Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Anti-Europeanism
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 11:01 am Post subject:

[deleted] Last edited by Gopher on Mon Jun 12, 2006 5:23 pm; edited 1 time in total

Ya-ta Boy

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 3:16 pm Post subject:

It is true that Twain became cynical about life as he got older. Happens to a lot of people. It isn't true of his view displayed in "To The Person Sitting In Darkness". In that essay he shows his idealism, in the best tradition of American idealism. Liberate the Philippines and leave them to develop their state in their own way, while using our power to warn off the imperial powers. Had we done so, our Philippine experience would stand with Wilson's 14 Points and the Marshall Plan as a benchmark of the best that is America.

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 4:01 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Spanish Period

Ferdinand Magellan reached the Philippines and claimed it for Spain in 1521, and for the next 377 years, the islands were under Spanish rule. This period was the era of conversion to Roman Catholicism. A Spanish colonial social system was developed with a government centered on Manila and with considerable clerical influence. Spanish influence was strongest in Luzon and the Central Philippines. It was less strong in Mindanao, save for certain coastal cities. The long period of Spanish rule was marked by numerous uprisings. Towards the latter half of the 19th century, western-educated Filipinos or "ilustrados" such as national hero Jose Rizal began to criticize the excesses of Spanish rule and instilled a new sense of national identity. This movement gave inspiration to the final revolt against Spain which began in 1896 under the leadership of Emilio Aguinaldo and continued until the Americans defeated the Spanish fleet in Manila Bay on May 1, 1898, during the Spanish-American War. Aguinaldo declared independence from Spain on June 12, 1898.

American Period

Following Admiral Dewey's defeat of the Spanish fleet in Manila Bay, the United States occupied the Philippines. Spain ceded the islands to the United States under the terms of the Treaty of Paris (December 10, 1898) that ended the war.

A war of resistance against U.S. rule, led by Revolutionary President Aguinaldo, broke out in 1899. This conflict claimed the lives of tens of thousands of Filipinos and thousands of Americans. Although Americans have historically used the term "the Philippine Insurrection," Filipinos and an increasing number of American historians refer to these hostilities as the Philippine-American War (1899-1902), and in 1999 the U.S. Library of Congress reclassified its references to use this term. In 1901, Aguinaldo was captured and swore allegiance to the United States, and resistance gradually died out. The conflict ended with a Peace Proclamation on July 4, 1902. However, armed resistance continued sporadically, with heavy casualties on both sides, until 1913, especially in Mindanao and Sulu.

U.S. administration of the Philippines was always declared to be temporary and aimed to develop institutions that would permit and encourage the eventual establishment of a free and democratic government. Therefore, U.S. officials concentrated on the creation of such practical supports for democratic government as public education and a sound legal system.

The first legislative assembly was elected in 1907. A bicameral legislature, largely under Philippine control, was established. A civil service was formed and was gradually taken over by the Filipinos, who had effectively gained control by the end of World War I. The Catholic Church was disestablished, and a considerable amount of church land was purchased and redistributed.

In 1935, under the terms of the Tydings-McDuffie Act, the Philippines became a self-governing commonwealth. Manuel Quezon was elected president of the new government, which was designed to prepare the country for independence after a 10-year transition period. World War II intervened, however, and in May 1942, Corregidor, the last American/Filipino stronghold, fell. U.S. forces in the Philippines surrendered to the Japanese, placing the islands under Japanese control. During the occupation, thousands of Filipinos fought a running guerilla campaign against Japanese forces.

The full-scale war to regain the Philippines began when Gen. Douglas MacArthur landed on Leyte on October 20, 1944. Filipinos and Americans fought together until the Japanese surrender in September 1945. Much of Manila was destroyed during the final months of the fighting. In total, an estimated one million Filipinos lost their lives in the war.

As a result of the Japanese occupation, the guerrilla warfare that followed, and the battles leading to liberation, the country suffered great damage and a complete organizational breakdown. Despite the shaken state of the country, the United States and the Philippines decided to move forward with plans for independence. On July 4, 1946, the Philippine Islands became the independent Republic of the Philippines, in accordance with the terms of the Tydings-McDuffie Act. In 1962, the official Independence Day was changed from July 4 to June 12, commemorating the date independence from Spain was declared by General Aguinaldo in 1898.

Post-Independence Period

The early years of independence were dominated by U.S.-assisted postwar reconstruction. The communist-inspired Huk Rebellion (1945-53) complicated recovery efforts before its successful suppression under the leadership of President Ramon Magsaysay. The succeeding administrations of Presidents Carlos P. Garcia (1957-61) and Diosdado Macapagal (1961-65) sought to expand Philippine ties to its Asian neighbors, implement domestic reform programs, and develop and diversify the economy.

