I’m sure you’ve read this already (I indirectly linked to it earlier), but in case you wanted to know what Cheong Wa Dae really thinks about the United States:
The chief presidential secretary for security Song Min-soon on Wednesday said South Korea would be the greatest victim in a war on the peninsula due to the “absurdity” of the security structure. The U.S., on the other hand, “has fought more wars than any other nation in the history of its establishment and survival,” Song said.
From the bottom of my heart, I’d like to issue a sincere “Fuck you” to the presidential secretary, who, I’d like to remind readers, might replace Ban Ki-moon as foreign minister.
Of course, you’re right in a way, Mr. Song—the United States does fight a lot of wars. One war, for instance, had the rather peculiar consequence of allowing you to insult the United States in Korean rather than Japanese. Another ensured that you doesn’t have to eat tree bark with your buddies in the North.
A shameful history, I know. Perhaps in the future, the United States should follow your nation’s example and roll over and collaborate when it’s attacked. I’ll start learning Arabic and/or Farsi right now and maybe if I’m lucky, I’ll make a killing pimping American women to the Iranian army.
Harsh, I know, but if Cheong Wa Dae wants to be be blunt…
89 Comments
I am not sure if the USA can hold the award for Most Wars Fought. Surely, the UK, France and Germany can equally take that “honour.”
Robert, don’t take it personally. You are starting to sound like I did in my last phase of Planet Korea.
By the way, Korea becomes much more attractive the longer you have been away from it,
When are these idiots going to finally be out of office? It feels like an eternity. They talk like the cartoon Marxists from the Spartacist League that we had to put up with in Berkeley.
“South Korea would be the greatest victim” Ain’t it always, Mr. Song. Worse off than North Korea? Song: 무 엇?
Sometimes I think there are those on this planet who would be much happier if Hitler and Tojo won WWII or the Soviets won the Cold War. Its always easy to blame the USA, but who does everyone call for when the proverbial 5hit hits the fan?
While the war in Iraq is questionable, we never entered a war without fierce deliberation or from an outright attack. We never stay longer than necessary, never colonized anyone, always left the country better off and the only thing we ask is that some of our dead be buried on the foreign soil.
The regime in North Korea and Islamafascists represent serious threats the the global community. Look what they stand for, isolation and repression. They will not be happy until the whole world backs away from the greatest opportunity for integration, economic interconectivity (globalization) and the resulatant “global peace”. Instead they want the world to revert to isolationism, fear, competition, and war.
Robert, I like the cut of your jib.
Quite, Marmot.
And yes, Mr. Secretary, we Americans are badass motherf*ckers, but if you think we’ve been bad in the past, just wait ’til you see what we do when a nork nuke explodes in the USA. I can guarantee we won’t give a dead rat’s butt about your pathetic victim routine…you’d better figure out whose side you’re on.
I dont think it needs to go as far as detonating a nuke in USA. If we find out they are transferring materials to the islamafascists, its over. Don’t worry about the collapse though, just worry about learning how to terraform the surface of the moon.
Its took a little over a week for the solidarity the coalition displayed after the bomb test to wsucumb to Uri Party Idiocrisy. I firmly believe those guys are insane.
Uhm… huh? Didn’t there used to be a whole lot of Native Americans between the United States and the Pacific Ocean? I mean, I agree that it’s useless to speculate on whether the world would be better or worse off had certain historical events gone down differently, but we’ve still got to acknowledge that not everything the US has done has exactly been justified.
Kimchipig, you’re confusing culture shock exhaustion with legitimate political grievance. There’s nothing in this post that suggests Robert has had enough of life in Korea. Rather he looks just as pissed as most of us with the absurdity of the incumbent political leadership.
And Robert, I too like the cut of your jib. As always.
i don’t recall any administration throughout recent history in oecd countries that epitomizes “amateur” better than the roh administration. and “idiotic.” and “ungrateful.” and “amnesiac.”
I don’t think they’re idiotic. They’re very clever people. The more logical conclusion to draw from their behavior is that they are not appeasers but outright sympathizers. It’s the only way to make sense of what they say and do.
I admire the hang of your hanbok, Robert.
@Seoulmilk: you forgot “arrogant”, “self-deluded”, and “hypocritical”.
Montclaire, I suppose you’re right that they’re outright sympathizers–with what ideology it’s not too clear. The Roh gov’t has managed to be far, far more incompetent than Bush & Co., so thank god their not in charge of anything except their own delusions.
so thank god “they’re” (preview function por favor Senor Marmot!)
The chief blogger for sincerity Robert Koehler on Friday said that South Korean collaborators would be the greatest victims in a war on the peninsula due to the “treachery” of their security structure. The U.S., on the other hand, “has kicked more ass than any other nation in the history of its establishment and survival,” Koehler said.
The shared ideology is nationalism and xenophobia. They’re fully on the same page there, and equally indifferent to the economic consequences.
Anyone seen this yet?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200.....im_nuclear
Seems that politicians in South Korea might be getting more propaganda mileage out of the North Korean tests than North Korea did.
I saw that Zonath. I’m just wary of all these reports of what the Norks allegedly said to this or chat Chinese person. If he said he’s sorry, that’s tantamount to admitting that China’s tough stance is working. I can’t see him admitting that.
Montclaire, true ’nuff about the shared nationalism and xenophobia–it’s the watered-down, half-assed, faux-Marxist quips the Uri guys spout off that always sound like they are C-minus Poli Sci undergrads.
For the record the reason Philippinos speak English well enough to sell themselves as low wage English tutors in Korea is that they all just happened to collectively study American English immediately after we smacked down thier pimp for 300 years in the 1899-1905 Spanish-American war because they loved hotdogs, and baseball just like our WWII propaganda movies tell us.
Furthermore, our Army was just there “vacationing” when those “Evil Japs” came through and returned us the favor.
