japanese rule as Japan occupied all German pacific colonies in WWI.

British rule was not always better, and they did not grant independence so soon or as readily, and held on much longer. And many of their colonies plunged into civil war after independence thanks to their divide and rule policies.

So yes at least partial short lived German rule (followed by Japanese rule), or maybe British rule would have been possible. But whey would these be better? Besides US rule, British rule would have been the best alternative, but what very different would have happened? How would it be better? The divide and rule would have only made things worse.

And if the Philippines had been partitioned, it might not have existed today, and would certainly be much weaker.
Yes I am aware how tenuous the idea of a Philippine identity at the time was, one reason why immediate independence would not have created a viable country.

It would have collapsed into warring fiefdoms that would have been seized by other powers.

In fact the US played a huge role in creating a Philippines identity and building a unified nation.

[Pasong Tirad]

The guerrilla warfare happened too late, unfortunately for us.

British rule would have been a credible alternative if you ask me. As would German rule. I speculate this through their treatment of their colonies. While not any better, it certainly wasn't as bad as American treatment was (which was historical fact). Thailand was able to retain its independence, by the way.

Also, I have to stress how difficult and nuanced it is to talk about an "intact" Philippines as the idea of a united "Filipino nationalism" was only coming to fruition. People were still in the process of seeing themselves as "Filipino" and not "Tagalog," or "Cebuano," or "Negros," so I'm not entirely sure a partitioning of the Philippine islands would have had any worse outcome than the already clear divides in Filipino society today.

Well even if the guerilla warfare had started sooner it would not have altered the outcome.

Thailand was not an island in the Pacific. And had been independent long before. It had not recently tried to become independent. So a very different case.
And German rule?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_an ... a_genocide
Not always better. And this again would have just meant transition to Japanese rule as Japan occupied all German pacific colonies in WWI.

British rule was not always better, and they did not grant independence so soon or as readily, and held on much longer. And many of their colonies plunged into civil war after independence.

So yes at least partial short lived German rule (followed by Japanese rule), or maybe British rule would have been possible. But whey would these be better? Besides US rule, British rule would have been the best alternative, but what very different would have happened? How would it be better?

And if the Philippines had been partitioned, it might not have existed today, and would certainly be much weaker.
Yes I am aware how tenuous the idea of a Philippine identity at the time was, one reason why immediate independence would not have created a viable country.

It would have collapsed into warring fiefdoms that would have been seized by other powers.

In fact the US played a huge role in creating a Philippines identity.

I would argue that Filipino identity would have been strengthened had there been a Filipino leading the nation. If anything it was American rule that divided us more - divided along the lines of bandido and willing servant of the Americans, divided between the Federalistas/Americanistas who advocated for closer ties with America (possibly even statehood) and the Nacionalistas who wanted independence. Not to mention how the landlords stayed the same, ruling from their fiefdoms and their tenants being subject to worse and worse conditions. There's a difference between the US playing a huge role in creating Philippine identity (it did not) and Philippine identity coming together at that time. Philippine identity was already starting to form since the mid-19th century, it's really not a good idea to try and take a lot of the credit for it because that's not what happened.

[Vulkata II]

Coming back from this thread and I'm already confuse.

Almost i support the idea that the US created the Philippine identity since we had no real technology when the Spanished owned our asses and when we did lost a lot of technology was given by good ol' Uncle Sam(I feel like people are going to shit on me because of what i just said).

I would've put more things here but i am the dumbass of this thread.

[Novus America]

Well even if the guerilla warfare had started sooner it would not have altered the outcome.

Thailand was not an island in the Pacific. And had been independent long before. It had not recently tried to become independent. So a very different case.
And German rule?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_an ... a_genocide
Not always better. And this again would have just meant transition to Japanese rule as Japan occupied all German pacific colonies in WWI.

British rule was not always better, and they did not grant independence so soon or as readily, and held on much longer. And many of their colonies plunged into civil war after independence.

So yes at least partial short lived German rule (followed by Japanese rule), or maybe British rule would have been possible. But whey would these be better? Besides US rule, British rule would have been the best alternative, but what very different would have happened? How would it be better?

And if the Philippines had been partitioned, it might not have existed today, and would certainly be much weaker.
Yes I am aware how tenuous the idea of a Philippine identity at the time was, one reason why immediate independence would not have created a viable country.

It would have collapsed into warring fiefdoms that would have been seized by other powers.

In fact the US played a huge role in creating a Philippines identity.

I would argue that Filipino identity would have been strengthened had there been a Filipino leading the nation. If anything it was American rule that divided us more - divided along the lines of bandido and willing servant of the Americans, divided between the Federalistas/Americanistas who advocated for closer ties with America (possibly even statehood) and the Nacionalistas who wanted independence. Not to mention how the landlords stayed the same, ruling from their fiefdoms and their tenants being subject to worse and worse conditions. There's a difference between the US playing a huge role in creating Philippine identity (it did not) and Philippine identity coming together at that time. Philippine identity was already starting to form since the mid-19th century, it's really not a good idea to try and take a lot of the credit for it because that's not what happened.

