Talk:Philippine-American War/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This archive covers discussion from 2003 through 2005. Discussion was placed in this archive as it appeared in the main talk page and thus may not be in chronological order.

Talk archives for Philippine-American War (current talk page)
<< 1          Archive 1 Archive 2 > {{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 3|3 >>]]|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 2|2 >>]]|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 1|1 >>]]}}}}}}

Contents

removed genocide

I removed genocide from the "see also:" section since the killing of great numbers of Filippinos seemed to be do to political reasons rather than their genetic traits, and cultural genocide since that article talks only about the situation in Tibet with no reference to the Philippines. I added History of the Philippines, which should have been there in the first place. I also removed some irrelevent or tangential text from the body of the article which was already covered in History of the Philippines. -- Infrogmation 19:27 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

Where can we place information about the Balangiga Massacre (Incident?). I think that is important since it is the most significant unresolved issue about the war. see http://numistrade.net/balangiga/ —seav

The entry for Balangiga has been updated with more accurate information and several errors corrected.

  • But why is it still not mentioned in this article? It should at least be 'See also'ed, or maybe briefly mentioned under 'American escalation,' or 'Consequences.' I'll eventually just put it under 'See also' if no one with better knowledge and wikiness can add it to the body of the article-PJV

Very unlikely name in the article

--- In 1914, Spooney Spoonikus, U.S. Secretary of the Interior for the Philippines (1901-1913) described "the regime of civilization and improvement which started with American occupation and resulted in developing naked savages into cultivated and educated men." ---


Spooney Spoonikus?? Could someone with the proper educational background correct this, please? Gimmick Account 17:00, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. The quotation was by Dean C. Worcester. 172 17:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

I am impressed perhaps amused by 66.27.73.19's claim that: "Also granted the medal of heroism in the Battle of Manila (1899) for his efforts to contain the riots during the Ilocano regional badminton championships was Emilio Pagkalinwanggan, son of Hermano Balangatang." Far be it from me to challenge the Sacred Consensus that emerges in Wikipedia but is this the truth? Something smells funny about this factual assertion.

The Sacred Consesus exists because people who know the truth are much more able to speak out here at wiki. In short, it doesn't exist or do please be bold and edit to what you feel is correct and truthful; however you interpret it. You (or the other person who mentioned the badminton thing)will probably then be challenged to what your (his)sources are . This may be your only chance to do so.--Jondel 01:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Physics Anyone?

This sentence is utterly inaccurate from a physics standpoint:

The fierceness of the resistance forced the American development and deployment of the Colt .45 pistol, which had a large enough caliber round to knock back a charging enemy.

Bullets fired from any gun carry no more momentum than their "kickback". The kickback of a colt .45 would have to be enough to knock the shooter back just as much as the person he shot. Also, a gun bullet that fast would just pierce through the target, and so would only transfer a fraction of its momentum, meaning the shooter would be knocked back more than the shootee.

so yeah i removed that sentence. 147.154.235.53 12:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I heard that bullets were made less sharp, even blunt. The sharp would pierce through. But the blunt bullets would knock down an onrushing suicidal amok muhajeen.--Jondel 12:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

So i researched it some more, and it is significant that the colt .45 was invented during that conflict, but the main change was in stopping power, not "knockback"; these are two very different issues. I will put the sentence back in with a more accurate description. 147.154.235.53 12:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Vietnam

U.S. attacks into the countryside often included scorched earth campaigns where entire villages were burned and destroyed, torture (water cure) and the concentration of civilians into "protected zones".

Were these techniques used in Cuba? And in Vietnam? If so, we could encadre this war on how the US fought jungle wars.

Boot's book The Savage Wars of Peace

Just read the section on the Philippine war--online at Amazon. Boot mentions the attrocities of both Americans and Filipinos. There are a couple of entries which made me raise my eyebrow--but other than this, it is a decent 30 pages--Boot covers both american attrocities and Filipino atrocities--he mentions the water cure and the infamous Jacob H. Smith and the trial of Littleton Waller (p 122), and even the concentration camps (p 123). Boot's writing, from what i have read from other authors, seems accurate (other than a few minor issues).

