Did the Philippines make a historic mistake by asking for independence?

[donbuggy]

Consider this:

Master of the Island
Which country is the best colonizer?
By Joel Waldfogel
http://www.slate.com/id/2151852/

"...In new research, James Feyrer and Bruce Sacerdote, both of Dartmouth College, consider the effect of a particular aspect of history—the length of European colonization—on the current standard of living of a group of 80 tiny, isolated islands that have not previously been used in cross-country comparisons. Their question: Are the islands that experienced European colonization for a longer period of time richer today?...

...Feyrer and Sacedote's key findings are that the longer one of the islands spent as a colony, the higher its present-day living standards and the lower its infant mortality rate. Each additional century of European colonization is associated with a 40 percent boost in income today and a reduction in infant mortality of 2.6 deaths per 1,000 births...

...The authors also compare the experiences of separate Pacific islands with eight different colonizers: the United States, Britain, Spain, the Netherlands, Portugal, Japan, Germany, and France. Their verdict is that the islands that are best off, in terms of income growth, are the ones that were colonized by the United States—as in Guam and Puerto Rico. Next best is time spent as a Dutch, British, or French colony. At the bottom are the countries colonized by the Spanish and especially the Portuguese..."

--------------------------------------

So, was independence a mistake? Was Rizal and the reformists right in saying that we should push for reforms within a colonial system? Was Bonifacio and the revolutionaries wrong in advocating the overthrow of the imperialists? Was Cabangbang and his Federalist Party right in pursuing U.S. statehood for the Philippines?

[ghosthunter]

With 20/20 hindsight of what the pinoys did to the country, I think not.

Up to the time when Marcos was president of the country in the late 1960s, we were one of the most progressive countries in the region. The only major problem we had after the Marcos era was the wave upon wave of corrupt politicans and government officials that became the major burden of the country in nearly all aspects of government. Corruption and bribery has become part of the system of government, even if many would say otherwise.

[niky]

Obviously... no.

The culture of corruption, patronage, a split society with a gross division between the landed and un-landed... the semi-feudal structure of local politics all point to societal problems deeply rooted in the 300 years under Spain.

Nearly half-a-century of US influence, as well as a couple of decades living under the US shadow did very little to change this socio-political structure. In fact, in advancing US interests during the Cold-War era, the US government didn't show very much interest in changing the political culture.... they were more interested in supporting people who would protect their interests. Hence Marcos, hence Saddam... etcetera. During this era of history, the US started collecting negative brownie points amongst third world countries for supporting corrupt regimes merely because they supported the anti-communist drive.

If the US had stayed in the Philippines, we would still have the tension with the Huks and the newly emergent Communist Party. In fact, that would have merely encouraged the Soviets and Chinese to pay more attention than they did. Instead of the occassional sub full of arms and money, there might have been a more concerted effort to destabilize the Philippine Government than there was otherwise.

In Guam, there was no third or fourth party. Merely a small local population that prospered under US rule. The Philippines was never America's to colonize. We had fought our way to near-parity with the Spanish when the US bought the Philippines from Spain as part of their war settlement.

If we had developed as a British or US colony from the beginning, we'd likely be better off, but I don't know how much better off we would be now if we had stayed a few more decades under US rule. As it is, with the US bases in the country until recently and all the money the US poured into our government over the years, we were virtually a US colony until the start of the Cory years, anyway.

[Jun aka Pekto]

The Philippines didn't make a mistake by asking for independence. Where she made the mistake was squandering her lead in the region and lapsing to where she is now. As for Guam and Puerto Rico...... Can they even be considered? They're still US possessions whose populations have rejected every attempt at independence.

[CVT]

That study is profound...

However, I'd still say that we made the right decision to fight for our independence.

It's just that we, as a nation, has not fully realized the responsibilities that are inherent in our newfound freedom,- in being an independent nation.

I hate to say it, but MLQ was a real visionary for stating those passionate words when he was stewarding our drive for independence...

6110:pepsi:

[Jun aka Pekto]

when Spain Left, we battled it out with our liberators (the Americans)

The American occupation period only proved one thing to them. we are not worth colonizing.

kasi pagkaalam ko after WWII and the entire country was destroyed, we asked the Americans to continue our colony pero mas gusto pa ng Amerikano i-colonize yun ni nuke nila which is Japan.

siguro they saw something in Japan na wala talaga tayo, united ang Japanese people. kung hindi sila united hindi sila mag-succeed ma-conquer almost the entire Asian Region.