As of 1935 their was a Filipino leading it. Something that no other imperial territory of any other country got so soon.

Any citation that things got worse for tenants under US rule than before?

The US did play a major role, as it played a huge part in creating the first Filipino government to rule the whole Philippines and helped enforce its authority. That is a fact.
The US helped, and in fact actively encouraged it coming together. Sure the US did not create it all on its own, it was very much a joint project.

[Pasong Tirad]

I would argue that Filipino identity would have been strengthened had there been a Filipino leading the nation. If anything it was American rule that divided us more - divided along the lines of bandido and willing servant of the Americans, divided between the Federalistas/Americanistas who advocated for closer ties with America (possibly even statehood) and the Nacionalistas who wanted independence. Not to mention how the landlords stayed the same, ruling from their fiefdoms and their tenants being subject to worse and worse conditions. There's a difference between the US playing a huge role in creating Philippine identity (it did not) and Philippine identity coming together at that time. Philippine identity was already starting to form since the mid-19th century, it's really not a good idea to try and take a lot of the credit for it because that's not what happened.

As of 1935 their was a Filipino leading it. Something that no other imperial territory of any other country got so soon.

Any citation that things got worse for tenants under US rule than before?

The US did play a major role, as it played a huge part in creating the first Filipino government to rule the whole Philippines and helped enforce its authority. That is a fact.
The US helped, and in fact actively encouraged it coming together. Sure the US did not create it all on its own, it was very much a joint project.

All my citations are lectures from my professors. I'm at work right now so I'll try and find them when I get home. But the general argument is that because things were becoming very modernized and cozy in Manila, the new generation of landlords were emigrating from their lands to Manila to have a cozy, more Westernized life. What was left in their lands were landbosses. The "classic relationship" of the tenant and the landlord was interrupted. Before, the tenant could come to the landlord with their problems easily. Before, the landlord (for the most part) only got their fair share of the crops and nothing more. After that, it got worse because the "intimate relationship" between tenant and landlord was severed and the landbosses were generally greedy and corrupt and would extort more and more. As I've pointed out in a previous post, this ruining of the tenant-landlord relationship was one of the key factors that led to the rise of the PKP-1930 (Philippine Communists) and the Socialist Party.

As of 1935, a Filipino was leading because we lobbied extensively for it. As of 1935, the Great Depression was in full swing and America was more than happy to let go of what it might have seen as an economic burden.

The US played a role, yes, but the creation of the Filipino government of Filipinos was done through the efforts of Filipinos who opted to take the parliamentary struggle approach. That is fact. The coming together of the Filipino identity was in part reactionary because of colonization - both of the Spanish, Americans and the Japanese. It wasn't because the Americans helped us do it.

[Vulkata II]

As of 1935 their was a Filipino leading it. Something that no other imperial territory of any other country got so soon.

Any citation that things got worse for tenants under US rule than before?

The US did play a major role, as it played a huge part in creating the first Filipino government to rule the whole Philippines and helped enforce its authority. That is a fact.
The US helped, and in fact actively encouraged it coming together. Sure the US did not create it all on its own, it was very much a joint project.

All my citations are lectures from my professors. I'm at work right now so I'll try and find them when I get home. But the general argument is that because things were becoming very modernized and cozy in Manila, the new generation of landlords were emigrating from their lands to Manila to have a cozy, more Westernized life. What was left in their lands were landbosses. The "classic relationship" of the tenant and the landlord was interrupted. Before, the tenant could come to the landlord with their problems easily. Before, the landlord (for the most part) only got their fair share of the crops and nothing more. After that, it got worse because the "intimate relationship" between tenant and landlord was severed and the landbosses were generally greedy and corrupt and would extort more and more. As I've pointed out in a previous post, this ruining of the tenant-landlord relationship was one of the key factors that led to the rise of the PKP-1930 (Philippine Communists) and the Socialist Party.

As of 1935, a Filipino was leading because we lobbied extensively for it. As of 1935, the Great Depression was in full swing and America was more than happy to let go of what it might have seen as an economic burden.

The US played a role, yes, but the creation of the Filipino government of Filipinos was done through the efforts of Filipinos who opted to take the parliamentary struggle approach. That is fact. The coming together of the Filipino identity was in part reactionary because of colonization - both of the Spanish, Americans and the Japanese. It wasn't because the Americans helped us do it.

They did jumpboosted it though.

In all honesty what did all three of them give?

The Spanish united us against one common enemy and if you weren't rich sucks to be you

America gave us many technologies of the Western world at the time, things we couldn't have known without their help so what if they wanted to build some bases here? What did we do to reward them as a thank you gift.

The Japanese reversed what the Spanish taught us, we learned to hate our neighbor and turn against them once we knew who they were sided with, if everyone knew you were working with the Japanese they would kill you in a heart beat while if you anger someone the Japanese might kill you for being lazy even though you have the sweat of your brow to prove it.