This has nothing what-so-ever to do with the United States purchasing the Philippines and Cuba from Spain after the war, and thus inheriting the struggle against national independence fighters, which it went on to crush mercilessly, .. but didn’t. . . because it never happened… because the US was never a colonial power.
Correction, the year of the Spanish American War was 1898, while that of the “non-colonial” Philippine-American War was 1899-1902
what happened to the mantra about the uptten thousand invasions that the Koreans have fought off? Oh, that’s right, they lost most of them, and in the end didn’t survive, only to b resurrected by, oops, the US and the Soviets.
Mr. Chief presidential secretary for security:
Please review your history books and learn that Korea would not exist without the help provided to your country by the United States. You might also want to brush up on the colonization period, where Japan, then the Chinese and Russians attempted to remove your language and culture from this planet.
–Remort
The presidential secretary for security? I had a sneaking suspicion, but now I’m convinced the Urinals are Commies.
We all know that fighting wars is bad; just ask any Frenchman.
Anyone else heading to the FCC for free suds?
One might also wish to talk to native Hawaiians about whether or not the USA has ever been colonialist… but anyway such distant history is not really relevant to current discussions.
These Uri officials are not stupid, they are ill-intentioned — just like the Cheney/ Rumsfeld/ Wolfowitz/ Perle cabal; they all have very high IQs.
SKs are talebans; they aid Osama Jongil.
Don’t blame them, though. Some people in the USA are doing the same thing - aiding the enemy. They blame Bush for starting Iraqi war. What a hypocracy!
1) Iraq kicked out nuclear inspectors.
2) Iraq airforce started to fly inside the no-fly zone and to play “electronic tag” with the US airforce.
3) Hussein officially stated that he would attack the US as those 9/11 zealots had done.
4) He had weapons of mass destruction - lethal gases.
Now, democrats( I am a registered democrat) use anti-war garbage to attack Bush. It is not right.
Before taking jabs at SK talebans, we must re-examine our motives and values. Just don’t turn Iraq into another VietNam.
HE’S BAAAAAACK!
What I find really hypocritical and underhanded is that there is no mention of Song Min-soon’s comment on the official Korean Government website.
Perhaps the Republicans in America should team up with the Uridang to create a new political party since what vices one lacks, the other posseses.
1) yankeesfan: “…we [US] never entered a war without fierce deliberation…”
Forced to disagree, at least as pertains to US Pacific fleet action by Dewey in Manila Bay in 1898. The attack by Dewey was authorized by orders from Asst Secy of Navy T. Roosevelt, who took the initiative to send Dewey said orders without specific authorization from US President McKinley (amazing though that seems now).
2) In response to yf’s “we never colonized anyone…” —
Cptbbq blasted back, ref the Philippines: “…because they [Filipinos] loved hotdogs, and baseball just like our WWII propaganda movies tell us….
Furthermore, our Army was just there “vacationing” when those “Evil Japs” came through and returned us the favor.
This has nothing what-so-ever to do with the United States purchasing the Philippines and Cuba from Spain after the war, and thus inheriting the struggle against national independence fighters, which it went on to crush mercilessly, .. but didn’t. . . because it never happened… because the US was never a colonial power…..”
Ok, but in response I would say: “There are colonial powers — then there are “reluctant” colonial powers.” McKinley reluctantly decide the US had to stay in the Philippines as a matter of conscience; “…simultaneously [summer 1898], a German squadron arrived in Manila and declared that if the United States did not seize the Philippines as a colonial possession, Germany would…”
There’s no denying the brutality of the US suppression of the Aquinaldo independence movement. But: here are some further quotes ref US “colonial” history in the Phillippines:
a) when Woodrow Wilson became U.S. President in 1913, a new policy was adopted to put into motion a process that would gradually lead to Philippine independence. The Jones Act, passed by the U.S. Congress in 1916 to serve as the new organic law in the Philippines, promised eventual independence and instituted an elected Philippine senate.
b) The 1920s saw alternating periods of cooperation and confrontation with American governors-general, depending on how intent the incumbent was on exercising his powers vis-à-vis the Philippine legislature. Members to the elected legislature lobbied for immediate and complete independence from the United States. Several independence missions were sent to Washington D.C. A civil service was formed and was gradually taken over by Filipinos, who had effectively gained control by 1918.
c) Philippine politics during the American colonial era was dominated by the Nacionalista Party, which was founded in 1907. Although the party’s platform called for “immediate independence”, their policy toward the Americans was highly accommodating.[17] Within the political establishment, the call for independence was spearheaded by Manuel L. Quezon, who served continuously as Senate president from 1916 until 1935.
In 1933, the United States Congress passed the Hare-Hawes-Cutting Act as a Philippine Independence Act over President Herbert Hoover’s veto.[18] Though the bill had been drafted with the aid of a commission from the Philippines, it was opposed by Philippine Senate President Manuel L. Quezon, partially because of provisions leaving the United States in control of naval bases. Under his influence, the Philippine legislature rejected the bill.[19] The following year, a revised act known as the Tydings-McDuffie Act was finally passed. The act provided for the establishment of the Commonwealth of the Philippines with a ten-year period of peaceful transition to full independence. The commonwealth would have its own constitution and be self-governing, though foreign policy would be the responsibility of the United States, and certain legislature required approval of the United States president.[19]
A constitution was framed in 1934 and overwhelmingly approved by plebiscite the following year. On May 14, 1935, an election to fill the newly created office of President of the Commonwealth was won by Manuel L. Quezon of the Nacionalista Party, and a Filipino government was formed on the basis of principles similar to the U.S. Constitution. The commonwealth was established in 1935, featuring a very strong executive, a unicameral National Assembly, and a Supreme Court composed entirely of Filipinos for the first time since 1901. During the commonwealth years, Philippines sent one elected Resident Commissioner to the United States House of Representatives (as Puerto Rico does today).