I quoted Boot on the main page, and added a Filipino attrocities section. Sorry, my mistake. This is my mea culpa. Travb 09:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I still don't know why my previous changes were reverted. CJK 18:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi, most of your changes where returned, I decided I was being too heavy handed and to "POV" dependant, but I had already added several new paragraphs by that time, so I went ahead and searched the page history, and added many of your changes back. Travb 19:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, taking a closer look, I don't have a problem with your edits. Thank you. CJK 20:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Umm, this war was over when Teddy declared victory (and it was won by the US)

You guys are so left, its scary.

How about keeping the bias out!

PS Teddy Roosevelt said:

The only true conservative is the one who looks to the future

He was a conservative just like Abe Lincoln. Stop taking credit for him on your american liberalism page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romanyankee (talk • contribs)

Please sign your post romayankee. I am proud to be on the left, America has a long shameful history of suppressing the left. Know anything bout that?


Teddy also privately assured a friend that the water cure was "an old Filipino method of mild torture. Nobody was seriously damaged whereas the the Filipinos had inflicted incredible tortures on our people." (Private letter from Roosevelt to Speck von Sternberg, July 19, 1902, in Elting Morison, editor, The Letters of Theodore Roosevelt, vol. 3, page 297-98.)
Americans have such a fine history of denial! Travb 09:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


Shameful? Speak for yourself! Considering all the BS that the left has dealt out! Know anything about that?
Yeah, denial, which is part of the lefts gameplan! Politics by denial and deceit!
P.S. and I am proud to be on the Right!
Romanyankee 20:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)Romanyankee
So I guess you know nothing about the history of the suppression of the left? Travb 00:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
And I suppose you know nothing about the 'suppression' of the right here. Starting after the 1960's of course. The fact is it gets so little attention that it seems to people the left can do nothing wrong.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Romanyankee (talk • contribs)
Please sign your posts Romanyankee, also use :: please. I will let you have the last word.Travb 16:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

That is biased

American soldiers began executing prisoners very early on in the war. The so called "Filipino Attrocities" were just a retaliation to American brutality. Furthermore, it was against Aguinaldo's orders who insisted that Americans be treated fairly.

And the comment that mentions "guerillas massacred civilians who were pro-American" or however it was worded, is also inaccurate. Nearly the entire population was loyal to Aguinaldo, as this article mentions. In fact, American brutality i.e. whipping out whole villages, killing women and children along with wounded soldiers, is a direct result of civilians aiding the guerillas. Ironicly the whole reason the Filipinos surrendered was because of American brutality toward the population. I don't even have to read that book to tell you that this is a bias.

Also I disagree with the statement of the Balangiga Massacre being an atrocity, rather a surprise attack or ambush. And even if you think otherwise, it should at least be worded differently.

-Joe —Preceding unsigned comment added by JOEFIXIT (talk • contribs)

Joe, you edited what General “Fighting Joe” Wheeler said, into something that he never said, the original sentence said:
General “Fighting Joe” Wheeler insisted that it was the Filipinos who had mutilated their own dead, murdered women and children, and burned down villages, solely to discredit American soldiers.
You changed the sentence to state:
General “Fighting Joe” Wheeler insisted that it was the Filipinos who had mutilated their own dead, murdered women and children, and burned down villages, when in actuality, the Americans were commiting such attrocities.
I am sorry, but Wheeler never said any such thing.

>>How is that sentence any differnt from the one I posted? The phrase "General Wheeler insisited" is a clear sign that he did say such things. I just reworded it because I thought it sounded misleading to a viewer uneducated about the war.

