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.
So what? This is about the likelihood of the US 'keeping' the Philippines. Weird response.
Hey I only saw Puerto Rico and Guam mentioned. For all I know you were talking about the BLM movement. Plus you were responding to my post that really had nothing to do with your post, and most importantly if you read post #3 on this thread I actually agree with you it was most certainly NOT a mistake that America gave Philippines independence. I was like "what the hell?"
You should have never directed the post to me, but to the OP. Let's just chalk it up to a misunderstanding.
Hey I only saw Puerto Rico and Guam mentioned. For all I know you were talking about the BLM movement. Plus you were responding to my post that really had nothing to do with your post, and most importantly if you read post #3 on this thread I actually agree with you it was most certainly NOT a mistake that America gave Philippines independence. I was like "what the hell?"
You should have never directed the post to me, but to the OP. Let's just chalk it up to a misunderstanding.
Ok. I thought you were saying that the US would've been 'ok' with keeping a territory as large as the Philippines after the 40's. It is possible to hide an empire if it's only the size of Guam and Puerto Rico but keeping something as big as the Philippines without giving the people equal status wouldn't have been palatable I think.
It would have been better just to keep naval bases in the islands of king phillip of spain. The islands have too many problems ideological, culturally, economically, and infrastructure wise.
Actually, I don't think the US wants permanent naval base now there since the PLA navy have missiles that can reach them. THe US navy just wants to be able to dock and repair I think and rotating military personnel. Cheaper I think too.
Let's not forget, Philippines back in 1900 only had about 10 mil people. The population growth rate has been much higher than US. So the population ratio was much bigger back then.
If it were me calling the shots then, this is what I would've done:
Let Philippines go independent, in exchange US gets to keep the (still) sparsely populated Palawan Island chain.
Let's not forget, Philippines back in 1900 only had about 10 mil people. The population growth rate has been much higher than US. So the population ratio was much bigger back then.
If it were me calling the shots then, this is what I would've done:
Let Philippines go independent, in exchange US gets to keep the (still) sparsely populated Palawan Island chain.
Oh heck no. That's the most beautiful part of the Philippines. The US technically kept a piece of the Philippines anyway. It's called Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. They were administered by the Philippines during Spanish times and were listed as provinces on the Philippines.
Oh heck no. That's the most beautiful part of the Philippines. The US technically kept a piece of the Philippines anyway. It's called Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. They were administered by the Philippines during Spanish times and were listed as provinces on the Philippines.
Guam is over a 1,000 miles from the Philippines. It was in turn annexed by Spain (adminstrated from Mexico/New Spain at first, then the Philippines), the US, Japan, and US again, although it is essentially currently self-governing. Germany also controlled the northern island chain as well for a portion of time. They have an indigenous native population called "Chamorros".
They are no more "a piece of the Philippines" than Cuba.
Guam is over a 1,000 miles from the Philippines. It was in turn annexed by Spain (adminstrated from Mexico/New Spain at first, then the Philippines), the US, Japan, and US again, although it is essentially currently self-governing. Germany also controlled the northern island chain as well for a portion of time. They have an indigenous native population called "Chamorros".
They are no more "a piece of the Philippines" than Cuba.
It was all the same colony- the Captaincy General of the Philippines (also called Spanish East Indies). This was from the 1565 to 1898.
Look at a list of the "AlcaldÃas mayores" (essentially another term for provinces) during the Spanish period:
The Marianas is listed along with the rest of the Philippines, as if it's just another province. So no, it's not comparable to Cuba because Cuba was considered a separate colony.
The Chamorro point is irrelevant because the Philippines itself has 180+ ethnic groups with their own languages. So it's not like Filipinos are one ethnic group and Chamorros are another. Filipinos were not a united people before the Spanish came. If Guam were part of the Philippines today, Chamorro would just be another ethnic group added to the mix. And besides, native Chamorros are related to native Filipinos. Chamorros originally called themselves "taotao tano" (people of the land). "Tao" or "taotao" means "people" in most languages of the Philippines"
It was all the same colony- the Captaincy General of the Philippines (also called Spanish East Indies). This was from the 1565 to 1898. *deleting meaningless additional information*
You did this before - you are simply repeating your original post that no one really disagreed with, just adding more information. Why you wasted your time in such meangingless information confuses me. No on really cares.
Let me keep this simply - the fact that Guam was administrated from Philippines as a colonial power (which in turn, AGAIN, was administrated from Mexico City for most of the time as "New Spain", which in turn reported up to Spain - you are simply listing part of a larger hierarchy) does not support a claim that Guam belongs to Philippines. We aren't discussing historic administration as a colonial province, we are discussing logic and common sense.
Using your argument, Mexico has a claim on both Guam and The Philippines.
You did this before - you are simply repeating your original post that no one really disagreed with, just adding more information. Why you wasted your time in such meangingless information confuses me. No on really cares.
Let me keep this simply - the fact that Guam was administrated from Philippines as a colonial power (which in turn, AGAIN, was administrated from Mexico City for most of the time as "New Spain", which in turn reported up to Spain - you are simply listing part of a larger hierarchy) does not support a claim that Guam belongs to Philippines. We aren't discussing historic administration as a colonial province, we are discussing logic and common sense.
Using your argument, Mexico has a claim on both Guam and The Philippines.
So if the U.S. had taken Palawan (the hypothetical situation I was replying to), I couldn't say that Palawan was once part of the Philippines? It's listed as one of the provinces of the Philippines under the name "Calamianes" in the same way that the Marianas were a province of the Philippines. This was for 300+ years.
Palawan did not want be named after king phillip of spain
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.