The new government embarked on an ambitious agenda of establishing the basis for national defense, greater control over the economy, reforms in education, improvement of transport, the colonization of the island of Mindanao, and the promotion of local capital and industrialization. The commonwealth, however, was also faced with agrarian unrest, an uncertain diplomatic and military situation in Southeast Asia, and uncertainty about the level of United States commitment to the future Republic of the Philippines. In 1939-40, the Philippine Constitution was amended to restore a bicameral congress, and permit the reelection of President Quezon, who was previously restricted to a single six-year term.
(end of quote)
BTW, the Philippines got their independence “on schedule” in 1946, as promised by the Tydings-McDuffie Act of 1934 — in spite of a few intervening events.
Can you cpt bbq show me similar actions by the Japanese colonial govt in Korea, during roughly the same historical time period? If so, I will accept without further ado your implied equivalence of US vs a vs other “colonial” powers.
“Cptbbq blasted back, ref the Philippines: “…because they [Filipinos] loved hotdogs, and baseball just like our WWII propaganda movies tell us….
Furthermore, our Army was just there “vacationing” when those “Evil Japs” came through and returned us the favor….”
This is a slander on the many brave Filipinos who fought and died on the US side from 1941-45, as well as the US Army garrison in the Philippines. In spite of the lack of support from the US main Pacific fleet (and a very bad initial strategic defense decision by MacArthur), they held out far longer in resistance (December 41 - May 42) than did the French in Indochina, the British in Malaya/Singapore, and the Dutch in their East Indies colony.
Not the least reason being the overall willingness of the Filipinos to fight on the side of their supposed “colonial masters”; I suspect the history cited above had something to do with this. This presents a distinct contrast with the lack of same in the other western colonial Asian possessions, where the overall stance of the native peoples was passive; indeed, if I remember correctly the Japanese actually formed at least one Indian division which fought with them (in the Burma theater?) against the British.
BTW, previous post’s quote came from wikipedia article on history of Philippines.
One more basting of spicy historical sauce, for the good Cpt, in hopes of getting him promoted to a “major” level of historical accuracy here:
The US didn’t “purchase” Cuba from Spain as a result of the SA War.
“…In accordance with the [1898 Treaty of Paris], Spain renounced all rights to Cuba and allowed an independent Cuba (see Teller Amendment), ceded Puerto Rico and the islands of Guam and the Philippines to the United States, and gave up its possessions in the West Indies…”
Again from wikipedia, see also wikpedia for the Teller Amendment and then the later Platt amendment (the Platt amendment may possibly give you some ammo for making a spicy “neocolonialist” argument, if you are determined to fiercely point out US flaws; I suppose all I can ask in that case is that you get it right).
Shhh… Right-wingers love that sort of talk. In enables them to trot out the old “You’d be speaking German/ Russian/ Arabic/ Hawaiian” fallacy while wrapping themselves cozily in the flag. You’d be helping them unleash their inner-Limbaugh.
Oh shit, too late!
As much as I appreciate the marmot’s riff on ‘patriotic’ Koreans taking part in providing young Korean girls with new employment opportunities (who were all voluntary whores, by the way, just read what occidentalism has to say) there were a few (well, thousands, judging by the number of those killed) Koreans who who fought a guerrilla war against the Japanese in the years between 1906 and 1909, prefiguring what now would be termed something akin to the Kwangju Spirit. Best forget about their sacrifices - the US and Uk certainly did. For a first hand account of their activities and the Japanese response, F.A. McKenzie’s account is well worth reading.
Bulgasari,
The McKenzie book is interesting, thanks for the tip. Do you know how reliable the book is?
Of course they were brave. Cowards have an annoying tendancy not to fight. Therefor the brave (to include foolhardy) are infinitely more sufferable than the cowards. I would not slander anyone for standing up to fight with gusto and courage. To include the many brave Koreans who fought and died on the Japanese side from 1941-45. . .
Why would I? You’ve already agreed with me. “There are colonial powers — then there are “reluctant” colonial powers.” There are colonial powers that like raw fish too, there are colonial powers that have good personalities… all are unique in thier own special way.
Or are you just trying to get me to agrue from a perspective that is not mine?
Nice post by the way.
—————————————————————–
sanshinseon:
These Uri officials are not stupid, they are ill-intentioned — just like the Cheney/ Rumsfeld/ Wolfowitz/ Perle cabal; they all have very high IQs.
—————————————————————–
I don’t understand how you can say Uri officials are not stupid considering the fact that there is a clear inverse relationship between their fat mouth and loss of seats in the NA.
Every stupid speech seems to net about -10 seats. At this rate, their “foot-in-mouth” disease is forcing them out of existence.
I personally thing these guys simply cannot help be who they are.
They know they are done, so they act like they have nothing to lose now. It’s like Kim Jong Il’s nuclear strategy. Going out with a bang rather than a wimper.
http://www.freerepublic.com/fo.....northkorea
if i was american i would probably be inclined to agree totally with robert. but since i am not i have to question, completely, the basis and intent of the korean war. freedom fighters who are directly responsible for the way korea is today???? that is very questionable. the US very rarely does anything unless they are to benefit in the long run. the US had a large part in CREATING the korean war. they spilled the milk and mopped it up rather sloppily if you ask me. how can you expect gratitude to be anything but a slightly bitter pill to swallow given the entirety of the circumstances?
Stercus Maximus wrote:
It was win win for the United States and Korea. The benefit for the US was halting the spread of communism, the benefit for South Korea was …. halting the spread of communism (Capitalism not Democracy). No one(sane) denies that it wasn’t chapter of the cold war.
It takes two to tango. Therefor lets start off with blame shared fifty fifty. Then lets consider they’re soldiers / colony / interumly governed territory / etc. were attacked (attack being th epart where the war is “created”). So where does it stand now other than zero percent?. Are you trying to say the US “provoked it instead”?