[Victoriala II]

Eh, I never said American imperialism was all benevolent, as it was most certainly not. But it was not all evil either. It is important to remember too the US being a democratic country was not a hive mind either. Some people in the US had good motives, some did not, and most somewhere in between. Certainly the US was better than most in most respects though.

And again immediate independence, or at least lasting independence was simply not going to happen. It did not happen anywhere else in the Pacific.
It was a question of who would colonize you. And the most likely would have been Japan or partition. How would either be better? What makes you think the Dutch or French would have been better? And the Japanese would have taken Manila for certain, at best the Philippines would have been carved up like China.

At least the US kept it intact, and did allow increasing autonomy and then full independence without you having a civil war. So that was certainly not all bad.
Not all good either, but certainly not all bad.

See the problem is the lack of a credible alternative.

As far as the Philippine American war went, that was pretty much the case. Initially the Filipino troops tried to fight some pitched battles with US forces, but quickly realized that was stupid, and then shifted to hit and run cat and mouse type fighting.

The guerrilla warfare happened too late, unfortunately for us.

British rule would have been a credible alternative if you ask me. As would German rule. I speculate this through their treatment of their colonies. While not any better, it certainly wasn't as bad as American treatment was (which was historical fact). Thailand was able to retain its independence, by the way.

Also, I have to stress how difficult and nuanced it is to talk about an "intact" Philippines as the idea of a united "Filipino nationalism" was only coming to fruition. People were still in the process of seeing themselves as "Filipino" and not "Tagalog," or "Cebuano," or "Negros," so I'm not entirely sure a partitioning of the Philippine islands would have had any worse outcome than the already clear divides in Filipino society today.

I purely doubt we'd do any better with Germans. They're like the Spanish but worse.

[Stormwrath]

I purely doubt we'd do any better with Germans. They're like the Spanish but worse.

German Empire =/= Third Reich.

Gonna sidetrack a bit on why Germany is seen as an evil colonizer compared to the British, French, and Dutch. I think it's because those three countries were afraid of losing their influence in Europe to the Germans. In fact the reason why they were very wary of the German states uniting under one government was because it would disrupt the balance of power that had prevailed over Europe ever since the end of the Napoleonic Wars. After unification, the Germans were industrializing very rapidly during the latter half of the 19th century all the way up to World War I, and since that industrialization could potentially give Germany the resources to forge its own colonial empire, build its military, and directly or indirectly threaten the interests of the other great powers around the world, Britain and France set themselves up to be antagonistic to Germany. You could see that in how the reparations of the Treaty of Versailles were enacted on Germany, which were meant to ensure that it would never rise again to challenge the two for the rest of the 20th century.

Why should I mention this? It's bcoz I don't think the Germans are worse colonial masters as the Spanish, since they held different value systems and cultures and because the current perceptions of German imperialism were painted pretty much by the British and French for quite a while during the 19th and 20th centuries. In fact because of their "Protestant work ethic" I think we would be better off with them rather than the Spaniards (even tho America pretty much did that when they did show up).

[The Republic of Pantalleria]

1. Again, this statement just shows how misguided and sensitive you are that you can't even distinguish the definition between 'CULTURE' and 'RACE', if I were a 'racist' my point would be that the race of one people was inferior relative to another, now SHOW ME ONE INSTANCE, JUST FREAKING ONE OF EVER SAYING SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES, and you'd have a point, in fact you have the ability to report on me to Moderation, otherwise, you describing me as a 'racist' for describing CULTURAL PRACTICES which are INFERIOR (in this day and age) of certain cultures throughout the World, will be seen as nothing more than an attempt to try and garner a 'flame reaction' and as such will be treated as a 'flame baiting' incident.

Awfully close to "Mods as weapons." Awfully close. If you think someone's baiting, report them. If you think they might, don't threaten them beforehand.

The intent was to warn against potentially defamatory statements without the backing of reasonable facts, however duly noted, the next time will be directly in Moderation.

[The Republic of Pantalleria]

1. Again, this statement just shows how misguided and sensitive you are that you can't even distinguish the definition between 'CULTURE' and 'RACE', if I were a 'racist' my point would be that the race of one people was inferior relative to another, now SHOW ME ONE INSTANCE, JUST FREAKING ONE OF EVER SAYING SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES, and you'd have a point, in fact you have the ability to report on me to Moderation, otherwise, you describing me as a 'racist' for describing CULTURAL PRACTICES which are INFERIOR (in this day and age) of certain cultures throughout the World, will be seen as nothing more than an attempt to try and garner a 'flame reaction' and as such will be treated as a 'flame baiting' incident.

2. I understand that point, what you don't seem to understand is that MY POINT HAS BEEN ABOUT THE INFERIOR CULTURAL PRACTICES WITHIN THE CULTURES, NOT THE CULTURES THEMSELVES. I advocate for reform, not for replacement, do you think if the Filipino culture still practiced slavery I would call for it to be completely replaced? Heck no, I'd call for the abolition of slavery, in the same sense, I call on certain cultures with inferior cultural PRACTICES to END those culturally inferior PRACTICES, PERIOD.

