Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Asia
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-30-2017, 08:51 AM
 
Location: Taipei
8,868 posts, read 8,338,951 times
Reputation: 7380

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli View Post
You don't seem to know the history well enough. The empress was supportive of the reform long before that, ever since the 1860s.
Coming from an expert who thought the Boxer Rebellion happened in the 1860s and that Taiwanese people are mostly from post-1900. I'm crying a river.

Quote:
The empress dowager was supportive of some types of reform at certain rates in some sectors and that shifted over time. However, the areas she was mainly supportive of were technological and military reforms and little in the way of governance.
Thank you.

Quote:
A vast majority of people in Taiwan have ancestry that was from before 1900. Partly due to the divisive policies of the KMT administration, popular culture in Taiwan has common use terms dividing people of old stock ancestry and those who came post-WW2 commonly termed as waisheng ren (外省人). Since the terms are common, studies within the country have tried to tabulate that split demographic with studies pointing to about 14% with a tiny bit of variance of post WWII Chinese ancestry, leaving the vast majority as pre-Japanese colonization (1895 and earlier) ancestry, Chinese or otherwise.
And thank you again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-30-2017, 09:05 AM
 
Location: In the heights
36,898 posts, read 38,810,969 times
Reputation: 20929
Quote:
Originally Posted by Existential Monkey View Post
See this is exactly what I meant. The firm belief that Americans were "saving" us. And the even firmer belief that we were a bunch of savages armed only with "prehistoric weapons." LOL

This is a colorized image of the Philippines at the turn of the century. Do these look like tribal huts to you?



These were the Filipino troops in the Philippine-American War. Do they look like tribesmen with spears and grass skirts to you?



It wasn't the Massacre of the Wounded Knee or the Matabele Wars, no matter how much the American press at that time wanted it to be (see Yellow Journalism and Propaganda of the Spanish-American War). This was what US propaganda made us out to be:





Yes, we stood no chance against the professional standing armies of the US, but where do y'all keep getting this idea that we were f-ing prehistoric savages? The sheer ignorance boggles me.

But then again, it feeds your myth that the US were "civilizing" us, despite you already contradicting your own self when you mentioned our three centuries under Spain.

Those "rebels" pledged to help the Americans against Spain in return for independence. So yep. Diplomacy, check. They even bought weapons from the Americans (a second shipment of which were never delivered). THAT was the agreement. And you wonder why they attacked? You really believe that after fighting for independence for decades, people would just bow down to another colonial master? Because THAT was what the US was. Don't sugarcoat it with anything else.

They fought because they were being invaded AGAIN. By someone they thought they could trust.



Furthermore, Japan only focused on the Philippines precisely because it was colonial territory of the US.

I can repeat the same phrase back to you: The [insert Asian country here] would not have survived on its own back then Japan would have attacked it before WWII.

Guess what? They did. We'd have been invaded anyway and treated as a slave nation regardless of the status of our sovereignty, but so were every other nation surrounding us. And aside from Manchuria and European colonial holdings (Hong Kong, Singapore, etc.), almost all other countries survived relatively unscathed (Thailand for example). We didn't. Being subjected to numerous atrocities and losing our capital city, because unlike most everyone else, we remained loyal to the US.

And you're also probably unaware that even before the attack on Pearl Harbor, Americans were already planning to abandon the Philippines to the Japanese (which they did). So much for protection, eh?

Do you even know what Japan's goals were in the war? Like most westerners you probably think everyone fought WW2 purely because of Nazism, not even stopping to consider why an Asian nation would be allied to Germany if the goal was only Aryan Supremacy. Japan wanted the creation of the Dai Toa Kyoeiken, the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. They wanted to "free Asia from Western imperialism". Sure, it was an excuse, like most war rationales, but it also meant they really wouldn't have reason to treat us worse than they would if we hadn't been a Western colony.

Heck, a little history lesson: Indonesia gained its independence because of Japanese support during WW2. All these horror stories of how the Japanese would have destroyed us in WW2 without the US are just that. Horror stories. Meant to justify an occupation that otherwise can not be excused.

Because let's face it, if WW2 never happened, you'd have found some other excuse to justify the American Commonwealth of the Philippines anyway. It's not like I'm asking for reparations or anything. Just for a little bit of shame and acknowledgment that yes, the US occupation was wrong.
I agree that pre-WWII, the US's treatment of the Philippines was particularly condescending and the backpedaling on supporting its independence was awful.

