Philippines bends over and spreads 'em wide

[Imran Siddiqui]

At what point did China's communist revolution take shape?

China had to wait until the 70s (around) be recognized as a state and until then, it would be incorrect to call it a revolution, but rather still a rebellion or revolt. Kind of like how North Korea and South Korea are still technically at war with each other because of the lack of cease fire. But when it was recognized as a state, then when China would be technically considered to have had a revolution.

After all, if the previous government exists in some form, it is conceivable that with foriegn help they could take back the country (perhaps not in China, but in other states) and any 'revolution' wording would be stricken from the history books.

Like I said, the American Civil War is not called the 2nd American Revolution, or considered a revolution at all. And it would not have been until the US recognized it as such (even if fighting had slowed to a crawl) or the European countries did.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
If the 'Haitian Revolution' and ownership of the island was not recognized, then no.

Oh lord. So which powers of Europe recognized the French Revolution to lend it legitimacy?

Yes, overthrow and succession, or as your definition wants to put it overthrow and substitution. Talk about your burying your head in the sand, you just provided a defintion that backs my point fully !

How does that prove your point? You're really not good at this reading thing. The Spanish were overthrown, and their authority substituted for another. That's the dictionary definition of a revolution, isn't it?

Even taking YOUR definition, there was no renunciation and since Spain held the capital, there was no overthrow.

No renunciation? Um, the renunciation comes on the part of those overthrowing, Imran...it's quite clear in the definition. And the Filippinos most certainly renounced Spain and established their own sovereignty, if briefly. That Spain held Manila doesn't really matter, since the effectively did not control any of the Philippines after that.

Unless you consider when North Korea was close to the gates of Seoul, they had a succesful 'revolution' and 'overthrew' the South Korean forces.

What a piss-poor analogy. Note how South Korea maintained sovereignty over it's territory post-war. Spain certainly did not keep its sovereignty over the Philippines. In Korea, there was also no fundamental change in power...the resumption was status quo, which certainly wasn't the case in the Filippines. But the biggest reason it isn't a "revolution" is that it was a frickin' war between two different sovereign countries, not an internal uprising of a country's own people.

In Borisland, when tons of refence sites, historical sites, encyclopedias and scholarly works refer to something as a "revolution," it's historically considered such. Because stupid semantics games aren't the point, the point is what the historical consensus is.

Now, maybe in the Imraniverse, one has the presumption to go around telling scholars and historians they're wrong about labeling something a revolution by shoving [incomplete and selective] dictionary entries in their faces, but maybe the means by which people designate what constitutes revolutions are determined by a bit more complex and thoughtful means?

You might want to tell the Hungarians who mention the 1956 Revolution that they're wrong to do so because it wasn't successful. Or those history texts that refer to the (failed) revolutions of 1848 in Europe. Or the 1905 Russian Revolution. Those historians had better start editing their books, because Imran has decreed that it can't be a revolution if he don't say so!

Btw, according to your Britannica link, they refer to before the US took power to be the Phillipine 'Revolution'. So even under your OWN SOURCES, the Phillipines did not have a revolution against the United States, which, after all, was your original contention.

I'd be happy for you to quote it for me, as I don't have a membership to EB and only linked to the blurb which made no mention of that. But I'm curious as to why you'd take the EB's word on that, while you obviously think it's unreliable in that it refers to it as a "revolution," when you maintain they didn't fully win and weren't recognized, which for some inexplicable reason makes it null and void.

Regardless, it was a continuation of the same conflict, fought by the same players on the Filipino side with the same goal--gaining their sovereignty. I'd be happy to refer to it as the Philippine-American War, as many historical sources do (and is officially used by the Library of Congress, I might add), if that will satisfy your pettiness as well as drive home the point that it wasn't simply a revolt by a few malcontents, but rather a full-scale conflict involving massive casualties, civilian deaths, and enormous expense.