"war crimes were solely to discredit American soldiers."
"war crimes were actual by Americans were commiting such attrocities."
Please tell me you see the difference? I am quoting someone, a military American historical figure, who is justifying the murder of the filipinos, with what I see as an absurd idea. You then change the quote, to state that it was Americans who committed the attrocities.

>>>I ment to clarify that Wheeler was placing the blame on the Filipinos rather than Americans who were commiting the attrocities.

I see on both sides of the political divide on wikipedia, wikieditors dont give our readers enough credit--I think if someone came away from reading this article, they would see wheeler's statment as absurd. We don't have to put words in wheeler's mouth for fear of misleading an uneducated person about the war. We don't have to have ONLY overwhelming negative facts about America attrocities. I think the average person is smart enough to come to their own conclusion--I figure give the people the facts, and let them come to their own conclusion. Who are we to spoon feed the public the side of the story we want them to see? I have NO PROBLEM stating that the Filipinos committed war attrocities too. There is some evidence of this, although it is not anywhere near as conclusive like American attrocities are.

>>>I don't have ne problem with it either. It just seems to me that stating such things seems like we're trying to justify America's own attrocites or it at least makes it seem that the brutality was on equal ground, which it wasn't.

I also deleted this sentence: "In response to this, many Filipino soldiers and commanders began surrendering, seeing that the war was taking a toll on their own people, and would not be worth any further cost of life." because of what you wrote here "Ironicly the whole reason the Filipinos surrendered was because of American brutality toward the population."

>>>>>My original paragraph stated somthing along the lines of "As a result, many Filipino guerillas felt obligated to surrender, in order to stop the suffering the war was causing to their own people." which if you sounds better imo and we could at least put that in. But I can see how you took that as I was making it sound as if that is the whole reason, cause that's how it did sound. But if you read below my reasoning, I think you'll take my side on this and see that where I'm coming from.


There may have been many reasons that the Filipino soldiers and commanders surrendered, to attribute it to only "seeing that the war was taking a toll on their own people" is reading commanders minds, which is POV. There were probably many reasons that the commanders surrendered--to attribute it to one reason and one reason only is reading commander's minds...

>>But this is a fact. Just because it does not apply to ALL Filipino soldiers who surrendered does not meen it should not been mentioned. Point being, American brutality towards the general popluation DID have a major effect on Filipino soldiers, compelling them to surrender. In fact, the American's did such things (concentration camps, general massacres, etc) as a direct result to demoralize the Filipino guerillas into surrenduring. I'm not going to change this just yet, but maybe you will see otherwise now that you've seen my reasoning.

Don't you see the slippery slope here? If you start explaining the intellectual thoughts and reasoning behind why the soldiers did what they did, can't you see where that leads?
As far as it being a "fact", how can anyone 100 years ago know exactly what the majority of the soldiers where thinking. Because that is what you are talking about--the reasoning and thought process of Filipino soldiers 100 years ago.
I have never read this conclusion that you state as a fact, in any of the books or articles. There is one article, which I will post online today, which states that American hardball tactics was what pacified the island (it was the first island to have concentration camps)--soft tactics, like building schools etc. did not pacify this particular island. If you would like me to quote and footnote this reference, I will gladly do this. It is much more authentic, and much less open to debate, than saying that all (or most) of the soldiers surrendered because of attrocities on the population. If you have quotes from scholars which say what you establish is a fact, I welcome this inclusion in the article. So far I am the only person to footnote anything in this article (I may be wrong, there may have been maybe 1 or 2 footnotes on this article before I started working on it)

>>>First of all I'm not trying to read ne body's mind here. But your not quite grasping what I'm trying to say. The American's were nearlly stalemated by the guerilla war and were frustrated, taking more casualties than they were inflicting. They then resorted to attacking the general population, putting civilans in concentration camps which a weakened, demoralized, ultimatly defeated the Filipino freedom fighters. I meen put two and two together. Why else would they surrender? Their own people, their own country was being turned into a literal hell hole. They had little left to fight for. I'm not the type of person to remember and cite differnt articles, But I have a decent amount of knowledge on this particular subject, and all I have come across and determined myself, have all pointed to American brutality toward the civilian population was the direct result of the defeat of the Filipino army. I don't have ne single fact from a mainstream scholar or ne thing(when I find an article backing this I'll be sure to post it), but I have enough common sence to see no other reason why they would surrender.