Showa era Japana did in some parts and at some points have people in power that earnestly both saw themselves as liberators of East Asia and intended to act the part instead of a colonial power. However, that was not ultimately the faction that took control of the government and the Philippines were a good target not simply because of American bases (which as you've noted, jumped ship pretty quickly), but also because it had fairly little power, was a good fit for a naval offensive and a way for the competing naval faction within Japan, and was geographically next in line for the navy after Chinese coast.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2017, 01:00 AM
 
14 posts, read 12,515 times
Reputation: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
I agree that pre-WWII, the US's treatment of the Philippines was particularly condescending and the backpedaling on supporting its independence was awful.

Showa era Japana did in some parts and at some points have people in power that earnestly both saw themselves as liberators of East Asia and intended to act the part instead of a colonial power. However, that was not ultimately the faction that took control of the government and the Philippines were a good target not simply because of American bases (which as you've noted, jumped ship pretty quickly), but also because it had fairly little power, was a good fit for a naval offensive and a way for the competing naval faction within Japan, and was geographically next in line for the navy after Chinese coast.
Thank you.

And yes as noted, the Japanese "liberator" ideal was merely an excuse for aggressive expansionism. But regardless, Japan would have invaded the Philippines anyway, with or without support from a colonial power. They'd already fought pretty much everyone else. The only thing stopping them from attacking the US at that point (and vice versa) was that both were reluctant to overextend when they were already fighting in other fronts. But it was only a matter of time. And the American ownership of the Philippines (as well as Guam) wasn't a deterrent anymore. It was a big red target.

Last edited by Existential Monkey; 01-31-2017 at 01:15 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2017, 01:45 AM
 
5,722 posts, read 5,770,369 times
Reputation: 4381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Existential Monkey View Post
Thank you.

And yes as noted, the Japanese "liberator" ideal was merely an excuse for aggressive expansionism. But regardless, Japan would have invaded the Philippines anyway, with or without support from a colonial power. They'd already fought pretty much everyone else. The only thing stopping them from attacking the US at that point (and vice versa) was that both were reluctant to overextend when they were already fighting in other fronts. But it was only a matter of time. And the American ownership of the Philippines (as well as Guam) wasn't a deterrent anymore. It was a big red target.
Right and without the US Japan would probably own you to this day. If the U.S. granted you independence on 1905 and pulled out of there completely Japan would have conquered you before WWI started...and never let you go. You keep saying the US didn't do anything for the Philippines but completely ignore WWII history and Douglas MacArthur and yes Japan would have attacked you anyway. US, or no US. Japan was thirsty. So thirsty, they made a huge mistake called Pearl Harbor. After WWII Japan was decimated and had no military. The Philippines was golden.

In the end, you were better off with the US. The Philippine-American war changes nothing in regards to WWII history. That was just a result of the Treaty of Paris and rebels saying hell with this, we're sick of someone colonizing us. Only instead of the US colonizing you for a few years, Japan would still own you just like they do Okinawa.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Existential Monkey View Post
See this is exactly what I meant. The firm belief that Americans were "saving" us. And the even firmer belief that we were a bunch of savages armed only with "prehistoric weapons." LOL This is a colorized image of the Philippines at the turn of the century. Do these look like tribal huts to you? These were the Filipino troops in the Philippine-American War. Do they look like tribesmen with spears and grass skirts to you?

It wasn't the Massacre of the Wounded Knee or the Matabele Wars, no matter how much the American press at that time wanted it to be (see Yellow Journalism and Propaganda of the Spanish-American War). This was what US propaganda made us out to be:

Yes, we stood no chance against the professional standing armies of the US, but where do y'all keep getting this idea that we were f-ing prehistoric savages? The sheer ignorance boggles me.

But then again, it feeds your myth that the US were "civilizing" us, despite you already contradicting your own self when you mentioned our three centuries under Spain.

Those "rebels" pledged to help the Americans against Spain in return for independence. So yep. Diplomacy, check. They even bought weapons from the Americans (a second shipment of which were never delivered). THAT was the agreement. And you wonder why they attacked? You really believe that after fighting for independence for decades, people would just bow down to another colonial master? Because THAT was what the US was. Don't sugarcoat it with anything else.

They fought because they were being invaded AGAIN. By someone they thought they could trust.
Furthermore, Japan only focused on the Philippines precisely because it was colonial territory of the US.

I can repeat the same phrase back to you: The [insert Asian country here] would not have survived on its own back then Japan would have attacked it before WWII.

Guess what? They did. We'd have been invaded anyway and treated as a slave nation regardless of the status of our sovereignty, but so were every other nation surrounding us. And aside from Manchuria and European colonial holdings (Hong Kong, Singapore, etc.), almost all other countries survived relatively unscathed (Thailand for example). We didn't. Being subjected to numerous atrocities and losing our capital city, because unlike most everyone else, we remained loyal to the US.

