Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Uncommonly bad? Were you somehow under the impression that we always were a backwater third world country? No. During the 1950s and 1960s the Philippines was the SECOND largest economy in East Asia. Second only to Japan. This was true pre-WW2 as well. Think on that for a bit. For the first 3 decades after WW2, the Philippine peso hovered at the exchange rates of 3 to 5 pesos per 1 US dollar.
The poverty we are now experiencing is a very recent thing. Only starting in the 1980s when the Marcos problems started to blossom. A culture of cronyism and corruption took root and everything went to crap. Most importantly during this period, foreign debt reached an all time high. Because of this, in the early 1980s, inflation ballooned, starting at doubling to 10 pesos per dollar in 1983 to 25 pesos by the start of the 1990s. And instead of recovering after ousting Marcos, it took an even worse turn, rapidly doubling again during the 1990s until it stabilized in the 2000s at around 40 to 50 pesos per 1 USD. I still strongly remember a time when 1 cent coins in the Philippines still existed and can still buy you things. Not today.
Note: DEBT not aid, since you're still somehow under the impression that everything we have now is only because America deigned to give us a few bucks. Aid was extremely irrelevant even then. Mere pennies really. The fact that we are still paying off our debts to the IMF is actually one of the major reasons we are still knee-deep in poverty right now.
As for free speech. No. It just strikes me as stupid. "Outsiders" have always been quite ignorant of our culture. I've met countless people outside the Philippines who aren't even aware that the majority of us speak English, or think we all live in shacks by garbage dumps and have no idea what the internet is. And no, I don't think it's anything to do with conspiracies or something stupid like that, just plain ignorance.
I am from Mindanao for example. The major southernmost island of the Philippines. As a foreigner, what are your first thoughts when you hear about that?
Because most people I know think: "warzone, religious conflict, terrorists, people living in abject poverty and dying left and right." It's on the travel advisories of most western countries. It's actually laughable reading news sites go on and on about it. In my entire life I have only seen one gun being fired, and it was my dad shooting a cobra in the backyard with a shotgun. We have malls, we have internet, we even have a friggin' McDonald's in our sleepy little town (which is NOT a major city).
Heck even now, news sites are giving the impression that the Philippines under Duterte has now become a reign of terror. With blood running down the streets or something. Most are going on about THOUSANDS dead, without bothering to clarify what that means for a country of 100 million people, or even comparing it to casualties of police actions in other states. In the US alone, suspects shot and killed by cops average at around a thousand per year. That's not counting the ones shot that survived. When you consider those statistics you begin to realize the truth that yep, a lot of these kinds of reports are hyperbole meant to sell views. From the way most foreign media are going on about it, most people I know outside of the country already think Duterte is a dictator.
Yes, there's a lot of vigilanteism, but that has always been true anyway, regardless of who was president. We even have term for it here in Philippine English: the verb "salvage". That's part of the problems we've always had, not something Duterte created. With the recent kidnapping case of the Korean businessman here, I am hopeful the government will finally start cleaning house with the corrupt cops here.
And please. Don't compare us to Trump. Duterte may speak in broken English and has no filters when it comes to swearing, but he is a lawyer with a long record of good governance. He's a far cry from that clown they have in the White House right now.
Of course, there's no way for you to know that I'm already aware of most of what you've said. Another tidbit is that the other projected rising star in Asia was supposed to be Burma/Myanmar though that turned out poorly in a very different way.
The 80s is no longer recent history and those economic shocks had little to nothing to do with US intervention. And I'm not under the impression everything the Philippines has is due to the US. I've said this repeatedly--the Philippines current state of affairs is virtually completely domestically driven and not by its relations with the US. I think I've said this multiple times, so I'm not sure why you'd believe I think otherwise.
Internally, I think the main issue is that his public sentiment of backing these extrajudicial killings sends a strong message to more vigilantism and that's something that can go terribly awry. There will probably be thousands upon thousands of wrongful targeting and at the very least there will be many cases of disproportionate punishment for crimes. Worse yet, this also emboldens people to target others for any number of acts and to hide actual premeditated acts of violence by framing it as just killings. The only way this very real possibility of this whole thing going wrong gets highlighted is probably only in the instance of someone extremely wealthy and connected has personal friends or family be injured by this or if a foreigner from a developed country accidentally gets targeted by this--but in the meantime, there will probably be many more people who are neither of those who will be much more strongly affected. Certainly, I believe these kinds of extrajudicial killings have occurred in the past, but this is very different from the leader of a country signaling that this is a fine thing to do.