Culture defines people. It defines that social construct known as race. What you believe as being separate are not. They're intertwined and no amount of hitting the caps button is going to change that.

3. Actually, yes, I am mad, you wanna know why? Because all the disasterous factors that YOU SAID EARLIER CAUSED BY THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW AS WE SPEAK. And as to whether or not they're idiotic, that depends, if they know what Duterte is doing and still continues to support him, then yes, that would by definition make them an 'idiot' because what an idiot is, is someone who despite knowing what is the best choice for themselves still chooses the less than optimal choice. And in many cases, this is what a clear majority of the population is DOING, they've seen he's a LIAR, they've seen he's a PETULANT CHILD, they've seen he's a NATIONAL EMBARRASSMENT, they've seen he's a TRAITOR TO THE PHILIPPINE PEOPLE, yet they continue to support him, I'll give you that given the isolation of certain regions of the country, that there are those who don't know what he has done and continues to support him blindly, to that I say fair enough, but the CLEAR MAJORITY OF HIS SUPPORTERS HAVE SEEN, and they CONTINUE TO SUPPORT HIM, and by definition, they are what one would call 'idiotic'.

It's a lot more nuanced than that and you don't seem to understand it. Might I suggest reading this? You need to understand that just because we believe Duterte to be doing something wrong, it doesn't give us any right to hover over the heads of his supporters and claim some kind of moral high ground above them. To paraphrase Vic II: "Don't be a normie liberal."

4. Despite the fact that you've lived there longer, doesn't give you any sort of bragging rights over me when it comes to poverty, in fact I've probably seen more of it than you have, whether it be Zambales, Tagaytay, Bohol, Cebu, Parañaque, Novaliches, Sampalok, Quezon City, Calbayog, Naval, or even TACLOBAN, which if I remind you is where a significant part of my family is from. In fact, I've also seen poverty in New Zealand and Australia, Middle Class relative to back home, but poor here, I've seen more poverty than you can ever know, I mean what do you know? You've never had to go back home to Tacloban TO BURY SEVERAL OF YOUR COUSINS, neither have you had to see the devastation of an earthquake in Bohol to which they're still pretty much recovering from to this day, the point is, just because you see it daily, doesn't mean you see more of it. It's caused by decades worth of Government incompetence, plain and simple, Aquino couldn't fix all the problems of basically 30 years worth of Presidents before him up to Marcos, that's just impossible in 6 years, but he did give us our hope again, however now, those who are intelligent enough have lost it again, as the new Administration tears down the improvements done one by one, so get used to seeing poverty, because unless the buffoon is removed from power, there will be no hope for the destitute.
Not to mention, since when did the OFW community as a majority vote for Duterte? If I remember correctly, the OFW community largely either voted either for Poe or for Roxas.

Aba aba, and what the flying fuck makes you think I've never had to bury people because of Yolanda, ha? See, that's the difference with us, eh. You claim to have seen more poverty, but I live it, brad. I still live it. Don't try and hover over my head about how you're sooo much better at understanding the plight of the poor. You're not poor and that's the big factor here.

And as for the OFW vote...

5. By design? The United States was and IS the LARGEST ECONOMIC POWERHOUSE IN THE WORLD. Obviously we never traded as much with other states because they had NOTHING TO OFFER, America had cars, refrigerators, AIRPLANES, irons, and telephones, they were the leading manufacturer of basically EVERYTHING USEFUL, I mean what did China have to offer? Or Japan? Or The Soviet Union? It was our INDEPENDENT CHOICE WHO TO TRADE WITH, you of all people should understand this, after the year 1946.
Also, it's funny how hypocrtical you are in readily criticising the American colonisation efforts, yet not even say ANYTHING about the Spanish, despite my stipulations, uh hello, the Spanish were there for 350 years, not only did they commit cultural genocide of the locals, which by your morals and ethics is unacceptable, they also LITTERALY enslaved us, the Americans sure were treacherous at first, but developed us into the nation with the HIGHEST STANDARD OF LIVING IN THE WHOLE REGION if not continent, and failure to acknowledge that is basically just sugar coating the failure that an Independent First Philippine Republic would entail. It's pretty much nonesense, and besides no matter what you say about the Americans, we are still the most pro-American nation on Earth nothing short of a war with them will change that perception, I mean the Americans did more to help my family and our people in Tacloban than you ever can, and as such you have nothing on them.

It was by design. They didn't give us the economic freedom to trade with anyone else because they basically controlled our natural resources - a point you seem to want to ignore to further your own.

Because we're not talking about the Spanish. I'm not going to venture into the territory of "eh paano naman ang kasalanan ng mga Kastila?" We all know fully well their sins and are no doubt in agreement of it. And you need to really back up your claims of the "best standard of living" in Asia. The fact of the matter is that whether or not the Malolos Republic would have failed, whether or not it would have devolved into a dictatorship of the Caviteño elite (it would have), it would have been our mistakes, our problems. Yeah I'm not talking about American help now, I'm talking about American colonization. Of course they did more than the local (and even to an extent, the national) government to help the survivors in Tacloban, but that's not the point - neither is our being the most pro-American part of the point.