Dude, I know! Damn these Americans and thier human Nature! They’re so damn… human. Why can’t they be more selfless like the Chinese?! or the French? (clearly not human)
Paul H, some interesting historical comments but a little disingenuous in parts. Firstly Captbbq was referring to the still colonial status of the Philippines, no reference to the people, their bravery or otherwise, therefore not even a slur, let alone a slander. Are you perhaps therefore suggesting that the philipinos who fought for independance from the “reluctant” colonialist in the philipine-american war from 1898 were not brave….. The fact that they fought against the Japanese invaders bravely, hardly negates the American colonial presence at that time nor the crushing of the independance movement earlier in the century, more a case of preferring to side with the known frying pan than the fire.
It is not really much of a proof of their reluctance to imply that they had to colonise the philipines in order to prevent it from being colonised (by Germany)!! Particularly when they then proceded to purchase it from Spain in the treaty of Paris, and this six months after the Philipines had declared independance fro Spain and four months after being occupied by the US forces.
It is equally little proof of their reluctance to state that a decade after crushing the independance movement in the Philippine-American war the US had a change in policy, particularly when it then took a further three decades to finally overcome this reluctance and actually allow independance. A change of heart does not negate the original intention making it somehow reluctant in retrospect.
Paul H>”Forced to disagree, at least as pertains to US Pacific fleet action by Dewey in Manila Bay in 1898. The attack by Dewey was authorized by orders from Asst Secy of Navy T. Roosevelt, who took the initiative to send Dewey said orders without specific authorization from US President McKinley (amazing though that seems now).”
Forced to agree with your sentiment but not, perhaps on a technicality, your evidence - the fleet action against the Spanish Fleet having commenced on 1st May 1898, at which time the US was already at war, congress having declared on the 25th April that a state of war was already in existence.
Paul H, a little more disingenuesness > “In spite of the lack of support from the US main Pacific fleet (and a very bad initial strategic defense decision by MacArthur), they held out far longer in resistance (December 41 - May 42) than did the French in Indochina, the British in Malaya/Singapore, and the Dutch in their East Indies colony.”
Since the Dutch and French had already been defeated and occupied by Germany in European theatre of action, and the British were struggling to avoid the same fate having already been at war for more than two years, then whilst not doubting their bravery, this is hardly evidence of a superior level of fighting ability and bravery.
Paul H, even more disingenuousness, you’re really on a roll>
“Not the least reason being the overall willingness of the Filipinos to fight on the side of their supposed “colonial masters”; I suspect the history cited above had something to do with this. This presents a distinct contrast with the lack of same in the other western colonial Asian possessions, where the overall stance of the native peoples was passive; indeed, if I remember correctly the Japanese actually formed at least one Indian division which fought with them (in the Burma theater?) against the British.”
Source Wikipedia:-
During World War II the Indian Army became the largest all-volunteer force in history, rising to over 2.5 million men in size. These forces included tank, artillery and airborne forces. Indian soldiers won 30 Victoria Crosses during the Second World War.
Clearly, you think, or at least infer, that the INA composed, in June 1942, from troops already captured by the Japanese totally negates the extreme bravery of the 2.5million Indian forces, who fought in both the European theatre and the Asian theatre during World War II. A passive stance indeed…
Now that really is a slander.
Gee a lot of heat about the Philippine_American war…those independence fighters referred to actually had a revolutionary government, complete with ministers and a constitution. Many of them were bilingual and classically educated. You can go further and say that they had the first modern nationalist anti-colonial ideology in Asia, ahead of Gandhi.
Despite all that, the U.S. “bought” the Philippines like so mush chattel and wound up fighting the Philippines’s first independent government. After that they brought in lots of american teachers to “educate” the natives.
BTW that wikipedia entry on Philippine history seriously sucks.
The kind of colonialism the Korean’s endured is pretty much a thing of the past. The new colonialism is economic. The United States is very much a colonial power.
I like a lot of the content found on this site, but the tone of this post and many of the replies reminded me so much of why I don’t miss north america at all.
You should perhaps read ‘confessions of an economic hitman’ (http://www.economichitman.com/)
There is a much bigger picture at work here, and while Korea stumbles to zoom out, the United States has done very well honing its skills since world war II.
*best friendly*
“Koreans who who fought a guerrilla war against the Japanese in the years between 1906 and 1909, prefiguring what now would be termed something akin to the Kwangju Spirit.”
Absolutely fascinating line…………..good golly……..what would we locate if we dug into that one!!!
Where does Syngman Rhee fall in there? Kim Il Sung? Even Kim Jong Il and Gen. Chun?!! The government(s) in exile? Communism? Right-wing Authoritarianism? Democracy - (as opposed to “People’s Democracy”)?
About as fat and pregnant a line of thought as you can possible write………fascinating….
chiamatt,
You forgot cultural imperialism.
And I am assuming you learned this stuff in higher education in the North America you fled from…..?
dinkus maximus: “the US very rarely does anything unless they are to benefit in the long run.”
Have to agree with captbbq — Doing the right thing can also be in one’s own best interests.
Why is that so hard for canadians to understand?
#41 Arghaeri & 44 Jwonsi: My recollection from a old but incredibly detailed US diplomatic history (which I don’t have handy) is that McKinley was informed of the US attack on the Spanish fleet in Manila after the fact. He supposedly then had to go to a globe to see where the Phillippine Islands were located; so far was the Spanish colonization of the Phillippines removed from the direct cause of the SA war.
No doubt this incident will remind you of the current US president’s inability to name the leader of Pakistan when quizzed in 2000, though I would argue that much less expertise in international affairs was expected of an 1890’s US president.