And you're also probably unaware that even before the attack on Pearl Harbor, Americans were already planning to abandon the Philippines to the Japanese (which they did). So much for protection, eh?

Do you even know what Japan's goals were in the war? Like most westerners you probably think everyone fought WW2 purely because of Nazism, not even stopping to consider why an Asian nation would be allied to Germany if the goal was only Aryan Supremacy. Japan wanted the creation of the Dai Toa Kyoeiken, the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. They wanted to "free Asia from Western imperialism". Sure, it was an excuse, like most war rationales, but it also meant they really wouldn't have reason to treat us worse than they would if we hadn't been a Western colony.

Heck, a little history lesson: Indonesia gained its independence because of Japanese support during WW2. All these horror stories of how the Japanese would have destroyed us in WW2 without the US are just that. Horror stories. Meant to justify an occupation that otherwise can not be excused.

Because let's face it, if WW2 never happened, you'd have found some other excuse to justify the American Commonwealth of the Philippines anyway. It's not like I'm asking for reparations or anything. Just for a little bit of shame and acknowledgment that yes, the US occupation was wrong.
I never said the people of the Philippines were prehistoric savages you're looking at stuff from 100 years ago. Some of them did have to fight with hand to hand weapons, and not guns. My stance is the war probably could have been avoided through diplomacy, the rebels didn't give it time. The US and Spain were not the same. From what I understand the plan to grant the Philippines independence started way before WWII so I'm not sure how you're trying to spin that... so granting independence was abandoning the Philippines to let Japan rape it?

So the U.S. was wrong for occupying, but they were also wrong for starting the independence process too. Because we only did it because somehow we knew Japan was going to attack the Philippines before WWII and we just wanted to let them die?

Last edited by wanderlust76; 02-01-2017 at 02:42 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2017, 09:50 AM
 
Location: In the heights
36,898 posts, read 38,810,969 times
Reputation: 20929
Quote:
Originally Posted by Existential Monkey View Post
Thank you.

And yes as noted, the Japanese "liberator" ideal was merely an excuse for aggressive expansionism. But regardless, Japan would have invaded the Philippines anyway, with or without support from a colonial power. They'd already fought pretty much everyone else. The only thing stopping them from attacking the US at that point (and vice versa) was that both were reluctant to overextend when they were already fighting in other fronts. But it was only a matter of time. And the American ownership of the Philippines (as well as Guam) wasn't a deterrent anymore. It was a big red target.
I do wonder what would have been if the Co-Prosperity Sphere had acted more like an east and southeast Asian NATO and Marshall Plan rather than outright colonialism. There was that idea, but the actual actions and the faction within Imperial Japan that actually won out squashed that possibility with a heavy hand.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2017, 01:19 PM
 
3,439 posts, read 3,256,085 times
Reputation: 2508
the Japanese occupation brought out the bad things in the Filipino. due to scarce resources during the war, the Filipinos forget about the community and thought only for themselves to survived. and this was again exploited by the dictator Marcos.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2017, 05:09 AM
 
14 posts, read 12,515 times
Reputation: 20
Quote:
So the U.S. was wrong for occupying, but they were also wrong for starting the independence process too. Because we only did it because somehow we knew Japan was going to attack the Philippines before WWII and we just wanted to let them die?
So you're basically saying the US had prophetic powers and invaded the Philippines only so they could defend it from the Japanese? LOL. So much ignorance and BS, I don't even know where to begin.

You're probably also the type of person who truly believes that Indian Removal Act of 1830, and the tens of thousands of Native Americans forced through the Trail of Tears was (in President Andrew Jackson's words) a "wise and humane" act meant to save Indians from "utter annihilation."

Don't cry, guys. They're not taking away your homelands. They're just "saving" you. Don't worry, 200 years from now you'll find oil in your reservations. This was the US plan all along.



Quote:
Originally Posted by wanderlust76 View Post
Right and without the US Japan would probably own you to this day. If the U.S. granted you independence on 1905 and pulled out of there completely Japan would have conquered you before WWI started...and never let you go. You keep saying the US didn't do anything for the Philippines but completely ignore WWII history and Douglas MacArthur and yes Japan would have attacked you anyway. US, or no US. Japan was thirsty. So thirsty, they made a huge mistake called Pearl Harbor. After WWII Japan was decimated and had no military. The Philippines was golden.