[Ted Striker]

so

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

At what point did China's communist revolution take shape?

China had to wait until the 70s (around) be recognized as a state and until then, it would be incorrect to call it a revolution, but rather still a rebellion or revolt. Kind of like how North Korea and South Korea are still technically at war with each other because of the lack of cease fire. But when it was recognized as a state, then when China would be technically considered to have had a revolution.

Sorry, but if anything shows the weakness of your approach, it is this absurdity. Everyone in 1960 would speak of the Communist revolution in China. The fact they might not want to recognize the new PRC government for political reasons did not stop anyone from being stupid enough to know that China had a new regime. This regime made treaties and deals. The only reason it did not have the seat in the UN was US intransigence, becuase by then 50% plus of the world's nations did recognize the government in Beijing as the rightfull government of China. The fact that as the NTP was being created in the late 60's China, not ROC but the PRC was admitted as one of the 5 permanent Nuclear powers also shows the total weakness of a completely doctrenarian approach.

After all, if the previous government exists in some form, it is conceivable that with foriegn help they could take back the country (perhaps not in China, but in other states) and any 'revolution' wording would be stricken from the history books.

The French Revolution was recognized as such even when the monarchies of Europe refused to recognize the power of the new Republican government. The fact that after the repoublic and the Empire the Bourbon monarchy returned does not change the history books to read the French Revolt. If a revolution is stricken form the history books, that does not mean it did not happen- only that those in power do not wish for it to be remembered.

Like I said, the American Civil War is not called the 2nd American Revolution, or considered a revolution at all. And it would not have been until the US recognized it as such (even if fighting had slowed to a crawl) or the European countries did.

Given that the south was trying to maintain its contemporary system from what it saw as government attempts at change and the removal of "inaliable rights" they thought were constitutionaly their, their cause was hardly "Revolutionary" now was it?

[DinoDoc]

Considering the fact they were trying to overthrow US authority within the confines of thier territory, I'd have to call it revolutionary.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So which powers of Europe recognized the French Revolution to lend it legitimacy?

After the ascention of Napoleon? Plenty of European powers recognized a new government in France. And even before that they dealt with the French government and not with royal family in exile.

The Spanish were overthrown, and their authority substituted for another.

Since they still held the capital, no, it wasn't.

And the Filippinos most certainly renounced Spain and established their own sovereignty, if briefly. That Spain held Manila doesn't really matter, since the effectively did not control any of the Philippines after that.

Spain held the largest city and capital. The Filipinos had not driven the Spanish from the Phillipines. They were still there and still fortified. Really, calling the middle of a civil war to be a 'revolution' is just as silly as saying the American South carried out a revolution in 1860.

And once again, has FARC engaged in a revolution? They control vast areas of Columbia. Columbia does not effectively hold those areas any longer. You still haven't answered that question and are refusing to do so.

Note how South Korea maintained sovereignty over it's territory post-war. Spain certainly did not keep its sovereignty over the Philippines.

CAUSE THERE WAS NO POST WAR! The civil war was still on going. If you really want to talk about piss-poor analogies, how about comparing the end of a completed civil war, with one which was on going. I'm sorry, but no rebellion is going to say, well, all we wanted was the countryside. We'll make a treaty giving Spain Manilla if they recognize we own the countryside.

You might want to tell the Hungarians who mention the 1956 Revolution that they're wrong to do so because it wasn't successful. Or those history texts that refer to the (failed) revolutions of 1848 in Europe. Or the 1905 Russian Revolution.

None of those are revolutions because all of them failed. Even under your definition none of them would qualify. And yes, I have no faith in encylopedists who tend to label France or Sweden 2004 as 'socialist' countries. It's like they've never read anything by Karl Marx (and probably haven't).

it wasn't simply a revolt by a few malcontents, but rather a full-scale conflict involving massive casualties, civilian deaths, and enormous expense.