Again though, that's an internal policy, one that the US disagrees with and so it's fine for the US to withdraw some forms of aid or to criticize the Philippines for it. Certainly, the US was deservedly criticized by many for its own poor policies. I think it's a pretty dramatic overreaction to suggest the Philippines swing towards China and cooling relations with the US over this, because China does have very direct geopolitical desires in conflict with the Philippines. It's an odd thing to do, and I'd say that it probably wasn't terrible for me to say that or to say people should be leery of using foreign bogeyman for internal issues unless there's some very direct meddling.
Of course, there's no way for you to know that I'm already aware of most of what you've said. Another tidbit is that the other projected rising star in Asia was supposed to be Burma/Myanmar though that turned out poorly in a very different way.
The 80s is no longer recent history and those economic shocks had little to nothing to do with US intervention. And I'm not under the impression everything the Philippines has is due to the US. I've said this repeatedly--the Philippines current state of affairs is virtually completely domestically driven and not by its relations with the US. I think I've said this multiple times, so I'm not sure why you'd believe I think otherwise.
Internally, I think the main issue is that his public sentiment of backing these extrajudicial killings sends a strong message to more vigilantism and that's something that can go terribly awry. There will probably be thousands upon thousands of wrongful targeting and at the very least there will be many cases of disproportionate punishment for crimes. Worse yet, this also emboldens people to target others for any number of acts and to hide actual premeditated acts of violence by framing it as just killings. The only way this very real possibility of this whole thing going wrong gets highlighted is probably only in the instance of someone extremely wealthy and connected has personal friends or family be injured by this or if a foreigner from a developed country accidentally gets targeted by this--but in the meantime, there will probably be many more people who are neither of those who will be much more strongly affected. Certainly, I believe these kinds of extrajudicial killings have occurred in the past, but this is very different from the leader of a country signaling that this is a fine thing to do.
Again though, that's an internal policy, one that the US disagrees with and so it's fine for the US to withdraw some forms of aid or to criticize the Philippines for it. Certainly, the US was deservedly criticized by many for its own poor policies. I think it's a pretty dramatic overreaction to suggest the Philippines swing towards China and cooling relations with the US over this, because China does have very direct geopolitical desires in conflict with the Philippines. It's an odd thing to do, and I'd say that it probably wasn't terrible for me to say that or to say people should be leery of using foreign bogeyman for internal issues unless there's some very direct meddling.
Sigh. No you don't know any of it at all. We were not a "rising star". You think I'm talking about Asiaweek or Forbes predictions or something? We were an established economy that took a nosedive. Not a promising bud that didn't sprout.
The fact that you even compared us to Burma says it all. Because yes, most foreigners today speak of the Philippines as if it was the deepest, darkest jungles of yep... Burma. When that hasn't been the case since at least the 1850s. Like they've forgotten the Philippine-American War, they've forgotten the Philippines of the 1850s to the 1960s.
While people in Burma were squabbling over kings and slaves while the British raped them, we had universal suffrage, newspapers, and public education and were writing satires for the European audience on the greed of the Catholic church.
Then again, it's not as if Americans really tried in the first place. You don't know it, but President McKinley's excuse for annexing the Philippines after "liberating" us from Spain was "to uplift and Christianize" us, which is absolutely hilarious if you actually know our country.
Again, I'm not blaming the US for corruption (though I do blame them for Marcos). What I'm getting at with all this is that I deeply resent the fact that you keep implying that the US aid were the only reason we flourished. Because that is emphatically not true and is condescending as heck. Doubly insulting considering it WAS the excuse they used to invade us back in 1898. Consider all that and maybe you can start to understand why Duterte was so angry.
Both China and the US have their own selfish interests, that has always been the case. And I for one, am tired of playing their games.
Last edited by Existential Monkey; 01-28-2017 at 03:11 AM..
Sigh. No you don't know any of it at all. We were not a "rising star". You think I'm talking about Asiaweek or Forbes predictions or something? We were an established economy that took a nosedive. Not a promising bud that didn't sprout.
The fact that you even compared us to Burma says it all. Because yes, most foreigners today speak of the Philippines as if it was the deepest, darkest jungles of yep... Burma. When that hasn't been the case since at least the 1850s. Like they've forgotten the Philippine-American War, they've forgotten the Philippines of the 1850s to the 1960s.
While people in Burma were squabbling over kings and slaves while the British raped them, we had universal suffrage, newspapers, and public education and were writing satires for the European audience on the greed of the Catholic church.
Then again, it's not as if Americans really tried in the first place. You don't know it, but President McKinley's excuse for annexing the Philippines after "liberating" us from Spain was "to uplift and Christianize" us, which is absolutely hilarious if you actually know our country.