When making the decision as to what to do with the islands later, my further recollection is that McKinley decided reluctantly that keeping them as a US possession was a matter of Christian conscience. I reckon you will find this infuriatingly patronizing but that was the framework of the times. News traveled a lot slower in those days and I suspect that undoubtedly the Filipino indenpendence movement was portrayed to him as unsophisticated natives unable to maintain their own independent government.
I’m generally familiar with the “PA war” but will have to consult a bio of Aguinaldo or some other works on the subject before I would presume to argue your implied point that the Phillippines were ready for unconditional independence; but who knows, maybe things would indeed have been better for them in the long run if we had just sailed off and left them to go head to head with Kaiser Bill.
Whether McKinly would have approved of the subsequent PA war course of events or not I don’t know; you may recall he was assassinated in 1901. His new VP after the election was the very T Roosevelt who had initiated the orders for Dewey’s attack, so I guess we know how TR felt about US “ownership” of the Phillippines. Taft, TR’s successor was at some point I think involved in the US colonial govt of the Phillippines so I’m not surprised to see in Wikip that the 1912-20 Wilson administration (Democratic) began a policy change towards the US administration of the PI.
I’m curious now so will have to check bios of McKinley & TR eventually (maybe there’s something detailed on line), to see how McK’s policy evolved towards Phillippines between 1898 and his death in 1901. The advice of Kipling to the Americans (in a poem?) at the time was summed up in the famous (or infamous) phrase to “take up the white man’s burden”. However, sending “American teachers” to the PA in the early 1900’s hardly seems like an example of sinister colonial motives (unless the US authorities were concurrently forcing the Filipinos to not speak Tagalog or Spanish, as far as I know this didn’t happen (?))
Does such a comparison mean that you think that those who are currently English teachers in the ROK are witting (or unwitting) agents of “US colonialism?”
If you google “anti-imperialist” you will probably find some detailed entries on this issue in US politics in the early 1900’s. It was a furious debate at the time and was (I think) bipartisan, I think it was so to a degree not found in the other western powers (and most certainly not in Japan, the original standard of comparison that started this discussion).
Arghaeri 42 & 43: I’m not slandering the Indian Army at all, as I’m very much aware of the overall contributions of the Indian Army to the British war effort. My point (not a disingenous one in the least) was that there were no formations of Filipino troops captured by the Japanese who “switched” sides to fight against the US as an “independence” army (at least none that I know of, be delighted to be “straightened out” on this if I’m wrong of course).
Perhaps there were even some Filipino soldiers in their 50’s who had fought with Aguinaldo as young teenagers; one presumes they would have been ripe subjects for recruitment for a “national Army”, had US policy towards the Phillippines been equivalent to that of the British towards in India.
My recollection is of reading that the native Malayans were completely unwilling to fight against the Japanese. Don’t know much about the native WWII Dutch-formed troop formations (if any) of the current residents of Indonesia but suspect that there wasn’t much enthusiasm amongst them for their colonial overlords’ fight either.
Had there been, it might have made a difference; it’s not well known nowadays, but in fact the US and the British made a major effort to use their remaining forces to help the Dutch retain Java and Sumatra after the fall of Singapore. The Japanese campaign of conquest ranging over the globe from Hawaii to the Indian ocean between Dec-41 through April 1942 was one of the most brilliant feats of arms in history.
a-letheia,
Not all Canadians are left-wing wannabe pinkos…why is that so hard for Americans to understand?
“Why is that so hard for canadians to understand?”
and use “C”
Yes, I’d say it would be more accurate to say that Canadians dislike their government, which we have for generations (people weren’t even all that crazy about it during ‘Trudeaumania’. The media just mistook an apparent lack of apathy for genuine love). Heck, we even had a revolution when there was still 2 Canadas.
A former South Korean president just died. Unfortunately, it was actually the last living former president who was generally well-regarded, Choe Gyu-Ha.
http://news.hankooki.com/lpage.....084840.htm
Goat,
Ah, sure, I should have said “most”. Who said anything about “wannabe pinkos”? I never said you were all like Bob Rae…heh…
Paul H,
Comments on Attack on Spanish Pacific Fleet were quite specific, Yankeesfan stated that Amarica had never entered a war without fierce deliberation, you cited the attack on the Spanish Pacific Fleet as evidence that it had. I refuted your evidence on the grounds that the war had already commenced before the attack, therefore whether deliberated or not, the attack was not an act of entering a war.
The attack was on the Spanish Fleet with whom the US was already at war, not the Philipines itself, and it preceded the US decision to colonise the Phillipines. McKinley’s knowledge of the attack is therefore not really pertinent to any “reluctant” decision to later colonise the islands. Hostilities had already ceased between the US and Spain, and the Philippines had already declared independance, when the US troops were sent to occupy the Phillipines.
Glad I could help this thread get some traction.
Ok, you are technically correct, but I’m treating the Phillippines as a de facto separate theater of war, one into which “we” (meaning the US as a country) “inadvertently” entered; insofar as the President and the Congress had no intention of waging war against Spain for the purpose of conquest there.
At least so I think; I’ll have to research to be absolutely sure. If it turns out that McKinley and the leading members of Congress had been discussing the Phillippines in the runup to war, obviously I’ll be wrong; but I don’t know where you’d find info on this other than in a detailed print biography of TR or McKinley, or a detailed print history of the period.
For my recollection of the attack on Manila Bay strictly being TR’s idea, I’m going by memory of a history book to which I don’t have current access. I do recall that the Spanish Pacific fleet at Manila Bay was no conceivable threat to any US interest as it was in very poor condition.
It seems there’s always something more to learn, just a matter of finding a credible source. I just got around to checking McKinley’s wikipedia article, and sure enough found the quote I remembered from years ago (ref our “Christian” duty to the Phillippines). Turns out it may be inaccurate; scroll down to the paragraph “disputed quotation” (that is, if you can bring yourself to share my taste for this arcane bit of American history).
