Alright, so the Spanish American War happened around the turn of the last century, and that was an overwhelmingly easy victory for the US. Then America is left as a colonial power with control over the Philippines. The subsequent war over Filipino independence was a bloody one.

What are your thoughts on American involvment in that Spanish speaking Asian country 100 years ago?

Do you think it was wrong for Americans to deny the Filipinos their independence and freedom from colonial powers, the same freedoms America had just granted to Cuba months before?

Or, do you think the US government was right in holding on to those islands in teh Pacific Ocean, if only for a refueling station at Manilla harbor?

We were attacked, we were attacked :(

Seriously, I believed that US goverment should have granted the independence - if not, the war was no sense :p

we promised and led them on and then renigged, thats what led to the unrising in 1900-01

Yep, that's true.

I'm against the whole ordeal not because it wasn't in our interest, but because it simeply isn't "American". We were founded on ideals that were against imperialism of any kind, so it just wasn't righteous of us.

Any sort of "colonialism/imperialism" is pretty much frowned on these days as always having been a bad thing (regardless of any special considerations) so the automatic answer is that the US was wrong. However, if you ask was it in the US national best interest to do as they did, then the answer must be yes as the US benefited from their control of the Phillipines.

Well, let me put it this way. What would you say if you were alive during the time and had no knowledge of what was to come in the 20th Century?

Well, back then, I'm sure there were many people for it. America wanted to join the league of empires. It saw control over the islands as part of that. Look at other things that happened at that time...annexation of Hawaii, capture of Puerto Rico, I think Guam, Midway, Wake, and a bunch of other islands were taken around this time.

The United States wanted to become an imperial power. It destroyed the Spanish forces to do so. Back then, I think there would be few people opposed to such a thing.

Manifest Destiny! Could you imagine living during those times? It would be great, no hippies :lol: j/k.

But really, America was quite the expansionist state at that time.
There were some who did oppose it for the very reasons I stated earlier (how it actually went against Americanism to be imperialistic, not for Americanism) but these were a very small minority of people.

we should have given them independance, but kept bases there.

Sounds alright to me. :goodjob:

Hmmm, not so simple folks.

The Philippines were in a precarious situation in 1898. First of all, the U.S. was not the only power hovering over the decaying Spanish imperial corpse; Germany and Japan, and to a lesser extent Britain also were eyeing the Philippines. You may recall that Admiral Dewey had to face down a German fleet hovering menacingly around Manila Bay and almost openned fire on them at one point. Had the U.S. evicted the Spanish and then simply withdrawn, granting the Philippines their independence, the Germans probably would have muscled their way in - which means that in 1914 Japan would have invaded as they did all other German Pacific possessions.

Secondly, the Philippines were being torn apart by internal insurrections and splits as well. The U.S. spent until I think 1908 suppressing a Maori secessionist rebellion in the south, one that looks vaguely familiar to those watching current Filippino events...

None of this is to say the U.S. was fully justified in its actions in post-1898 Philippines, but rather to say that the choices for Washington were a bit more complicated than you're implying; "Should we be imperialists or should we be good guys and let them go free?"

Yes! That's what I wanted to hear, thanks. Now I have *some* justification for us being there.

I think what we were speaking of was on the measure of "patriotism" at the time. Was it more patriotic to support the military and wish to extend the US overseas...

Or, was it more patriotic to not wish to do that for the sake of keeping to the principals of what this nation were founded upon.

IMHO, it was American Imperialism at its heyday. And therefore it was a terrible thing...

Probably, patriotism in that day was to see the fulfillment of the continued Manifest Destiny, i.e. empire.

I still think it was more a power grab than anything else. Even if the United States wasn't all that interested in the islands, it would serve them well if the other colonial powers didn't get to it.

Agreed.

However, I meant which would you be at the time?

Would your slogan be loyalty to the nation, meaning government
or loyalty to the national idea?

That depends. If I grew up at that time, brought up the way people were then, and so forth...I'd probably give the government the "blank check" to do whatever they like in the name of greater American power.

However, if I simply went back then knowing and feeling like I do now....it'd be really hard to say. Certainly, I cannot condone the killing of many American and native lives for the name of territorial expansion...but then again, if America simply let these places go, another imperial power would simply snatch them up and do the same thing, if not worse.


I also forgot to mention a very important piece of American imperialism....the Panama Canal Zone.

Oh right, that. Well, since today feels much like "an ends justify the means" day anyway, I'll just say that somebody had to build that thing. Could you imagine the US trying to have a war against Japan in the Pacific, and it couldn't even use any of it's Atlantic forces? (well, I guess they could, but it would take a heck of a lot longer to get there ;))

I would have stood with Mark Twain on the issue. He was very much against the war.

Your statement rhymes with you signature. :D

Originally posted by sims2789
we should have given them independance, but kept bases there.

Isn't that a contridiction? - Almost by definition, sovereign nations aren't independant when foreign states have arbitrarily set up military bases on their territory (think Finland after 1944 and Germany and Japan between 1945 and 1950). You should have granted independance and then asked for basing rights.

Originally posted by Vrylakas
Secondly, the Philippines were being torn apart by internal insurrections and splits as well. The U.S. spent until I think 1908 suppressing a Maori secessionist rebellion in the south, one that looks vaguely familiar to those watching current Filippino events...Moro, not Maori. The Maoris are in NZ. ;)

There was also an Islamic sultanate based in the Sulu islands that gave the Spanish some trouble. The Moros were Muslims, and thus not susceptible to Catholic Spanish rule.

Moro, not Maori. The Maoris are in NZ.

I was close, moro or less.... ;)

Originally posted by Case


Isn't that a contridiction? - Almost by definition, sovereign nations aren't independant when foreign states have arbitrarily set up military bases on their territory (think Finland after 1944 and Germany and Japan between 1945 and 1950). You should have granted independance and then asked for basing rights.

Yes, technically you're right. What are the odds that the Filipinos would've granted such rights to the US? That's what I want to know.

Depends how strong the pressure would have been from Spain or any other colonial power on the islands. It would also depend on how strongly they would want to keep the Moro lands under their flag.

My guess is that there might have been a few bases or some kind of agreement. Perhaps it would have been like Cuba, where it was nominally independent, but with American big corporations really running the show, with a few American infantry ready to shoot at anything that even comes close.
The Filipinos sure didn't want to be part of a colonial empire (which was why they tried to rebel against Spain and the US) but they probably would have granted a plot of land to use as a base and entered some trade agreements favorable to the US in return for their help in suppressing the Moros (where there is still sporadic fighting to this day).

Who knows whether just a few bases on some islands would have really protected the islands from falling under another flag. Sooner or later, the US would have wanted to claim the land as a "protectorate" (remember...budding colonial power) or they would not have given much attention to the place and let it either fall into the hands of another power...or just let it decay (if the Filipinos couldn't get their act together).