24-01-2003 20:37									#61
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: 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?

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

	24-01-2003 20:47									#62
	Suffering from ads?

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.

	24-01-2003 21:02									#63
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: 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.

	24-01-2003 21:07									#64
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

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.

	24-01-2003 21:07									#65
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

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.

	24-01-2003 21:13									#66
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: 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.

	24-01-2003 21:21									#67
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

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.

	24-01-2003 22:50									#68
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 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.

	24-01-2003 22:57									#69
	Put an end to popups!

quote: 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.

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

HA HA HA HA HA HA

	24-01-2003 23:37									#70
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

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.

	25-01-2003 00:20									#71
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

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"

	25-01-2003 00:25									#72
	Suffering from ads?

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.

	25-01-2003 00:31									#73
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

"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.

	25-01-2003 00:40									#74
	Increase the size of your Attachments

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.

	25-01-2003 00:48									#75
	Inflate your Upload Space

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.

	25-01-2003 00:58									#76
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Honestly Chris62, there must be something wrong with your reading comprehension:

First of all, that comes from a site devoted to the history of a US regiment involved in the war: hardly a flaming revisionist source. The Phillipines insurgency lasted 3 years: 100,000 US soldiers were involved in it. Unless you find a "non-revisionist source" that claims a much lower number of US forces were involved, then right now you look like a petulant child proven wrong but unwilling to admit it. And in a time when it took a good many weeks to go from the US to the Phillipines, my guess is that the amount of rotation of units was not one unit every month, so that the regular number of troops involved in the Phillipines had to be high.

Yes, concentration camps existed: as I said before, but you ignored, the act of rounding up all the people of an area, putting them in camps under gaurd, so that you could go hunt the guerilas without them being able to join with the civilian population, was a common practice in the early part of the 20th century, started by the Spanish in Cuba, immitated by the English in South Africa, and the US in the Phillipines. You Chris have given no sources. My definition of revisionist history is one that ignores facts, or makes them up, or makes claims devoid of fact and based solely on opinon. GIVE US A SINGLE SOURCE FOR YOUR ASSERTIONS, CHRIS, JUST ONE.Otherwise, it is you who prove the point about "revisionist" history.

	25-01-2003 01:04									#77
	Inflate your Upload Space

For the record, Major general Elwell S.Otis had 21,000 men under his command at the outbreak of Aguinaldo's uprising, of which only 12,000 were combat effectives, the rest were USV, being sent home as enlistments had run out.

The US raised 10 regiments to re-inforce this, a total 35,000 men.
Not, 120,000, not 70,000.

The source of this is my own umpublished book on the subject, and I used ONLY offical US army sources.

MrFun, now your attempting to put the "twist' on a spin, comparing the US to Hitler and Saddam.

If your serious about being a professional historian, you'd best lose this, you may sell a book, but you will be condemned by scholars. Some may subscribe to it, but serious discussion would not have dared to bring in Hitler and Saddam as represenitive of the US fight in the Phillipennes.

	25-01-2003 01:06									#78
	Suffering from ads?

Gepap, you can remove the foot from your mouth at any time.
Petulant child...

	25-01-2003 01:12									#79
	Put an end to popups!

Chris62: Did your book cover the entire Phillipinnes insurgency from 1899-1902, or the Campaign around Manilla and the war up to Aguinaldo's capture?

Also: what did the records you use put the number of US casualties at? And the number of Phillipino dead, during the insurrection?

And why did you use only US records? What about Phillipino records, if any?

	25-01-2003 01:22									#80
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Another question:

In the book you were writting, what did you make of the Balangiga affair and the court martial of Gen. Jacob Smith and Major Littleton Waller, USMC?

	25-01-2003 01:24									#81
	Remove this text

quote: 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.

Yes, and you misrepresent history interestingly. The 'boom' of the 80s did not start until 1983-84. That was more than a few years than 'right after' Reagan took over.

Furthermore the Bush recession ('90-91) was a minor recession, which was simply the process of the boom-bust cycle. No President can avoid that.

To make the story short: Presidents have little effect on the economy. I believe Reagan had a minor positive effect upon it.

	25-01-2003 01:29									#82
	Inflate your Upload Space

First, it's a history of the entire US army, from it's birth to when I wrote it (1984), so it needs revision to include the current time.

Next, there are no difinative Phinnipenne source materials, the only accurate count of troop strength is the dailey reports of the regiments involved, and even this is spotty. This is a century ago, record keeping on numbers fluxuates.
You must also seperate combat casualties to those of illness, which are FAR higher, and losses amoung the native population is often speculated even from the reports themselves (which you can read, BTW, contact the national archieve, and request the reprots under the freedo of information act).

The best I was able to assemble for US losses are that
4,234 US soldiers were buried there, and 2,800 more were wounded in action.

Phillipenne losses are harder, but the number is about 18,000 soldiers lost in total.
HOWEVER, as many as 200, 000 civilians (approx ONE FIFTH the total population) may have lost their lives due to famine brought on by both sides destroying crops and food stocks.