6. Uh, yeah Manila WAS declared an Open City, but guess what? THE JAPANESE STILL BOMBED IT ANYWAY. It's so hypocritical when you say: 'Oh you know nothing about our history' when you clearly don't know it yourself.
And what do you mean before the Japanese? We were possibly the most Industrialised Agricultural state in all of South East Asia, our economy was going nowhere but up, and we had preferential trade treatment when it came to American trade, DESPITE The Great Depression. I mean no offense to your knowledge of history, but if you recall, during the Depression, countries put up huge tariffs which basically destroyed Global trade, however there wasn't any trade barriers imposed on us by The Americans which really helped our nation get through all that mess with barely a scratch.

You're trying to compare the Japanese bombing of Manila with the American shelling. The level of destruction isn't even comparable.

7. I never ignore those, why do you think I said that the French and Spanish colonies were disasters? Also, I said that the British HELPED create the modern power nations we know today by leaving behind valuable Institutions, I never said that slavery was a good thing or massacres. And my point was that American colonisation was a good thing, as it helped develop us into a more modern state than our brother and sister in Latin America, again, I point to Argentina, Peru, Venezuela, and Cuba, heck look at all the Spanish speaking states while you're at it.

I am taking a look at them and I think you're dead wrong on just how developed South America is. I think you're also dead wrong on how the benefits of American colonization outweigh the cost - it didn't. Marcos and Duterte combined don't have shit on how many people the Americans killed - not to mention the fact that they sowed the seeds of (dare I use the word?) destabilization that led to the now widening divide between Muslim and Christian in Mindanao, as well as approving the plan to re-settle Filipino Christians in Mindanao to aid in bringing up the Christian population up to par with the Muslim one.

8. Elitist? Talk about Oxymoronic, at this point in time you think that because of your having to SEE poverty on a daily basis means you're somehow 'better' than I am because you view yourself as having the ability to be close to that plight, yet you're not doing half the stuff I do to alleviate poverty back home, you don't send money back home which drives the economy forward and increases consumption spending, you're not going home on holidays and spending well needed tourist money in local markets which again drives up consumption spending, you're not teaching poor children English like what I did with the children of the maid in my Aunt's house, neither are you doing anything or have done anything to directly influence our political system, meanwhile I've talked to people in whole communities whom not to vote for, heck, I bet you don't even know the Sections and Articles in the Constitution that effectively gives legitimate reason as to why the President should be impeached, what's sad here is that you can't get an outside perspective on what's going on, not only do I see it on the outside, I see it on the inside too as I go home every year, yes it's expensive, yes I could be otherwise saving my money and paying off my student debts, but I love my country so much that those sacrifices are just worth it, meanwhile you've probably just stayed in the same city or area for years at a time never contributing to the direct alleviation of poverty, you know, unlike me, the so called quote end quote 'elitist'.

Again, I don't see poverty, I fucking live it. Don't me. I don't send money back home because all my money goes to my parents and my household (and my dog and girlfriend, pero iba na 'yon), not to mention the fact that I have little money to give anyway. Oh wow may katulong ka tapos you taught them English, what do you think that does? How about teach them their own mother tongue? I was part of the local campaign trail, aided in stemming the black propaganda between the two mayoral candidates (it was a team, it wasn't just me), interned at the office of one of our senators and continue to lobby to my congressman. I know pretty well how the political system here works, thank you very much. It's just so funny how you think you're better than everyone else because, among your other reasons, you've read the constitution (we've all read the constitution, mate) and you think because you're teaching English to your yaya's kids makes you a benevolent god.

It's difficult to make a direct contribution to poverty in other areas when I live in poverty, you know. It's difficult to make a direct contribution when I spend a lot of my time volunteering for labor groups fighting for better wages - but you don't see me bragging about that.

1. What absolute nonesense, a people can survive without culture, but a culture cannot survive without people, if you teach people different practices then the old practices can die out, why do you think that Westrn Europe doesn't cut off thieves hands anymore? Don't tell me that that was never a cultural practice for Western Europeans, because there are many of sources that clearly show the case. And as such, my point on the independence between race and culture.

2. But the thing is we do, Duterte is quite clearly a negative aspect of our society, someone who continues to support him despite his policies is clearly just as guilty as he is, I mean this is a clear question of ethics, if someone supports a murderer as they murder someone are they just as guilty of the murder? To me yes, but obviously your opinion is different.

3. Oh please, so now just because I'm not poor and live overseas, that makes me some elitist? At the end of the day what segregates the two of us sure is class, but also our effectivity when it comes to helping the nation, as you said you have less resources than I do, which means you absolutely have helped the poor of the country less than I have, heck just because you were in your LOCAL mayoral elections doesn't mean that you have much of an influence in the political system relative to me, I mean I went to SEVERAL areas and told the people who lived there why they shouldn't vote for Binay or Duterte, not to mention my behind the scenes actions with regard to influencing certain elites, believe it or not my family has political connections and by God did I exhaust all my political connections to try and influence the election, however when Aldub gave their official support, there was nothing I could do.
At the end of the day, I strive to get our country out of poverty, that's why I live outside of it and am gaining as much modern and efficient nation building knowledge as I can, because our country deserves better than what its got. And by God, I will do everything I can to build it up within my lifetime to becoming a top 10 Global economy.