Again, I'm not blaming the US for corruption (though I do blame them for Marcos). What I'm getting at with all this is that I deeply resent the fact that you keep implying that the US aid were the only reason we flourished. Because that is emphatically not true and is condescending as heck. Doubly insulting considering it WAS the excuse they used to invade us back in 1898. Consider all that and maybe you can start to understand why Duterte was so angry.
Both China and the US have their own selfish interests, that has always been the case. And I for one, am tired of playing their games.
How do you blame the US for Marcos? He was in place not at the behest of the US, but because the US did not intervene (which would have made people angry). You also don't understand Burma, but you pretend to with your ridiculous sigh.
The part you got was right was that the US was not responsible fotr the Marcos corruption per se. Perhaps it would have been different if the US had intervened and took Marcos down, but that was a huge undertaking and if it had gone wrong then your grievances would have been so multiplied.
I am not implying US aid had a large measure in the Philippines domestic policy. Repeatedly I've stated that that Philippines issues are almost completely domestic. My entire argument is that the US has did relatively little in domestic policies and that you should be leery of a government trying to find a foriegn bogeyman. I don't see why you keep saying otherwise and now doing your ridilous sighs,
How do you blame the US for Marcos? He was in place not at the behest of the US, but because the US did not intervene (which would have made people angry). You also don't understand Burma, but you pretend to with your ridiculous sigh.
The part you got was right was that the US was not responsible fotr the Marcos corruption per se. Perhaps it would have been different if the US had intervened and took Marcos down, but that was a huge undertaking and if it had gone wrong then your grievances would have been so multiplied.
I am not implying US aid had a large measure in the Philippines domestic policy. Repeatedly I've stated that that Philippines issues are almost completely domestic. My entire argument is that the US has did relatively little in domestic policies and that you should be leery of a government trying to find a foriegn bogeyman. I don't see why you keep saying otherwise and now doing your ridilous sighs,
*sigh* what are you even going on about *sigh*
you really didn't know how America interferes in domestic policies. Americans were given parity rights is just one example. Before Castro, Americans had a right to intervene in Cuba.
for those trolls who only know history since Deng Xiaoping era, read about Boxer Rebellion
you really didn't know how America interferes in domestic policies. Americans were given parity rights is just one example. Before Castro, Americans had a right to intervene in Cuba.
for those trolls who only know history since Deng Xiaoping era, read about Boxer Rebellion
This is the first time I've ever heard anyone claiming that Boxer Rebellion was the result of American manipulation, especially considering that America wasn't even the primary world power back then and how epically impotent the Qing government was.
Last edited by Greysholic; 01-28-2017 at 11:49 AM..
This is the first time I've ever heard anyone claiming that Boxer Rebellion was the result of American manipulation, especially considering that America wasn't even the primary world power back then and how epically impotent the Qing government was.
how do you call foreign power' forces intervening to suppress a rebellion to protect their interest? benevolence?
how do you call foreign power' forces intervening to suppress a rebellion to protect their interest? benevolence?
First of all, they were killing their envoys, ambassadors, and lots of their other nationals on quite a large scale. It's normal that they reacted with hostility (though they were indeed a bunch of evil bullies).
Then the Chinese government was actually stupid enough to declare war on these countries, calling it "foreign powers intervening to suppress a rebellion" is pretty inaccurate. It's a miracle that China wasn't completely finished and divided by them (that would've saved us so much trouble tbh).
And I thought you were talking about American intervention, in the Boxer Rebellion there were 11 countries involved, including tiny ones such as Belgium and Portugal, with Russia and Japan benefiting the most from it. America certainly wasn't the mastermind behind the curtains on this one.
Last edited by Greysholic; 01-28-2017 at 12:43 PM..
you really didn't know how America interferes in domestic policies. Americans were given parity rights is just one example. Before Castro, Americans had a right to intervene in Cuba.
for those trolls who only know history since Deng Xiaoping era, read about Boxer Rebellion
Did you miss the part where I said that the US has intervened into domestic policies for several countries in the post WWII era? I listed Cuba specifically. I think you need to read better.
Also, what about the Boxer Rebellion? What's the point you're trying to prove here?
I read somewhere today that these upgrades or infrastructure developments were to only include Human assistance material, including generators, food, barracks, trailers and medical supplies. There would be no military equipment being a part of it. This new construction would allow for barracks, warehouses and humanitarian aid supplies to be left stored there but would not include weapons or militarized gear "at the moment".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