Not so arcane of course for the people of the Phillippines.
The original point of this post by M was to get off some sarcasm at the expense of this latest example of “triangulation” on the part of current ROK government. In that regard, the example of the current Phillippine defense posture should be of interest to govt and citizens of ROK (ie the US bases are all gone and Aguinaldo has been redeemed to his rightful place in Filipino history).
Same-o for Taiwan; all US military presence there is gone, in fact US doesn’t even have an embassy. ROK should take these examples to heart, as they constitute proof that there is life for an East Asian “tiger” after US “colonialism”. Send those Americans packing! and get on with reunification. Time for Koreans to settle their own problems without any outside interference.
a-letheia,
As for the wannabe pinkos…I said that. A good portion of Canada needs a good foot in the ass to jar them back to reality.
Paul, as you say always more to learn, and certainly I’m learning a lot as a result of this thread, very interesting.
I don’t know the history well enough to comment on whether the Spanish Fleet was a conceivable threat, but if it was not then it sounds like a perfect tactical reason for attacking it and delivering a major morale deflating defeat on the Spanish to bring about hasty end to hostilities.
It does not however explain the need to recolonise the Phillipines by the US, nor whether accurate or not is an expression of “Christian Duty” by one man a demonstration of reluctance on the part of the nation. I’m fairly sure history is littered with atrocities justified in the name of duty to a religion, christian or otherwise. Christian duty in what respect exactly, the Philippinnes were already “Christianised” having been a colony of Spain for some 200 years before the US even existed, and Germany was also a christian nation, so was it Christian duty to colonise the Phillippines merely to prevent another christian power from doing so. Does it not seem much more likely that the decision to occupy was purely strategic in the American interest, i.e. prevent another European power from gaining control in the American sphere of interest, with expressions of moral reluctance, merely to pacify the liberals at home arguing against such a state of affairs. Arguments of the readiness / ability to govern themselves are just extensions of this. Whether they are ready or not, is little justification for an crushing an independance movement in a three year war and continuing occupation lasting almost 50 years. Such, arguments, seemingly acceptable to some liberals of the time, are merely evidence of what you hinted at above, a pseudo-paternalistic superior attitude of other colonial powers, i.e. poor natives can’t look after themselves so we’ll colonise them.
Agree, with the sentiment to a degree, it would be good if America could leave and let the Korean sort themselves out. However, perhaps the American’s now have a moral duty to remain here, and co-incidentally protect their sphere of interest, i.e. intially against cold war communism, now the potential threat to world stability from an increasingly powerful China if the Korean/Japan buffer were removed.
Hi Robert,
Any idea why in Safari all posts are post no.1
I’d like to refer to the post number, rather than quote large passages from above, but this is difficult when I don’y know the post number, and vise versa problematic when someone does refer to the post number to know which post they’re talking about.
Appreciate any help to get over this technical hitch…
Paul, now you’re being disingenuous about your own comments, quote “My point (not a disingenous one in the least) was that there were no formations of Filipino troops captured by the Japanese who “switched” sides to fight against the US as an “independence” army”; That wasn’t your point at all, your point was in evidencing the philipinos bravery (In defending them against a “slander” which had never occurred or been raised except by you), continuing “Not the least reason being the overall willingness of the Filipinos to fight on the side of their supposed “colonial masters”….This presents a distinct contrast with the lack of same in the other western colonial Asian possessions, where the overall stance of the native peoples was passive”.
You threw in the Indian division as an aside (”indeed…”) to support your point above, selectively avoiding evidence of willingness of millions of others willing to fight on the side of their colonial masters. The situation of the INA was somewhat different from the phillipines a large number of the soldiers in question were already captured, in a foreign land to boot, and India was not at the time being invaded by Japan as the Phillipino’s was, i.e. the Philipino’s were fighting directly against an agressor of their own nation, so the circumstances are not really comparable, and certainly do not demonstrate one peoples superior demonstration of bravery over another.
There was certainly ambivalence in some of the colonies, with Burma being a good example of a liberation army collaborating with Japan. However, it is not really an argument of bravery to selectively say that the Philipinnes lasted longer than those of other colonial powers and were therefore braver. Indeed by this logic the population of Guam, another colony bought by the US from Spain must have been utter cowards, having been taken by Japan so quickly.
1) “moral duty to remain…”?
2) “protect their [American] sphere of influence from an increasingly powerful [China]….”?
My goodness, you sound as though you’ve just come out of a backslapping, cigar-smoke-filled-room session with President McKinley. Except of course back in 1898 you’d have needed to substitute “Japan” in brackets (#2) as the up-and-coming Asian power of concern.
Could it be that back in 1898, lacking our hindsight/foresight, they probably saw the situation much the same as you do today? Naw, they were evil colonialists then and clearly lacked our “we are the world” altruism, that’s so obvious as to be unarguable.
Check out the Wiki article on Aguinaldo, turns out he lived until 1964 (!) but was essentially out of Filipino politics almost all of that time, though with respected figurehead status due to his achievements. Turns out he used some “colonial” type tactics in the Spanish rebellion period against some of his own potential Filipino political rivals, my goodness there’s a bit of interesting continuity for those tracing the threads of turbulent Filipino political history.
Definitely need to check him out further, also see the paragraph about his cooperation with the Japanese during 1941-2 (the all-too-brief note leaves the question ambiguous, as to just how “voluntary” his cooperation with them was).
Always a problem isn’t it trying to figure out who the ultimate winner is going to be, so you can be on the “right” side of history. And that’s a potential problem, when it comes to keeping those self-critical Americans on the moral defensive about their “colonial” guilt; what happens if they really buy into it and go home (gulp)?
Paul H at point 65,
EXACKERLY!!! you’ve got it….I never said evil colonialist, nor did Capbbq, we said colonialist, however you took issue and said ah, but we were so so reluctant….and put forward the McKinley defence in support….
and totally agree with you, there’s little point over colonial guilt, its history now, it’s only valid if you’re still following the same path…
much as the moral guilt continually imposed on the British for slavery despite the fact that the trade existed for thousands of years before our colonial expansion, that it local chieftains who frequently captured their enemies and sold them to the slave ships, and that it was the British Navy that later due to changing moral values back home…went a long way to ending the tafficking of slaves across the atlantic…..
I’ll definately check out Aquinaldo….this is a very interesting line of history
history is history, it should be remembered and learn’t from, but we shouldn’t have to keep apologising for the acts of our ancestors long in the past…
I’m not being disingenuous, you are persistently missing my point. I’m not comparing the Asian native peoples’s fighting qualities, but rather the respective leadership by the Western power in charge, to include the moral/political foundation of such leadership. MacArthur and other American officers could look the Filipinos in the eye and say with utter credibility that “we are fighting for your country’s freedom and independence.”
It’s not just a matter of what sushi flavor is your particular brand of “colonialism” (see #36 Cpt BBQ, I enjoy that handle of his and the bbq analogies). The Cpt said “our colonialism had good personalities”, well I’m sure that so did many “homeland” officers s of the Brits, Dutch, French; the point being though that came at their jobs from a totally different political perspective (their govts were there to stay as political overlords of their respective colonies).
The maxim familiar to military officers; as a rule there is no such thing as bad troops, only bad leaders. If you want a “non-colonial” WWII example, check out Stilwell’s attempt to form a coherent Nationalist Chinese army for operations in the Burma theater during 1942-44, as contrasted to what Chiang and his own Chinese generals were able to achieve (or rather, not achieve). See “Stilwell and the American Experience in China 1911-45″, pulitzer prize winner for history (1971?) by the famous historian Barbara Tuchman (now deceased).
Warning, long long long but it can be skimmed, the last chapter can be read to give a summary of her thesis.
As to Guam: Guamanian natives hadn’t been trained as organized troop formations if I remember correctly, local US garrison there in 1941 was just a small one (can’t remember if it was US Army or Marines) with no heavy weapons. There was no fight in defense because there was no preparation for one and it would have been totally futile; I think (not sure) that later on in the war, Guamanian natives could be counted on for espionage/coastwatcher type support to US forces operating in the Marianas.
MacArthur had been in the PI for years during the 30’s, in fact he was technically retired from the US military after serving as US Army Chief of Staff in DC in the early 30’s. He went out to the Phillippines (1937?) and became Quezon’s “field marshal” in charge of organizing the entire Filipino military establishment, once the Phillippines had been designated as a commonwealth in 1935 in preparation for independence. However, he was dependent on US funding from the Congress to equip these units, so like every other US Army ground combat leader trying to build up troop strength in the 30’s he didn’t get very far as he was handicapped by lack of resources. Still he organized large Filipino formations for coastal defense.
The Phillippine Scouts were a thoroughly professional and more-or-less resourced Filipino unit which remained under the US Army PI commander’s (Wainwright?) formal control during this period. As war approached Roosevelt brought MacArthur back on active duty as a US Army general(1940?) and made him overall commander of all PI based forces, both US and Filipino. However, he still had to consult closely with Quezon as the local PI political head of state; you can read about this in the Manchester biography of MacArthur.
When Mac was evacuated from Corregidor in Mar 42 in the famous escape, Quezon was brought out with him to form the Filipino govt in exile.
Paul,
You have to make a point for it to be missed, and as clearly noted above you never made the point that you claim has been missed.
Continually changing and refining your point does not make the original point valid.
Your orginal point, Quote, “This is a slander on the many brave Filipinos who fought and died on the US side from 1941-45, as well as the US Army garrison in the Philippines. In spite of the lack of support from the US main Pacific fleet (and a very bad initial strategic defense decision by MacArthur), they held out far longer in resistance (December 41 - May 42) than did the French in Indochina, the British in Malaya/Singapore, and the Dutch in their East Indies colony.”
In the context of your defence of the slander that never happened re the bravery of philipinos, you compared the relative performance of other colonies (whose powers as noted had either already been defeated by or were struggling to hold on against Germany) and therefore in the context implicitly their bravery. If the point you meant was rather a reference to the respective leadership by the Western power in charge, to include the moral/political foundation of such leadership, then it was a pretty oblique one.
Anyway, the track of history you’re on is fascinating.
Donno about Phillippines, but Yankee is definitely welcomed in South Korea. All thinking individuals will agree when they examine the alternate scenario, the one under Kim IlSung - Kim Jongil pair.
The US makes every country under its wing to prosper. See Japan, Germany and Korea. Phillippines had some bad dictators. You cannot blame America for your mistakes.
Korea is making a big mistake as well. I strictly hold Koreans for the outcome, which will be total destruction and/or Communist rule.
Mass starvation, total loss of freedom, shut out from world community… Koreans are digging its own grave. They cannot blame nobody else for their stupidity.
Ok, so I made it obliquely. Seems pretty clear to me, so any others here who are still interested (probably a sum rapidly approaching zero) will have to make up their own minds.
Maybe the main point underlying our “dispute” is the difference between those of us who remain American exceptionalists, and those who aren’t.
In this respect the word “colonialism” becomes a loaded one; like “racism”, it’s now become useful as a code word for those who derive their outlook on the US from the Bruce Cummings (sp?) /Noam Chomskys/Ward Churchills of this world.
#46 Chiamatti: “…The kind of colonialism the Korean’s endured is pretty much a thing of the past. The new colonialism is economic. The United States is very much a colonial power.
I like a lot of the content found on this site, but the tone of this post and many of the replies reminded me so much of why I don’t miss north america at all…”
Well, that’s chiamatti’s privilege and he’s welcome to it. All I ask is from those Koreans who feel this way is no weeping, if/when north america decides to give you a miss in return. May it soon happen.
From #20 cptbbq, one more time:
“….because they [Filipinos] loved hotdogs, and baseball just like our WWII propaganda movies tell us…”
Spent some time looking online for the example of the Filipino schoolteacher who refused to haul down the American flag when ordered to by Japanese troops and was then executed. I know it’s portrayed in one of those “WWII propaganda movies”; I think it’s based on a real incident but can’t find a citation to prove it so will have to keep looking, maybe it was in fact an apocryphal story.
Here’s something I did find, from the narrative of an American civilian who remained in Manila after the US Army evacuated it in late December of 41 and was subsequently interned:
“…The first order we heard was that all third country nationals should register in a certain place. Of course, we didn’t know who the “third country nationals” were, but found out, they were the neutrals, the Germans, Spaniards, etc. The next day, the Japs started gathering up enemy aliens in much the same manner as the Japs themselves had been gathered up. On the night of the sixth, we gave ourselves up.
The Filipinos were so loyal, they wouldn’t betray us, but we were afraid it would go much harder for them if we didn’t give ourselves up…”
http://www.geocities.com/ithas.....nment.html
Whoever these loyal Filipinos were (probably all dead now), I think they deserve more than just a dismissive reference as “WWII propaganda”. Perhaps that will help to clarify my “original point”.
Paul H. said:
and Arghaeri said:
Sorry guys…you got it all wrong.
The original U.S. interest was in using the Philippines as a springboard into China (which was about to be carved up by the European powers). Dewey had sailed out with the Asiatic Fleet and was in Asia around 1898. At that point Aguinaldo and the leaders of the revolution had been exiled to Hong Kong where they had a falling out.
Aguinaldo moved to Singapore where he was contacted by the American consul about the possibility of reopening the war in the Philippines. There were other contacts with Dewey too and Aguinaldo got a ride on a U.S. ship.
Arghaeri said:
This is cute…it was really disingenuous of McKinley to claim that he had no foreknowledge (why send Dewey then?). And this “Christian Duty” crap worked well when they replaced the Spanish Clergy with Americans (some Irish-American Jesuits are still in Manila and held in high regard).
And if he really didn’t know, why did he offer Dewey troops after he Dewey sent him news of the victory? Certainly General Merritt, the Army man tasked to work with Dewey on the invasion of the Philippines, didn’t seem to have any doubts.
Arghaeri said:
Well Dewey and the American consul sounded out Aguinaldo about a possible alliance against the Spanish BEFORE the start of hostilities with Spain. Indeed, the U.S. fleet caught them at port with a surprise attack and destroyed them with only one U.S. casualty (due to heat prostration). BTW This was a “Pearl Harbor” for the Spanish & there is a memorial for the fallen at Cartagena (if memory serves me correctly).
oops… Arghaeri didn’t say that, I did. Please bear with me as I am typing really fast now.
Anyway..after the successful attack on the Spanish Fleet, the putative alliance with Aguinaldo was repudiated by the U.S. Secretary of War (sorry forget his name), but the interesting thing is that THEY DIDN’T TELL AGUINALDO THAT. In fact there seems to have been no plan to recognize the legitimacy of his group, even while ostensibly negotiating with him as a partner. I guess it might be shocking for some to call this duplicity, but that’s what it was…There’s more but I think I’ve gone on for too long now.
Paul H. said:
Ummm…yeah, I guess so. But initially the Macabebe Scouts were formed to fight Aguinaldo’s army and assist the U.S. military in their operations. I guess by WWII they had gotten pretty good at that.
Baduk said:
Tell that to the Iraqis…
Baduk said:
“You cannot blame America for your mistakes.”
Tell that to the Iraqis…
jiwonsi,
Have you heard someone named Hussein? He kicked out nuclear inspectors, had his airforce fly into the no-fly zone, apploaded th 9/11, and vowed that he would send the similar attacks to the US.
The Iraqis supported Hussein and did not overthrow him. They deserved to be bombed, killed and imprisoned because they supported Hussein. They got what they deserved.
Hey Baduk, “deserved” has got nothing to do with it…The war was supposed to be about the WMDs.
In much the same way, some day the US will go get the smart-alek like Kim Jongil (or his son who will take over). And, yes, the US will kill, maim and imprison North Koreans.
And, South Korean Commies as well.
The US will just kill these mothers who threaten the security of the good Old USA. And, the US has a right to do that. Don’t you think? If your neighbor keeps on threatening on the record that he would kill you, is it a crime to kill him first?
The US has enough weapons and soldiers to wipe out North Korea from the face of the earth. I hope American soldiers kill enough South Korean Commies as well.
jiwonsi,
“WMD” was the catch phrase at the time. Like “Pro-family(anti-gay)”, it got the US going.
However, the main reason the US got into Iraq was that Hussein was gathering some support on selling oil in Euros, instead of dollars. The US needed a foothold in the middleEast as well, eventually to eradicate Islam terrorists.
Bush is a great president. He is working toward the security of the USA. He is pro-active toward that goal. Only lightweights like yourself want to derail his efforts and send the US back to the 9/11 situation, where the country is wide open for further attacks by Islam fundamental terrorists.
jiwonsi,
I believe the american came up with principle of “Manifest Destiny” as well to justify their colonialism…
Also interesting to note that McKinley was the one who approved the annexation of Hawaii, despite the previous President Cleveland’s earlier disapproval of same. This following the landing of US marines in 1883 and subsequent coup’s “provisional government” recognised by John L Stevens.
This despite various treaties between the US and Hawaii and peaceful relations.
Arghaeri-
That’s interesting. The U.S. really did grow in size under pious McKinley’s watch, didn’t it?