Hell look at the civillian casualty figures if your not satisfied. 200,000 at least. Some historians put that number well over a million. Do you, in your right mind, not think that kind of damage would take some mental toll on a soldier's consciense?

Point being, the attacks on the civillians and the concentration camps decreased tremendously the materials, men, and morale of the Philippine resistance fighters-this however way you want to look at it led to the ultimate defeat of the Filipino resistance fighters, compelling them in one way or another to surrender. I see no reason how that is in any way inaccurate.

>>Well I can see where your coming from, but you have to remember that it is very likely that those reports were biased or just justifying America's own attrocity.

I agree, and as I said above, I think other people, who read the article in its entirety, will agree too. If we start putting weasel words in or worse yet, completly delete that section about Filipino attrocities, the article will read to an impartial reader like propoganda--then no one believes what is written. Better to keep that information in and let the reader decide for themselves.
In regards to the "Balangiga Massacre" that is the historical term used by most historians today--just as the Philippine insurrection is now called the Philippine-American War (see talk above), as such, the name should remain.

>>I wasn't refering to the term "Massacre" but I disagree that it should be considered an atrocity. It was really an ambush or surprise attack, a Filipino respone to fear of the Americans actually executing some of them.

I agree. I have a final in an hour--more later tonight.... Travb 17:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Regarding what I wrote on the page: "Other attrocities included those by General Vincente Lukban, the Filipino commander who masterminded the surprise attack in the Balangiga Massacre, that killed over fifty American Soldiers. Media reports stated that many of the bodies were mutilated." My mistake, I stand by that sentence. According to author Boot, his description of what the Filipinos did to the bodies of the Americans after they were dead could only be described as attrocities. Please read the section on Amazon.com. Sober reading...Travb 16:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Hope this clarifies my reverts.
It is really easy to nitpick sections of an article, harder to build something from scratch. It really frustrates me how people do this all the time, I have that problem with the Lodge committee page I created. People come in and nitpick words, but add little to the actual article when the article is obviously not completed yet. What is worse with that article, is the people who are doing the editing know little about the actual Lodge committee anyway. If you want, you are welcome to add some more information on the consentration camps set up on the island, etc.Travb 16:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

>>>Trust me, I've probobly contributed to the whole Philippine American War page more than probobly anybody on this site. a good 3/4 of the battles on this such war were written by me, and I have also written much of the information on the page we are discussing. So please don't mistake me for one of those people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JOEFIXIT (talk • contribs)

That is aweseome. I wonder who added all of those wars--great job--I am impressed with all of your hard work. I am tired from staying up all night last night studying, so I will get around to what I mentioned yesterday--keep up the awesome job, I truly am impressed. Travb 01:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


As mentioned before, I will quote a scholar, a historian about how the concentration camps and the hard ball tactics caused the population to surrender, not the "school programs" and "benevolent" programs. I was going to do this today, but the article is on my laptop, and my flash drive is at school, but since you seem eager about this, I will go ahead and add the quote and add a link to the full article later this week. K?

Right now I am typing up all the deceptions of the Republican administration about the war, which I plan to add to U.S. presidential election, 1900, this is because someone else threatened to radically alter Lodge Committee, (see talk page) they wanted proof of what I said, so I am providing it now.... After that I will boot up the laptop and type the reference. Travb 04:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Added quote

JOEFIXIT, I added the quote in the English Education section. Travb 05:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

How to incorporate this disgusting justification into the article

Any suggestions on how to include this disgusting justification of the war into the article?