In 1972, President Ferdinand E. Marcos (1965-86) declared martial law, citing growing lawlessness and open rebellion by the communist rebels as his justification. Marcos governed from 1973 until mid-1981 in accordance with the transitory provisions of a new constitution that replaced the commonwealth constitution of 1935. He suppressed democratic institutions and restricted civil liberties during the martial law period, ruling largely by decree and popular referenda. The government began a process of political normalization during 1978-81, culminating in the reelection of President Marcos to a 6-year term that would have ended in 1987. The Marcos government's respect for human rights remained low despite the end of martial law on January 17, 1981. His government retained its wide arrest and detention powers. Corruption and favoritism contributed to a serious decline in economic growth and development under Marcos.

The assassination of opposition leader Benigno (Ninoy) Aquino upon his return to the Philippines in 1983, after a long period of exile, coalesced popular dissatisfaction with Marcos and set in motion a succession of events that culminated in a snap presidential election in February 1986. The opposition united under Aquino's widow, Corazon Aquino, and Salvador Laurel, head of the United Nationalist Democratic Organization (UNIDO). The election was marred by widespread electoral fraud on the part of Marcos and his supporters. International observers, including a U.S. delegation led by Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Indiana), denounced the official results. Marcos was forced to flee the Philippines in the face of a peaceful civilian-military uprising that ousted him and installed Corazon Aquino as president on February 25, 1986.

Under Aquino's presidency progress was made in revitalizing democratic institutions and respect for civil liberties. However, the administration was also viewed by many as weak and fractious, and a return to full political stability and economic development was hampered by several attempted coups staged by disaffected members of the Philippine military.

Fidel Ramos was elected president in 1992. Early in his administration, Ramos declared "national reconciliation" his highest priority. He legalized the Communist Party and created the National Unification Commission (NUC) to lay the groundwork for talks with communist insurgents, Muslim separatists, and military rebels. In June 1994, President Ramos signed into law a general conditional amnesty covering all rebel groups, as well as Philippine military and police personnel accused of crimes committed while fighting the insurgents. In October 1995, the government signed an agreement bringing the military insurgency to an end. A peace agreement with one major Muslim insurgent group, the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF), was signed in 1996, using the existing Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) as a vehicle for self-government.

Popular movie actor Joseph Ejercito Estrada's election as President in May 1998, marked the Philippines' third democratic succession since the ouster of Marcos. Estrada was elected with overwhelming mass support on a platform promising poverty alleviation and an anti-crime crackdown.

Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, elected Vice President in 1998, assumed the Presidency in January 2001 after widespread demonstrations that followed the breakdown of Estrada's impeachment trial on corruption charges. The Philippine Supreme Court subsequently endorsed unanimously the constitutionality of the transfer of power. National and local elections took place in May 2004. Under the constitution, Macapagal-Arroyo was eligible for another six-year term as president, and she won a hard-fought campaign against her primary challenger, movie actor Fernando Poe, Jr. in elections held May 10, 2004. Noli De Castro was elected Vice President. Impeachment charges were brought against Macapagal-Arroyo in June of 2005 for allegedly tampering with the results of the elections after purported tapes of her speaking with an electoral official during the vote count surfaced. The Congress rejected the charges in September 2005.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2794.htm

Last edited by Gopher on Mon Jun 12, 2006 5:23 pm; edited 1 time in total

Ya-ta Boy

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 6:40 pm Post subject:

Quote:

In 1898, P.I. occupied a navally-strategic space. Had we not occupied it as a coaling station, someone else would have.

It is an imperfect world

Nope. This argument is too easy by half. We took Guam in the same war and it did and does today serve the same purpose as a coaling station. We entered the war to bring freedom to 'our little brown brothers' and should have stuck to that. We had other options than stooping to the corrupt European game. Cuba got its independence (sort of). We brought death and destruction to 'tens of thousands' in order to delay the dream of independence for a generation.

Twain and Wilson represent the best impulses of America.

On the other hand

Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue

Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 7:27 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Political independence and self-govt takes time, and, in the case of P.I., we did much more than the Spaniards or Japanese did, not the least of which was our separation of the Church from the state (something we've never been able to accomplish in Latin America -- barring Castro, who did it on his own)

Gopher:

Doesn't Mexico have complete Separation of Church and State, even moreso than the USA? Wasn't that what the Revolution of 1910 was all about?

I remember when John Paul II was Pope, and he went to Mexico and said mass outdoors somewhere. The reporter said that it was technically illegal for a Catholic mass to be held publically in Mexico.

Also, weren't the Peronists in Argentina anti-clerical? And it seems to me(could be wrong) that most Latin American countries have no official state church, which fits the formal definition of "Church/State separation".

Last edited by On the other hand on Sat Apr 29, 2006 7:34 pm; edited 1 time in total

On the other hand

Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue

Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 7:33 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Twain was a cynic.

Mark Twain?! Nooooooo.....

Quote:

THE UNITED STATES OF LYNCHERDOM

I mean, doesn't the warmth and love just jump out at ya?

http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/mixed_lit/twain_lyncherdom.htm

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 7:38 pm Post subject:

Ya-ta Boy wrote:

We entered the war to bring freedom to 'our little brown brothers' and should have stuck to that. We had other options than stooping to the corrupt European game. Cuba got its independence (sort of). We brought death and destruction to 'tens of thousands' in order to delay the dream of independence for a generation.