4. You do realise we got the rights to our natural resources in the end right? There's no point in crying over something that was so short lived that it barely if not absolutely had no negative effect on our people.

5. Oh you mean the shelling that SAVED THE LIVES OF FILIPINOS??? I mean no offense, but if you're being tortured by the Abu Sayaff in your home, would you rather be raped and die of a chemical weapon attack from the Government but your house is saved from damage or have your house be riddled with bullets and have all those terrorists dead? I mean it's pretty straightforward, unless you're so hypocritically materialistic that your point on Americans forcing us to trade with them, which was a win for material wealth in the country by the way, would be moot.

6. Oh really? Show me the figures, how many Filipinos did the Americans kill? Because at worst the Americans killed thousands, while Marcos alone killed TENS OF THOUSANDS. Let's also take into consideration if Marcos gave us free education, healthcare, and sustained economic growth, no? Then you can't compare anything. Also sown the seeds? Are you so ill educated on our history that you don't know that it was Marcos who started the Troubles? Google search the Malisbong Massacre of 1974 because clearly your school needs to teach this stuff.

7. I'm simply telling you what I've done and do to alleviate the poor of our nation in response to you calling me a quote end quote 'elitist' because if I were I wouldn't have cared less if Binay won, heck I'm a citizen of Australia and New Zealand, countries that can give me a significantly better standard of living than back home, but you know what? I love the Philippines more than those two countries, DESPITE the fact that I was born in New Zealand, you wanna know why? Because it's in my best interest, I was raised THERE, I studied THERE, I learned to talk, walk, love, and hate THERE, and by God I want to live in comfort THERE, I want the standard of living for everyone there to be the same or even greater than here, and as such I have spent my time and energy to learn the necessary tools to build a modern industrialised state back there.

[Pasong Tirad]

1. What absolute nonesense, a people can survive without culture, but a culture cannot survive without people, if you teach people different practices then the old practices can die out, why do you think that Westrn Europe doesn't cut off thieves hands anymore? Don't tell me that that was never a cultural practice for Western Europeans, because there are many of sources that clearly show the case. And as such, my point on the independence between race and culture.

You're trying to justify your racism by saying that you aren't being racist by saying Anglicized peoples > Hispanic peoples. That's great.

2. But the thing is we do, Duterte is quite clearly a negative aspect of our society, someone who continues to support him despite his policies is clearly just as guilty as he is, I mean this is a clear question of ethics, if someone supports a murderer as they murder someone are they just as guilty of the murder? To me yes, but obviously your opinion is different.

Our opinions don't matter. Our ethics don't matter. People aren't unintelligent nor are they stupid for supporting who they support. They may be misguided or they may be lying to themselves, among other things, but that doesn't make them stupid. Period. Not even when you support Duterte, a man who we clearly believe isn't serving the best interests of the Filipino. His common supporters still aren't stupid.

3. Oh please, so now just because I'm not poor and live overseas, that makes me some elitist?

Actually, yeah. Being elite in itself isn't a bad thing, it's just who you are. There's a difference between knowing your privilege and abusing it.

At the end of the day what segregates the two of us sure is class, but also our effectivity when it comes to helping the nation, as you said you have less resources than I do, which means you absolutely have helped the poor of the country less than I have,

i.e. you hovering over my head about how more well-funded your efforts are. Nice.

heck just because you were in your LOCAL mayoral elections doesn't mean that you have much of an influence in the political system relative to me, I mean I went to SEVERAL areas and told the people who lived there why they shouldn't vote for Binay or Duterte, not to mention my behind the scenes actions with regard to influencing certain elites, believe it or not my family has political connections and by God did I exhaust all my political connections to try and influence the election, however when Aldub gave their official support, there was nothing I could do.
At the end of the day, I strive to get our country out of poverty, that's why I live outside of it and am gaining as much modern and efficient nation building knowledge as I can, because our country deserves better than what its got. And by God, I will do everything I can to build it up within my lifetime to becoming a top 10 Global economy.

The local election was where I could help, given what little I could do with how much I work. Your political connections (and I'm guessing relation to the elites) proves you are one of the elites. You can't really argue your way out of that.

Blaming Aldub isn't really going to help anybody. Duterte was already popular and with or without the support of their variety show, he still would have won.

Remittances aren't a possible long-term solution to "rid the country of poverty" when social mobility is still institutionally close to impossible. Get back in the Philippines, run for the midterms and make an actual difference. Your "modern" and "efficient" nation building knowledge isn't always going to work in the Philippines and efforts at solving one of the Philippines' thousands of problems are already underway. Neither of us will ever have the resources nor the knowledge to effectively find solutions to everything, so I help in ways that I can despite the limited resources I have (which you clearly liked to point out).