In the end, you were better off with the US. The Philippine-American war changes nothing in regards to WWII history. That was just a result of the Treaty of Paris and rebels saying hell with this, we're sick of someone colonizing us. Only instead of the US colonizing you for a few years, Japan would still own you just like they do Okinawa.
Japan in the early 20th century owned Taiwan, Korea, and Manchuria too, not just Okinawa. Do they own them still? The same thing is true with most of the colonies any colonial power ever owned during the colonial era. Countries realized sooner or later that short of flooding a subject region with your own people, you can not hold on to annexed territories for long. Okinawa remained Japanese because the Ryukyuan people were already predominantly culturally Japanese for 4 centuries. Furthermore, it was the US who gave it back in 1972.



You keep going on about these hypotheticals about us being "better off" when the actual question here is "was it right for the US to invade the Philippines?" That is the only question that matters. And the answer is a resounding NO.

It's as idiotic as claiming eastern Poland and Romania were so lucky to have been invaded by the USSR at the start of WW2, otherwise Nazi Germany would have gotten them. Ask the Polish and the Romanians their thoughts on that. To this day, both countries still harbor a deep dislike and distrust for the Russians.

Regardless of what happened afterwards, an invasion is still an invasion.

Oh, and there's this teeny tiny fact that there is zero mention of fear of Japanese invasion in all the documentation of the Philippine-American War.

Quote:
I never said the people of the Philippines were prehistoric savages you're looking at stuff from 100 years ago. Some of them did have to fight with hand to hand weapons, and not guns.
So what were you implying then? LOL "Prehistoric weapons" is a very specific description. You were and you know it. Because you had absolutely no idea what the Philippine-American War was like. American troops fought with swords too in that war. Funny how you didn't describe them as having "prehistoric weapons".

Quote:
My stance is the war probably could have been avoided through diplomacy, the rebels didn't give it time. The US and Spain were not the same. From what I understand the plan to grant the Philippines independence started way before WWII so I'm not sure how you're trying to spin that... so granting independence was abandoning the Philippines to let Japan rape it?
Riiight. "Eventually" being 50 years, by which time almost everyone who had ever fought for independence against Spain or the US were long dead. How'd you have liked it if the UK had told you they'd grant independence "eventually"?

And the US never let go of Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and Guam, did it? Quit trying to paint the US as the knight in the shining armor. It was the dragon.

The US and the Filipino troops also already had an agreement with General Dewey, US Consul E. Spencer Pratt and Secretary of State William R. Day. As Dewey put it: "...the United States had come to the Philippines to protect the Natives and free them from the yoke of Spain."

Stirring words, huh? With words like "freedom" being thrown around, the last thing Filipinos assumed was that the US would annex the Philippines. And the Americans actively helped this misconception by outright lying to them.

Pratt for example reassured the rebels that the US had no need for colonies, and Dewey, on being pressured to put this into writing, claimed there was no need for written treaties because the American "word of honor was more positive and more irrevocable than any written agreement."

The US lied to the rebels. The sooner you understand that fact, the better. There's a reason why it was widely viewed as a betrayal, and an ironic one at that.

The newspaper clipping I posted earlier were the words of Secretary Sixto López, head of the Philippine diplomatic commission sent to the US to negotiate independence after the end of the Spanish-American war. And here you are still claiming there should have been "more diplomacy". Here's one of his speeches published by the American Anti-Imperialist League, which should be a very interesting read for you on what freedom actually means. Because funnily enough, we knew it better than the "bastion of liberty" back then.



If you even care, after the US defeated the rebels and the Philippines became officially US territory, López was repeatedly denied permission to return to the country he loved so much. Because in order to travel back to the Philippines, the US government required him to recite the US Pledge of Allegiance. He refused to do so. When he did finally return, he lived through the Japanese occupation (even helping American pilots escape capture at the risk of his own life), he celebrated the American liberation of the islands from the Japanese with everyone else, but never once did he think "Oh, thank goodness the Americans invaded us." Even in his last years, all he dreamed of was freedom.


Last edited by Existential Monkey; 02-02-2017 at 05:46 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2017, 05:12 AM
 
14 posts, read 12,515 times
Reputation: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
I do wonder what would have been if the Co-Prosperity Sphere had acted more like an east and southeast Asian NATO and Marshall Plan rather than outright colonialism. There was that idea, but the actual actions and the faction within Imperial Japan that actually won out squashed that possibility with a heavy hand.
They might have actually challenged European hegemony, yeah. The balance of power might have been very different now. But meh. As usual. Humans.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2017, 10:39 AM
 
3,439 posts, read 3,256,085 times
Reputation: 2508
you forgot about the rifles bought. they never delivered it. it could have helped a lot. maybe not outright win but suffering more casualties might have been persuasive enough to recognize Philippines Independence
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Asia
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top