This isn't patriotism

[Ban Hammer 13,336]

Charles, look at the whole scenario. McKinley told the U.S. people we were going to war in the Philippines to Christianize the people there, which was popular at the time. And also to free them from the Spanish. (Just like in Cuba right before this.) Now, ask anyone Filipino if that's what the U.S. did in the Phils.

Anyway, you're not going to listen to me, so this is the last I have to say on this.

You're a petulant child, Charles.

ah finally we are getting somewhere, this is like pulling teeth.

in regards to the phillipine war:

The administration of U.S. President McKinley subsequently declared Aguinaldo to be an "outlaw bandit", and no formal declaration of war was ever issued. Two reasons have been given for this:

One is that calling the war the Philippine Insurrection made it appear to be a rebellion against a lawful government.

1.The other was to enable the American government to avoid liability to claims by veterans of the action.

from wikipedia, lemme know if you need the link

here's the next one for your statement about christianizing the phillipines.

Disputed quotation

In 1903, an elderly supporter named James F. Rusling recalled that in 1899, McKinley had said to a religious delegation:

"The truth is I didn't want the Philippines, and when they came to us as a gift from the gods, I did not know what to do with them.... I sought counsel from all sides - Democrats as well as Republicans - but got little help. I thought first we would take only Manila; then Luzon; then other islands, perhaps, also. I walked the floor of the White House night after night until midnight; and I am not ashamed to tell you, gentlemen, that I went down on my knees and prayed Almighty God for light and guidance more than one night." "And one night late it came to me this way - I don't know how it was, but it came: (1) That we could not give them back to Spain - that would be cowardly and dishonorable; (2) that we could not turn them over to France or Germany - our commercial rivals in the Orient - that would be bad business and discreditable; (3) that we could not leave them to themselves - they were unfit for self-government - and they would soon have anarchy and misrule over there worse than Spain's was; and (4) that there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them, and by God's grace do the very best we could by them, as our fellow men for whom Christ also died. And then I went to bed and went to sleep and slept soundly."

The question is whether McKinley said any such thing as is italicized in point #4, especially regarding "Christianize" the natives, or whether Rusling added it. McKinley was a religious person but never said God told him to do anything. McKinley never used the term Christianize (and indeed it was rare in 1898). McKinley operated a highly effective publicity bureau in the White House and he gave hundreds of interviews to reporters, and hundreds of public speeches to promote his Philippines policy. Yet no authentic speech or newspaper report contains anything like the purported words or sentiment. The man who remembered it—a Civil War veteran—had written a book on the war that was full of exaggeration. The supposed highly specific quote from memory years after the event is unlikely enough—especially when the quote uses words like "Christianize" that were never used by McKinley. The conclusion of historians such as Lewis Gould is that it is remotely possible but highly unlikely McKinley said the last part. For a discussion of this question, see Gould 1980, pp. 140-142.

Charles that would have been useful if I had ever used a quotation. I didn't. And it doesn't really matter whether the goal was Christianization (and McKinley was devout, no question) or liberation--that's not what the end result or goal really was. Charles, you're avoiding the point, which is that the public opinion on the war (that we were liberating the Philippines) was completely different from what our real goals were over there. Here's a fact: at the outset of the philippines "conflict," McKinley did not mention retention of the islands. Only during it did he suggest keeping them. Find any McKinley speech from the era on this policy. Go ahead.

The term McKinley DID use was "benevolent assimilation." There's a quote you'll be hard pressed to find disputed. Just try to find that the public opinion before entering the Philippines conflict was that we were going there to torture the people. McKinley also said that he wanted the Philippines, not the Filipinos.

Stuart Creighton Miller's study of the Philippine occupation found that on the island of Luzon, the U.S. Army uprooted entire rural populations, burned homes and destroyed property, including livestock. As in Vietnam, surviving villagers were herded into fenced camps ringed by what General Franklin Bell called a “dead zone” -- meaning “[e]verything outside . . . was systematically destroyed -- humans, crops, food stores, domestic animals, houses and boats.” “These tactics,” Miller concluded, “were the cheapest means of producing a demoralized and obedient population.”

http://hnn.us/articles/21845.html

However, in the article you quoted about the war not being declared (which I never even said it was), the paragraph above the one you used gives a nice example of McKinley manipulating the information to influence the public. It was an outright lie. Why don't you read it again?

2. Doesn't the fact that it wasn't a declared war (which I said) makes= it even more comparable to our situation today? Hmmmmm

As usual, Chuck, you can't see the forest for the trees. Presidents have in the past manipulated public opinion to get to what they want. If we take away our right to question them, we are treating them as infallible; history shows they aren't. Stop arguing over whether or not someone was quoted as saying something and deal with the actual issue.

still trying to weasel out of it eh?

alex, the question was which president manipulated the people and congress to declare war. war was not declared in the phillipines. my answer of "none" still stands.

you complain "Charles that would have been useful if I had ever used a quotation." that's what i've been asking for all along. how am i supposed to address your "facts" when you don't quote anything, all i have to go off of is quoting you? the goal of liberation or Christianization is a red herring to divert from the real topic. it does not matter as it's not pertinent to the topic we're discussing.

just to review for posterity:

why did it start?

In December 1898, the U.S. purchased the Philippines from Spain as part of the Treaty of Paris for the sum of $20 million (USD), after the U.S. defeated Spain in the Spanish-American War. The U.S. government made plans to make the Philippines an American colony. However, the Filipinos, fighting for independence from Spain since 1896 had already declared independence on June 12, 1898, and had considered the Americans allies.

so much for "McKinley did not mention retention of the islands. Only during it did he suggest keeping them. Find any McKinley speech from the era on this policy. Go ahead." it's amazing that history does not agree with you. (Hostilities started on February 4, 1899 when an American soldier shot a Filipino soldier who was crossing a bridge into Filipino-occupied territory in San Juan del Monte, an incident historians now consider to be the start of the war.)

that there was atrocities commited is a moot point. such happens in every war.

"the paragraph above the one you used gives a nice example of McKinley manipulating the information to influence the public."

yet it still does not support your position of the original statement - that mckinley as the president manipulated the ppl and congress to declare war. this is after the fact and does not support your statement. nice try.

"2. Doesn't the fact that it wasn't a declared war (which I said) makes= it even more comparable to our situation today? Hmmmmm" not relevant to the topic, you do remember what the topic was, don't you?

"As usual, Chuck, you can't see the forest for the trees. Presidents have in the past manipulated public opinion to get to what they want. If we take away our right to question them, we are treating them as infallible; history shows they aren't. Stop arguing over whether or not someone was quoted as saying something and deal with the actual issue."

grab a chain saw, alex, cause we're discussing your thesis of whether mckinley as the president manipulated the ppl and congress to declare war. you can quit the attempts to deflect it anywhere else.

to sum things up, you've not supported your statement of mckinley manipulating the people and congress to declare war. i acknowledge that such occured after war was declared, but it still does not support your previous statement as it was after the war started.

[Reynaldo 0]

----- BALETED -----

Edited January 10, 2007 by Reynaldo

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Charles - would you in good conscience have voted for McKinley?

[Mirorgate 0]

----- BALETED -----

yay for strongbad!