Ah, this your with me or against me tactic by the left (and they go off on Bush for it). If I say it is a 'revolt' or 'rebellion' then I'm trivializing it. I guess that means I consider the Southern rebellion to be just a few malcontents.

Everyone in 1960 would speak of the Communist revolution in China. The fact they might not want to recognize the new PRC government for political reasons did not stop anyone from being stupid enough to know that China had a new regime. This regime made treaties and deals.

I don't know the history of the dealings with China, but if a majority of the countries in the world dealt with China in the 60s, then that would be the date of recognition of the PRC. It depends on when a substantial number of countries in the world give legitimate standing to the government, either formally or by trade or meetings.

Given that the south was trying to maintain its contemporary system from what it saw as government attempts at change and the removal of "inaliable rights" they thought were constitutionaly their, their cause was hardly "Revolutionary" now was it?

So now you are changing gears to say that it must involve progressive change for a 'revolution'? Were they not attempting to overthrow the US in their terrority and establish their own governance? Sounds like a revolution to me if they succeeded.

[Bereta_Eder]

Philippines are pretty antiamerican but who isnt?

it's good the gov. followed the will of the people so whats the problem?


**** dem yankees awright?
let's move on ffs

[Kuciwalker]

it's good the gov. followed the will of the people so whats the problem?

It's good that Bush followed the will of the people (a majority was in favor of the war on Iraq), so what's the problem?

[Bereta_Eder]

none

and now let's see what happens

[GePap]

I don't know the history of the dealings with China, but if a majority of the countries in the world dealt with China in the 60s, then that would be the date of recognition of the PRC. It depends on when a substantial number of countries in the world give legitimate standing to the government, either formally or by trade or meetings.

If you wish to define revolutions by some magical "recognized by date" for the new regime, then you have to make clear what that magic point is: is it when recognized by 50%+1 of recognized soverign states at the time? Without such a definition, then your argument is untenable, as you are basing it on a totally subjective event.

If you want a better arguement for your little arguement, drop the bit about "international recognition" being the be all and end all- why not change it to state "a time by which the old regime no longer had the ability to administer any worthwhile or significant portion of the state and had lost all civil and military authority throughtout a mayority of the state.

Under this def., obviously Haiti and China and the American Revolution count, but the Phillipines, and Chechnya, and the Civil War don't.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

It's good that Bush followed the will of the people (a majority was in favor of the war on Iraq), so what's the problem?

The problem is he manufactured the will.

[Kuciwalker]

By convincing people?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


By convincing people?

Of things that turned out not to be true, yes.

[Kuciwalker]

Most people disagree with you. Ergo, it's still OK.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If you wish to define revolutions by some magical "recognized by date" for the new regime, then you have to make clear what that magic point is: is it when recognized by 50%+1 of recognized soverign states at the time? Without such a definition, then your argument is untenable, as you are basing it on a totally subjective event.

If you want a better arguement for your little arguement, drop the bit about "international recognition" being the be all and end all- why not change it to state "a time by which the old regime no longer had the ability to administer any worthwhile or significant portion of the state and had lost all civil and military authority throughtout a mayority of the state.

Under this def., obviously Haiti and China and the American Revolution count, but the Phillipines, and Chechnya, and the Civil War don't.

Substantial is fairly subjective terminology because not all states are created equal. If the US or France or Russia recognizes a state, it is different than when Djibouti recognizes one. The power of a state is important when deciding recognition. So I'd say either 50%+1 of all states or 25% of 'Great Power' states (which would basically be your G-8).

Anyway your argument has some problems as well. The American Civil War, in 1861, the US did not have the ability to administer any real portion of the CSA and lost all civil and military authority in that area. Of course it regained it back, so your definition would require, say, something detailing 'ultimate' loss of authority. Ie, there is little if any chance they would get it back.

In that sense, China, America, and Haiti would probably work, while the ACW, Phillipines, and Chechnya would not. Of course the problem is in defining 'ultimate' and we come back to square one.