4. You do realise we got the rights to our natural resources in the end right? There's no point in crying over something that was so short lived that it barely if not absolutely had no negative effect on our people.

Bullshit anong walang negative effects. Us signing off our sovereign rights aren't negative effects to you? Even the American believes that was some bad shit they pulled. Don't try and justify this. This is the kind of shit that keeps happening, which explains why Gina Lopez' confirmation is in such dire straits (@AltMalacanang is saying her confirmation is going to be turned down due to mining lobby), among other things.

5. Oh you mean the shelling that SAVED THE LIVES OF FILIPINOS??? I mean no offense, but if you're being tortured by the Abu Sayaff in your home, would you rather be raped and die of a chemical weapon attack from the Government but your house is saved from damage or have your house be riddled with bullets and have all those terrorists dead? I mean it's pretty straightforward, unless you're so hypocritically materialistic that your point on Americans forcing us to trade with them, which was a win for material wealth in the country by the way, would be moot.

The shelling that destroyed centuries of history, the shelling that turned Manila into what you called a shantytown. The "trade" you like to bring up, which is basically American companies stealing our natural resources, wouldn't have benefited shit if it didn't benefit the poorest among us (hint: it didn't). This is what you seem to not understand: GDPs and stocks and what-have-yous aren't felt by the poor. We can understand it, we can even partake in it, but the trickle-down effect isn't being felt because nothing is trickling down. So, your remittances is probably going to help the economy (not in the long term, as I may argue, but that's a different story), but it's not going to help the everyman.

6. Oh really? Show me the figures, how many Filipinos did the Americans kill? Because at worst the Americans killed thousands, while Marcos alone killed TENS OF THOUSANDS. Let's also take into consideration if Marcos gave us free education, healthcare, and sustained economic growth, no? Then you can't compare anything. Also sown the seeds? Are you so ill educated on our history that you don't know that it was Marcos who started the Troubles? Google search the Malisbong Massacre of 1974 because clearly your school needs to teach this stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippin ... erican_War Approximates lie around the mid-high tens of thousands to a hundred thousand Filipinos killed in the war alone. Most facts facts facts believe Marcos killed around 3,200+. I've never heard of this tens of thousands number.

If you think Marcos alone caused the Mindanao conflict, then you may be right in thinking that because his actions did bring about the MNLF - but the "troubles" started way before that, more modern estimates would figure it around the time of the Americans, when they massacred Moros by the thousands, up to the time of the Insular government, when they approved the relocation of Christian Filipinos into South and Southwestern Mindanao in order to displace the still large number of Muslims in the area.

7. I'm simply telling you what I've done and do to alleviate the poor of our nation in response to you calling me a quote end quote 'elitist' because if I were I wouldn't have cared less if Binay won, heck I'm a citizen of Australia and New Zealand, countries that can give me a significantly better standard of living than back home, but you know what? I love the Philippines more than those two countries, DESPITE the fact that I was born in New Zealand, you wanna know why? Because it's in my best interest, I was raised THERE, I studied THERE, I learned to talk, walk, love, and hate THERE, and by God I want to live in comfort THERE, I want the standard of living for everyone there to be the same or even greater than here, and as such I have spent my time and energy to learn the necessary tools to build a modern industrialised state back there.

Nobody right now knows just what the hell you're actually doing to help "build a modern industrialized state" so please enlighten us.

[Zaldakki]

What do y'all think of Filipino Americans

[Vulkata II]

What do y'all think of Filipino Americans

Better living standards and jobs than what we got here.

And i know for sure another shit-fest is going to happen.

[Victoriala II]

What do y'all think of Filipino Americans

Have you ever watched The Nutshack?

[Stormwrath]

What do y'all think of Filipino Americans

Have you ever watched The Nutshack?

Ugh. That show was terrible, good heavens.

[Zaldakki]

What do y'all think of Filipino Americans

Have you ever watched The Nutshack?

Never heard of it until you mentioned it. I looked it up on youtube just now and from what little I've seen of it, I don't like it at all. I would love a show about Filipino Americans.... but not that one.

[Victoriala II]

Have you ever watched The Nutshack?

Ugh. That show was terrible, good heavens.

TITO DICK

D I C K M A N B A B E H

[Pasong Tirad]

Have you ever watched The Nutshack?

Never heard of it until you mentioned it. I looked it up on youtube just now and from what little I've seen of it, I don't like it at all. I would love a show about Filipino Americans.... but not that one.

I saw a movie before with the guy who played Zuko. It sucked. I guess people (and large production companies) just aren't that interested to hear about Fil-Am stories.

[Victoriala II]

I purely doubt we'd do any better with Germans. They're like the Spanish but worse.

German Empire =/= Third Reich.