See Admiral Mahan's works on American foreign policy and seapower. He is the United States' von Clausewitz.

Cuba got the Platt Amendment. If you want to call that "independence," and I don't think you do, then you should clarify what that word means to you.

Also, you are quoting the propaganda and I am referring to actual motives: P.I., Guam, Cuba, Puerto Rico: coaling stations or strategic denial of same to rival naval powers. We had no overriding agenda to bring freedom and spread democracy there -- otherwise we would have moved to incorporate the areas as states, as we later did in Hawaii.

(Indeed, U.S. policymakers instinctively knew and respected this throughout our history. This is why we defeated Mexico, but only annexed those lands that were not inhabited by Mexicans -- we cannot work with the sociocultural problems that plauge the area.)

And Wilson -- in his 14 points and his calls for the League of Nations -- certainly speak to the finer possibilities in U.S. foreign policy, just as Twain speaks to some of our finer qualities as well.

But Wilson's interventions in the Caribbean Basin were less than inspiring and, indeed, fell back on earlier patterns.

This is because, in Latin America and elsewhere where the Spaniards had "prepared" the ground through nearly four-hundred years of authoritarian rule, the United States, even when commanded by idealistic presidents like Wilson or JFK, was left with bad and worse policy options in that part of the world.

LaFeber wrote:

Wilson [had] published and lectured on the theme that the U.S. government was not a mere series of random institutions, but a growing network of power structures that after the war of 1898 was prepared to lead the world into a glorious future...Wilson obviously did not think small...

When these insights became actual policy in Central America they brought disaster after disaster to the region...Wilson...[had] hoped to treat Latin Americans more equitably [than TR]...

In his search for an alternative policy, however, Wilson -- who knew little about Latin America -- succeeded only in using the "big stick" more systematically than had the man whom he came to despise [that is, TR].

When hemispheric relations became difficult, Wilson reverted to what he did understand and believe: the virtue of order, the evil of revolution, and the benefits of North American...enterprises...Thus did his antiimperialistic rhetoric excuse his imperialistic acts...

LaFeber, Inevitable Revolutions: The United States in Central America, rev. ed., pp. 51-52, et seq.

So, I'd disagree with you and, argue, again, that in the former Spanish colonies (Latin America and the Caribbean, P.I., and Guam, for example), the United States did not have the "other" options you seem to think it did.

Ground conditions for the most part determined and limited our options -- as did our own imaginations as well as other actors' initiatives.

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 8:06 pm Post subject:

[deleted] Last edited by Gopher on Mon Jun 12, 2006 5:22 pm; edited 2 times in total

Ya-ta Boy

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 8:13 pm Post subject:

I know perfectly well who Adm. Mahan was and the role he played.

I know perfectly well what the Platt Amendment was, which is why I put (sort of) in my post.

I think it is unfortunate that you believe the idealism that a portion of the American public (and politicians for that matter) believe in is just propaganda. I was relieved to see you add this:

Quote:

And Wilson -- in his 14 points and his calls for the League of Nations -- certainly speak to the finer possibilities in U.S. foreign policy, just as Twain speaks to some of our finer qualities as well.

Without it, I would have had to ask if you weren't displaying some of the anti-Americanism you are so sensitive to in others.

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 8:23 pm Post subject:

My apologies, Ya-ta. I forget how well-versed in U.S. history you are. Last edited by Gopher on Sun Jun 11, 2006 2:43 pm; edited 1 time in total

Butterfly

Joined: 02 Mar 2003
Location: Kuwait

Posted: Mon May 01, 2006 8:25 am Post subject:

Kuros wrote:

The only real flaw to this article, as I see it, is touched on by Bigverne. This idea of one Europe together is rather new, and while it was born perhaps in the twilight of WWII, it only began to take root in the past few decades. Moreover, what Americans dislike about Europe is also changing. The article, again, does a good job of highlighting the character and source of current anti-Europeanism:
.

Hi Kuros, hows it going? Forgive me for not reading the whole thread, not in Korea any more and have limited time.

I would add that Big Verne is British, and he attempts to bring the idea of a united Europe down from a very British nationalist perspective. Talk to a non-British European, and they will likely tell you that there is a recognisable culture within Europe, across borders, which pretty much stops at the English Channel. We talk of Europe from an Anglo-Saxon perspective on this board.

bigverne

Joined: 12 May 2004

Posted: Mon May 01, 2006 8:34 am Post subject:

Quote:

Talk to a non-British European, and they will likely tell you that there is a recognisable culture within Europe

I never argued, that there is not a recognisable culture within Europe, albeit at a very broad level. This is based largely on its Christian heritage and its Roman and Greek inheritance. However, with the European elite desire to allow Turkey into the EU, the idea of a 'European' identity will become quite absurd.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe