Previous posts in this discussion:
Poston "Enslaving" the Philippines (Bienvenido Macario, USA, 07/08/13 6:20 am)
Randy Black wrote on 7 July:
"If Bienvenido Macario is making the case, as John Eipper suggests in his reply to Bienvenido in his 6 July comments, that the United States enslaved the Filipinos by granting them independence, would not the same reasoning be true for the Soviet Union and all of its 'abandoned' former territories?
"If the Filipinos are enslaved as the result of the USA's granting independence, why is not the same concept true of the Baltic States, the Caucasus, Ukraine and the rest of the former Soviet territories/satellite states?"
I really appreciate Randy Black's questions, because it gives me the opportunity to clarify the issues. First, it is the oligarch-traitors who are enslaving the majority of the Filipinos. The US allowed this by granting the Philippines independence and making greedy oligarchs immune from federal prosecution while at the same time providing US taxpayer funds to be looted via the World Bank. Is this not obvious?
Second, there are no similarities between the Philippines being granted independence by the US and the USSR's conquered territories, which were actually FDR's gift to Uncle Joe Stalin. I don't think FDR ever knew what kind of a monster Stalin really was. This unfamiliarity with foreign relations will always plague a Democrat in the White House. Look what's happening to Egypt, the Iraqi oil and unemployment in the US. Instead of awarding the contract to a UK or US firm or GSE that will hire US and UK veterans, the US gave it [the oil contracts?--JE] to China. If US veterans are discriminated against by their government to cater to China, what more with Filipinos?
Randy Black should compare the status or plight of Filipinos with the different Native American tribes. Or with Puerto Rico and Guam, which were bought from Spain in 1898 for $20 million, along with the Philippines, just like Florida was bought from Spain in 1819 for $5 million. Also, there is the case of Alaska. There were indigenous people in Florida, as well as Hispanics.
We should compare the Philippines with Puerto Rico and Guam, the other islands the US bought but did not abandon. The climate on Guam is the same as the Philippines. Guam is only 2,567 km or 1,595 miles from Manila.
"The US ultimately paid Spain 20 million dollars for possession (ownership, property, not colony) of the Philippines. The islands of Puerto Rico and Guam were also placed under American control, and Spain relinquished its claim to Cuba. The treaty was signed on December 10, 1898."
Puerto Rico and Guam also sought independence, but were these territories abandoned to their fates or granted independence? No!
Let's say that even if there was no anomaly in granting the Philippines independence when it needed US administration the most, why did Washington agree to hand it over to traitors and collaborators?
This is discrimination pure and simple. I don't understand why JE won't publish my accusation that the US government, in fact, has been discriminating against us Tagalogs, Bicols, etc., and non-oligarchic families and favoring oligarch-traitors since 1946. With Native American status, the Department of Interior could better care for the Philippines' environment and natural resources. What is wrong with that?
If this is not discrimination, I don't know what is. I've sought Native American status, freely associated state and withdrawal of US recognition of the so-called 1946 republic founded on lies, treason and dishonor. But no action is being taken or even a reply.
Is it alright then to seek help elsewhere?
JE comments: The Philippines presently has 94,000,000 inhabitants, compared to less than 4 million for Puerto Rico and under 200,000 for Guam. The proportions were more or less similar in 1898 and 1946. One can imagine the world outcry if the US continued to administer the Philippines as a colony, "free associated state," or other. Note that the UK relinquished control of a comparable colony, India, during the same immediate postwar period.
Bienvenido Macario's position is probably held by very few, but how exactly does he suggest the US go about withdrawing its recognition of Philippine independence?