Gonna sidetrack a bit on why Germany is seen as an evil colonizer compared to the British, French, and Dutch. I think it's because those three countries were afraid of losing their influence in Europe to the Germans. In fact the reason why they were very wary of the German states uniting under one government was because it would disrupt the balance of power that had prevailed over Europe ever since the end of the Napoleonic Wars. After unification, the Germans were industrializing very rapidly during the latter half of the 19th century all the way up to World War I, and since that industrialization could potentially give Germany the resources to forge its own colonial empire, build its military, and directly or indirectly threaten the interests of the other great powers around the world, Britain and France set themselves up to be antagonistic to Germany. You could see that in how the reparations of the Treaty of Versailles were enacted on Germany, which were meant to ensure that it would never rise again to challenge the two for the rest of the 20th century.

Why should I mention this? It's bcoz I don't think the Germans are worse colonial masters as the Spanish, since they held different value systems and cultures and because the current perceptions of German imperialism were painted pretty much by the British and French for quite a while during the 19th and 20th centuries. In fact because of their "Protestant work ethic" I think we would be better off with them rather than the Spaniards (even tho America pretty much did that when they did show up).

Nah. Nazism's fuckery was rooted in cultural sentiments within Germany in the late Kaisserreich-Weimarrepublik. Social Darwinism and racist attitudes was a thing even in Marx's time (case in point hey everyone type Ferdinand LaSalle is a stupid nigger in chat). Hell, as far as I know, they're the only empire that did active genocide against their subjects. Compared to that, the Spanish were saints.

[Stormwrath]

Nah. Nazism's fuckery was rooted in cultural sentiments within Germany in the late Kaisserreich-Weimarrepublik. Social Darwinism and racist attitudes was a thing even in Marx's time (case in point hey everyone type Ferdinand LaSalle is a stupid nigger in chat). Hell, as far as I know, they're the only empire that did active genocide against their subjects. Compared to that, the Spanish were saints.

Well, yes. Social Darwinism and the concept of white supremacy were prevalent in late 19th century and early 20th century Europe. If you thought the Germans were bad, just look at how Belgium was going about the Congo Free State, where millions of Congolese were being brutally beaten, mutilated, and even murdered by the Belgians for the sake of rubber.

And if you thought the Spanish were saints, they committed genocide when they first claimed the Americas for Spain. Then there were other things the Spaniards were notorious for such as forced conversions, the encomienda system, and the polo y servicio that claimed the lives of millions more indigenous people. Not to mention they were one of the first colonial powers to utilize the Atlantic Slave Trade, and we all know how many millions have suffered from this system. So no, they're not saints at all.

[Victoriala II]

>me
>actually thinking Spain was good
lole

Nah. Nazism's fuckery was rooted in cultural sentiments within Germany in the late Kaisserreich-Weimarrepublik. Social Darwinism and racist attitudes was a thing even in Marx's time (case in point hey everyone type Ferdinand LaSalle is a stupid nigger in chat). Hell, as far as I know, they're the only empire that did active genocide against their subjects. Compared to that, the Spanish were saints.

Well, yes. Social Darwinism and the concept of white supremacy were prevalent in late 19th century and early 20th century Europe. If you thought the Germans were bad, just look at how Belgium was going about the Congo Free State, where millions of Congolese were being brutally beaten, mutilated, and even murdered by the Belgians for the sake of rubber.

And if you thought the Spanish were saints, they committed genocide when they first claimed the Americas for Spain. Then there were other things the Spaniards were notorious for such as forced conversions, the encomienda system, and the polo y servicio that claimed the lives of millions more indigenous people. Not to mention they were one of the first colonial powers to utilize the Atlantic Slave Trade, and we all know how many millions have suffered from this system. So no, they're not saints at all.

The difference between the Spanish and them was the German genocides were very much deliberate. That's why I said it was an active genocide (a proto-holocaust of some sort). Anyway, point is, the Germans could do worse to us back in the day. I wouldn't call the shit that happened in the Congo a genocide though, it's more of King Leopold's personal slave harem project.

[Novus America]

>me
>actually thinking Spain was good
lole

Well, yes. Social Darwinism and the concept of white supremacy were prevalent in late 19th century and early 20th century Europe. If you thought the Germans were bad, just look at how Belgium was going about the Congo Free State, where millions of Congolese were being brutally beaten, mutilated, and even murdered by the Belgians for the sake of rubber.

And if you thought the Spanish were saints, they committed genocide when they first claimed the Americas for Spain. Then there were other things the Spaniards were notorious for such as forced conversions, the encomienda system, and the polo y servicio that claimed the lives of millions more indigenous people. Not to mention they were one of the first colonial powers to utilize the Atlantic Slave Trade, and we all know how many millions have suffered from this system. So no, they're not saints at all.

The difference between the Spanish and them was the German genocides were very much deliberate. That's why I said it was an active genocide (a proto-holocaust of some sort). Anyway, point is, the Germans could do worse to us back in the day. I wouldn't call the shit that happened in the Congo a genocide though, it's more of King Leopold's personal slave harem project.

Plus German rule would have been replaced by Japanese rule in 1915 anyways. And the Japanese did do things just as horrible as the Nazis.