Again, hard and fast numbers are difficult to asertain, but these figures can be considered as good as any, and better then most.

	25-01-2003 01:40									#83
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by GePap Another question: In the book you were writting, what did you make of the Balangiga affair and the court martial of Gen. Jacob Smith and Major Littleton Waller, USMC?

I mentioned it, but only the two versions, the US army version is the rebels were dressed as nuns and mouners, and some of the trial transcripts, but when your doing a large history, you can't cover every detail.

As far as I know, the bells of Balangiga are still out west somewhere.

	25-01-2003 01:45									#84
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/reference/picmp.htm

I found the following link while searching online. If one goes to the link and reads the excerpts for all the little individual campaigns, it state that there was atime, between 1899 and 1902 when there were over 70,000 men in the Phillipines.

I don't know if this is an army website (I would assume from the URL but perhaps the army URL is usarmy.mil, not army.mil.)

	25-01-2003 01:52									#85
	Got spare money?

THIS mat be the source of your confusion, from the web site:

"During this pause the first Philippine Scout units were organized and large numbers of additional troops began to arrive, bringing the strength of the American force (Eighth Army Corps) to some 47,500 men by the end of the year and 75,000 a year later.

Native forces are auxilleries, NOT US forces, and ARE NOT included in US totals, nor should they be.

For example, in WWII, the forces on Bataan had only appro 10,000 Americans, even though the army was over 100,000 that surrendered to Japan.

That is a common error, BYW.

	25-01-2003 02:01									#86
	Put an end to popups!

Well then.

Let me ask another question: why do you think the Phillipines camapign is so overlooked by American history? 4000+ American dead makes it a bloodier war than the Spanish American war about which everyone is taught.

	25-01-2003 02:10									#87
	Remove this text

I don't know about you, GePap, but I spent quite a bit of time on the Phillipine Revolt in high school and college.

The S-A war is given more weight because it was more important. The US beat an imperial European power. It was the first message that said the US had arrived. It (along with the 1905 Russo-Japanese war) was beginning to show the decline of Europe (at least at the fringes).

	25-01-2003 02:11									#88
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Probaly because it would not seem to have been a "good" war, in light of Vietnam, for example.

The large native contingents are further proof of just how unpopular Aguinaldo was, but to the modern audience, this conflict is easy to twist, as we saw in this thread.
Accusations of concentration camps, rediculous casualties, all kinds of things. Plus there is quite a bit of racism involved, the US regulars certainly looked down on the natives, not considering them equals, but STILL believeing they should be free.
This is a hard idea to grasp, but it is essentially true.
This attitude is also seen in China by the Americans.

Look at the aquisitions of the Spanish American war, Cuba and the Phillipennes are free countries, no colonial power ever got their hooks in them again.
Puerto Rico is STILL happy as a US common wealth.

One thing should not be over-looked, Japan quickly found in the Phillipennes how popular the United States was, if even a TENTH of what the revisionists charge was true, why, just 40 years later, would Americans be revered?

Well, time to head home, and remember, history is about TRUTH, not feelings, leave feelings to comentators.

	25-01-2003 02:23									#89
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Lord Merciless The ultra-leftist, self-loathing intellectuals tore apart the US education systems between the late 60s and late 80s. For example, a math problem in 1960 would be formed in this way in 1980: 1960: A forest worker sells the trees he fell for $100. His cost was 80% of his selling price. What is his profit? 1980: A forest worker sells the trees he fell for $100. His cost was $80, and his profit $20. Your job here is to UNDERLINE the number "20".

Did you go to school in 1980? I did. I was in 7th and 8th grade that year. The trush is, rather than school being too easy for kids, most experts today are saying that it is quantitaviely harder for kids, who have workloads far in excess of anything with which their parents had to deal. But that doesn't fit in with the right-wing lie being fostered about America's education.

	25-01-2003 02:31									#90
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ned Mr. Fun, I am all for writing history based on factual accounts and for debunking myths that tend to whitewash "difficult" facts. But, even you must admit, that a lot of current revisionism is more that this. It is about rewriting history to remove "difficult" facts from the history of communism and to add "difficult" facts to the history of capitalism.

Actually, most revisionism is about re-adding in the "inconvenient" facts of American, etc., history. The history of women in America is revisionist. Women didn't take part in history until the feminist movement started teaching about the stuff that women had accomplished. The history of Africa is revisionist history. When I went to school, Africa had no history. Since then, activists have managed to get that idea changed, since in fact there was a quite facinating history of Africa. In fact, the Kingdom of Mali is indirectly responsible for the discovery of America, but I didn't learn that when I went to school. I had to wait until history was revised.

Many of the "difficult" facts of communism are outright lies. Many of them are true. Many of the "difficult facts" about America's conduct in the world are ignored, and revisionists need to fight to get them included.

For example, the Historical revisionists of Israel base their revisions of Israeli history on first hand accounts, contemporary primary sources, etc. These people are reviled for being revisionists, when in fact all they are doing is exposing some "difficult facts" that the world (and especially Israel-boosters) don't want to hear. The same is true of revisionism everywhere.