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Lodge_Committee_testimony_from_the_New_York_Times#Topics_of_the_Times

It is by the imperialist New York Times. I have been reading the NYT Lodge Committee articles and the articles on the Senate debates. These jingoists make me truly sick to my stomache. Travb 12:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

And I suppose we can tell that everthing the Filipinos say is true and what the US says is automatically false? CJK 17:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Ah, look a case in point.Travb 19:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

JOEFIXIT edit

JOEFIXIT wrote:

The subesquent American brutality towards the population decreased tremendously the materials, men, and morale of many Filipino resistance fighters, compelling them in one way or another to surrender.

JOEFIXIT, whatever man. It is a more milder version of what you said before, which is great, but I still dislike the sentence. You win because you are more persistent than me. I will keep it in, simply because I respect your work on the battles of the Philippine-American War and don't want to offend you.Travb 00:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't meen to offend anybody Travb, if that's how you took it, and wouldn't be offended by that. I just dont see in ne way how that is wrong. It is one of the main factors that was the downfall of the Philippine Army or at least had somthing to do with it. Any way you look at it. I don't want to draw this in crayon but, look at where the guerillas obtained information, materials, me(as stated above). They got it from civilians. they LOST ALL OF THAT when Americans began attacking and imprisoning the civilians this decreased much of that. How did it not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JOEFIXIT (talk • contribs)

Hey JOEFIXIT its cool. You and CJK fight it out. I've had my say, you know how I feel about it.Travb 05:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

brutality POV?

I don't know what else you would call it. I changed it to aggression, since we have some people who really wanna play this thing by the book. I guess this saying from the Second Boer War article 'After a drawn out 9 day seige' would be pov to! Maybe some people wouldn't consider that drawn out. huh. Being as how I can count NUMEROUS articles that have what you would consider POV in it, if ur using that as a standard!. Why change this one because it's hard for some of us Americans to digest that we actually did somthing like that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JOEFIXIT (talk • contribs)

How about change it to American torture, concentration camps, and war crimes?
The subesquent American torture, concentration camps, and war crimes towards the population decreased tremendously the materials, men, and morale of many Filipino resistance fighters, compelling them in one way or another to surrender.
This makes a section of the sentence non-POV: up to this point:
The subesquent American torture, concentration camps, and war crimes towards the population decreased tremendously the materials, men...
But then you have the problem of citing in the remainder of the sentence:
...morale of many Filipino resistance fighters, compelling them in one way or another to surrender.
...as mentioned above.
The closest thing we have to citing your idea in this article is what I added:
As one historian wrote about Marinduque, the first island with concentration camps: "The triple press of concentration (camps), devastation, and harassment led Abad (the Marinduque commander)...to request a truce to negotiate surrender terms...The Army pacified Marinduque not by winning the allegiance of the people, but by imposing coercive measures to control their behavior and separate them from the insurgents in the field. Ultimately, military and security measures proved to be the (essential element) of Philippine pacification."[1] This assessment could probably be applied to all of the Philippines.
How about this sentence, can we agree on this? :
The subesquent American torture, concentration camps, and war crimes towards the population decreased tremendously the materials, men of many Filipino resistance fighters, compelling them in one way or another to surrender.[2] (same footnote as Marinduque footnote above...)
This edit deletes the word "morale".
But I will let you and CJK fight this out. I won't edit this sentence anymore without your approval. Travb

"Morale" in history books

If I can find a sentence in a history book which confirms the morale of the Filipinos was low because of American torture, concentration camps, and war crimes. If I find this sentence, this will make your statment nearly impervious to future attack. I hate to "cherry pick" and search history books specifically to support a particular view, but this unfortunatly appears the only way to satisfy both of us.

But thus far, I haven't found a historian which states this.

