The study of history

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by MrFun
So why did American officers place Fillipino citizens into concentration camps in the early 20th century during the war? Oh wait -- of course, we used a different name for those concentration camps.

Again, you try to envoke an emotional respoce to sway the audience, not bothering with facts.
Where do YOU put POWs?

As for your technical definition of imperialism, you're right. But the United States conquered the Phillipines to replace Spain's imperial rule, with American rule -- whether or not it fit the technical definition of imperialism. But part of your technical definition does fit American overseas expansion -- territories being ruled that are beyond the borders of the ruling nation.

Defintions are all or nothing, either they are correct, or they aern't.
You assert the US was an Imperial nation.
Incorrect.

As for self-government, we tried to hold onto the Phillipines for as long as we could, and then only in the 1940's, was the pressure strong enough that the United States gave the Fillipines self-government.

That must be why they even gave them the EXACT day of self governing.

See what I mean MF?

Your still trying to put for revisionist history, you accused the US of a crime (concentration camps) and added an out-right falicy (no self rule for them) in the space of two paragrapghs.
That is NOT history.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Mr Fun, you are something else.

Like Chris said, the Phillipines were given the exact date of their independance. From the beginning, the justification for holding the Phillipines was to build them up so another colonial power couldn't just take them (this was the way to prevent the anti-imperialists in Congress... of which there were many, to vote against it). There is ample evidence that the Phillipines were treated the best of any colony that has probably ever existed. It was basically a New Deal for the Phillipines. At one point in time a Filipino engineer was in charge of engineering on the island, HOLDING A POSITION THAT MADE HIM THE SUPERIOR OF WHITES! That had never, ever, ever, ever been done before.

The goal of making them self-sufficient and thus independant was always there.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Again, you try to envoke an emotional respoce to sway the audience, not bothering with facts.
Where do YOU put POWs?

Defintions are all or nothing, either they are correct, or they aern't.
You assert the US was an Imperial nation.
Incorrect.

That must be why they even gave them the EXACT day of self governing.

See what I mean MF?

Your still trying to put for revisionist history, you accused the US of a crime (concentration camps) and added an out-right falicy (no self rule for them) in the space of two paragrapghs.
That is NOT history.

Here is one source I am familiar with:

". . . there was no 'Phillipine Insurrection.' This term suggests that the United States held legitimate power in the Phillipines, against which some Fillipinos rebelled. Nothing of the sort was true. This was a war of conquest by an outside power, not an insurrection by a subordinate faction. The Fillipino movement controlled most of the nation including all of the main island of Luzon except for Manila when the United States attacked. Filipinos date their independence from June 12, 1898, before the American army even got there, and celebrated their centennial in 1998. They are clear about the role of the United States as invader.
. . . The United States sent about 125,000 troops to the Phillipines."
. . . Among the civilian population, deaths from combat, disease, and starvation exceeded 200,000 and possibly reached 700,000."

Lies Across America by James W. Loewen, page 138

The author goes on to explain how the United States initially allied themselves with the Filipinos against a colonial power, then turned against them, to reestablish colonial rule in the Phillipines. And those high civilian deaths resulted from the cocentration camps -- but the concentration camps were called stockades.

[Chris 62]

Very nice, but according to US army records (the ones in West Point), the US never even HAD that many troops in that country, nor was the "resistance" numbering EVER more then 10,000 men, and almost ALL of it was in the Manilla area.

The source your quoting is .....REVISIONIST HISTORY.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, MF, because they were stockades. It is where they put people... like big jails.

One of the main reasons for the colonial rule was to solidify Manilla, but also the knowledge that as soon as the US left, some other colonial power (probably Britain) would take it over and deny them use of the port.

Even for these selfish goals, the US did MUCH more good than harm in the Phillipines, and basically built them from the ground up.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Very nice, but according to US army records (the ones in West Point), the US never even HAD that many troops in that country, nor was the "resistance" numbering EVER more then 10,000 men, and almost ALL of it was in the Manilla area.

The source your quoting is .....REVISIONIST HISTORY.

If you want to believe the "official" story from the military, go ahead. Why would the military want to be honest about the real numbers involved in the American-Phillipine War?

James Loewen is indeed a source of revisionist history -- one that is based on fact, rather than propaganda.

[Imran Siddiqui]

MF, why would you believe James Loewen (who is this guy anyway) over the US military over how many troops they sent?

I mean it just seems like you are making him your Bible.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
The economy is better if majority of the people got better. A President is successful if this rule benefited majority of the people.

Reagan just did that.

You really took that hook, line, and sinker.

Why was there a recession during Bush I's presidency, right near the beginning? Why did the economy went up quite nicely just right after Reagan took over. Hint: economics isn't instantaneous.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by MrFun
If you want to believe the "official" story from the military, go ahead. Why would the military want to be honest about the real numbers involved in the American-Phillipine War?

You just claimed the US had the equilalent of TWELVE infantry divisions there, a rediculous number, the ENTIRE US army didn't have so many, the first incling the man's sources are suspect.

James Loewen is indeed a source of revisionist history -- one that is based on fact, rather than propaganda.

HA HA HA HA HA HA

[GePap]

The US armies' actions in putting down the revolt in the Phillipines was cruel: they did put Civilians in concentration camps: it was a practice being widely used at the time (the Spanish did it in Cuba, the British did it in South Africa) meant to separate guerrillas form their support base. Back in the early 1900's it had none of its later connotations. And the US forces did commit many acts of cruelty and kill thousand of civlians. It doesn't take that many armed men to kill lots of unarmed civilians.

The worst possible 'revision' of history when it comes to the phillipines and US actions from 1899-1902 is to say the US did what it did in the interests of the Fillipinos, or that it did nothing that we would today consider morally unacceptable.

[GePap]

http://1-14th.com/HistPhilInsurrect.htm

The above is a source that perhaps Chris62 might acept as legitimate, since it is the regimental history page of a US regiment, not some "left-wing revisionist" source.

On what it had to say about the number of US troops involved overall:

"The Insurrection cost the U.S. about $8,000,000. More than 100,000 men had been used, fighting in 2,811 actions, losing 4,243 killed and 2,818 wounded. Filipino losses have been estimated at about 16,000 killed in combat and, perhaps, another 100,000 dying of famine and disease."

ON the final dyas of the campaign: note there is no typo, of saying 1932 instead of 1902:

"One final flare-up of resistance occurred in September of 1901 when 48 men and officers of Company C, 9th U.S. Infantry, were chopped to pieces by bolo-wielding villagers in Balangiga. The U.S. Army was outraged and reacted by burning villages, capturing or killing suspected insurgents, and confiscating crops. Several U.S. officers were court-martialed for their ruthlessness during this final campaign. By July of 1932, all the Christian areas of the Philippines had been pacified. U.S. troop strength was reduced from 70,000 to 34,000 and the newly formed Philippine constabulary took over many of the police duties. On July 4, 1902, President Roosevelt proclaimed an end to hostilities"

[Chris 62]

You should read your own link more carefully, it says 100,000 troops IN TOTAL, that means through rotations, ect.

That's the problem when you do revisionist history, it NEVER stands up to scrutiny.

[GePap]

"all the Christian areas of the Philippines had been pacified. U.S. troop strength was reduced from 70,000 to 34,000 and the newly formed "

Did this past your eyes?

Yes, 100,000 intotal, over 3 years, with 70,000 at the end.

I never claimed X numbers of divisions were involved at X time. That was someone else. But it is obvious that the numbers were not insignificant: in fact, they were very significant, as were the numbers that died. How many American's know of a campaing that killed over 4000 American troops in 3 years? And why don't they know about it? It seems as if we wished to wipe the memory from our collective consiousness.

so, right back at ya.

[Chris 62]

The 70,000 number is also in despute, it is FAR to high, but this is symptomatic of revisionist histories, they don't understand military organizations or how they function.

Nonsense about "concentration camps" is just that, nonsense.
Excesses?
In EVERY war ever fought there were people who committed excesses.

But thank you for those fine examples of attempts at revisionist history, they did illustrate the point perfectly, people that wern't there, that don't understand the times or how the process of the events worked, invented fun little stories to fit their own preconcieved notions.

[MrFun]

Chris62 -- the United States is like any other nation -- it carries out actions on high-sounding moral positions, to justify ulterior motives.

We did not liberate the Phillipines -- we replaced one form of colonial rule with another.

And as I stated from my source, the Phillipines mark their independence day on June 12, 1898, not from the 1940's.

And that is what Loewen stated in regards to the number of US troops in the Phillipines -- that was the total number, not all of them there at one time.

And there is no justification for the crimes against humanity committed by the US military against the civilians in the Phillipines.

Should we downplay the crimes commited by Hitler or Sadaam as merely being "excesses?" I think not.