Benevolent Assimilation : The American Conquest of the Philippines, 1899-1903, by Stuart Miller mentions the low morale of American soilders but does not mention anything about the low morale of Filipino resistance. Travb 06:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The U.S. Army and Counterinsurgency in the Philippine War, 1899-1902, by Brian McAllister Linn:

p 72 (Lacuna) substituted a strategy that would increase guerrilla morale, build up a supply system, and demonstrate to the populace that the revolutionaries still controlled the countryside.

p. 73 There ws hard fighting at Manicling, but in all three towns the attacks were beaten off with large guerilla losses. These engagements cost the guerrillas heavily in men and ammunition and eroded much of the morale that Lacuna had built up.

p. 128 Some reforms, such as restricting cockfighting, gambling, and prostitution were imposed as much to preserve the morale of the soldiers as the morals of the Filipinos. Travb 06:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

A hopeless fight against a lifetime of indocrination

JOE wrote:

I changed it to aggression, since we have some people who really wanna play this thing by the book.

Don't you see my strategy JOE? If I cite all of my work, or "play it by the book" as you say, for two reasons:

  • First, the article become a really excellent encyclopedic reference, but more important
  • Second I cite all my work because it makes this article almost impervious to attacks from American apologists.

How can American apologists attack and win against the words of respected historians when most Americans don't even know about the Philippine-American War?

I agree with your atrocity statment in spirit, but I want a noted historian to say it too. Because of my critique, your sentence is much better from the original, would you agree?

I just see this sentence as a weak chink in this article, the achilles heel, and I simply want to shore up this weak link. This will make the article more encyclopedic.

Remember, the majority of people who work on and read wikipedia are Americans. These Americans have been taught their whole entire life that America is a "beacon of freedom and democracy" to the rest of the world. If you want to convince these Americans that America has done attrocities, and get through to such strongly indocrinated people, your factual proof and evidence has to be excellent and beyond approach. Your evidence has to be so good that only the most extreme American ideologue will be able to justify or deny that these attrocities took place. Unfortunatly by writing about such attrocities, we are fighting against a whole life time of indocrination.

Look at the user today who reverted that one sentence you wrote. He appears to be one of the tens of millions of Americans who is convinced that America a "beacon of freedom and democracy". Worse, he may be an example of an "extreme American ideologue" that I described above. He attacks your sentence because even though it is much better written and tighter than the original, it still has minor holes.

People like this wikipedian will continue to attack the article until the evidence is so airtight, that even those "extreme American ideologues" will be unable to attack the evidence. In addition, the average American who knows absolutly nothing about the Philippine-American War will be forced to admit that American attrocities took place.

Of course, the large majority of Americans will still justify these attrocities away using several conditioned techniques, just as this user did today.

But despite this, these Americans will not be able to deny the veracity and scholarship of this article. Hopefully a small handful of Americans will begin to see the lies, glaring ommissions, and half truths behind Americanism. Travb 06:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Blah,blah,blah! And your not an ideolog? And the Phillipinos did? Thought so! Look out, distinguished historians... I guess that means one should just shut up and not dissent against them...RIGHT! Your obviously not american, maybe a brit. What did churchill say. " democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others"
Thats right we ARE a beacon of freedom, and just look at the phillipines now!

Romanyankee(Romanyankee 15:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC))

Hello Romanyankee when you add anything pertitent to the Philippine-American War, I will address your concerns. But all I hear is rage and simplistic ad hominem attacks which have nothing to do with this topic.
I am wondering what content have you added to this article? Nothing comes to mind, can you refresh my memory?Travb 17:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, I did mention something about bias and keeping it out of the discussion. So much for an accurate source. Typical, play guilt after you had already railed against Americans ignorance of the phillipine war. Again, I refer to churchills quote (another little contribution that was overlooked). I hope your not late for another final. (Romanyankee 18:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC))
I'd like to ask Travb to stop posting inflammatory material that has little to do with article content. This isn't a debate forum. CJK 18:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)