Hang out with losers, you become a loser. so what they did nag-hangout sila sa winners na katulad nila - Japan

What do you mean? The Tydings-McDuffie Act of 1934 provided for Philippine Independence within 10 years. Of course, WW2 disrupted the timetable a bit.

I'm sure there was a faction that asked for the Philippines to continue as a US possession. But, I'm also sure the majority of Pinoys supported independence.

[v6dreamer]

I dont know....I have a mix feeling about this. Our independence day is July 4, 1946, W.W 2 ended Sept. 2 1945 exactly 9 months and 2 days. We all know what happen to Phils. according to history during the war and after.
Our country Phils economy is down into its knee, people are suffering Malaria and diff disease's, War torn town and cities, homelessness, War shock, food shortage, No job then "independence"! WHY? Should our country at least govern by U.S for a while til up into our own feet? Its just an honest opinion and youll be the judge.

[Jun aka Pekto]

I dont know....I have a mix feeling about this. Our independence day is July 4, 1946, W.W 2 ended Sept. 2 1945 exactly 9 months and 2 days. We all know what happen to Phils. according to history during the war and after.
Our country Phils economy is down into its knee, people are suffering Malaria and diff disease's, War torn town and cities, homelessness, War shock, food shortage, No job then "independence"! WHY? Should our country at least govern by U.S for a while til up into our own feet? Its just an honest opinion and youll be the judge.

US aid had to have been flowing to the Philippines post WW2. How else would the Philippines have recovered? Manila especially was devastated. There was no way the Philippines could have rebuilt Manila (and other cities) without US help.

Plus, there were more US bases than Subic and Clark at the time. I do recall my dad mentioning Sangley Point, Cavite as a US Navy base. My mom often went there for paperwork while my dad was in Vietnam during the 60's.

I'm sure there was a steady flow of US aid to compensate for the use of those bases.

[StraightSix]

US aid had to have been flowing to the Philippines post WW2. How else would the Philippines have recovered? Manila especially was devastated. There was no way the Philippines could have rebuilt Manila (and other cities) without US help.

Plus, there were more US bases than Subic and Clark at the time. I do recall my dad mentioning Sangley Point, Cavite as a US Navy base. My mom often went there for paperwork while my dad was in Vietnam during the 60's.

I'm sure there was a steady flow of US aid to compensate for the use of those bases.

Of course there was help from Uncle Sam, but it came with a string attached - the amendment to the 1935 constitution that gave parity rights to US citizens to develop and exploit natural resources and to operate public utilities in the country. Payment of war damages amounting to US$620 million, as stipulated in the Philippine Rehabilitation Act of 1946, was made contingent on Philippine acceptance of the parity clause. It wasn't a free lunch.

---

There were other bases beside Clark, Subic and Sangley Point ... Poro Point in La Union, John Hay Air Station in Baguio (mainly R&R but is also where the ambassador's summer residence is, and the VOA relay station), and small electronic and communication facilities like the one at Capas, Tarlac and the OTH radar site at Tuba, Benguet (jokingly referred to as Baguio's cooling fans).

Payment for the use of these bases after independence were not categorized as "rent" by the Americans because that would enable the Phil. govt. to demand monetary payment. Instead, rent was given as "aid" so the US can choose the kind of goods it dumped into the Philippines. That's why the AFP loved its Hueys and Nomads (Tora-tora) so much, the WWII ships, and so much more US surplus kits.

BTW it might interest others to know that during the height of the cold war (sorry but I can't recall the exact figures), annual payment for the use of all those bases in the Philippines were nothing compared to the annual US payment to Spain. There wasn't a single American base in Spain. It was payment for landing rights for US aircrafts.

Sorry for being so OT, but we Pinoys are such suckers.

[jpdm]

Consider this:

Master of the Island
Which country is the best colonizer?
By Joel Waldfogel
http://www.slate.com/id/2151852/

"...In new research, James Feyrer and Bruce Sacerdote, both of Dartmouth College, consider the effect of a particular aspect of history—the length of European colonization—on the current standard of living of a group of 80 tiny, isolated islands that have not previously been used in cross-country comparisons. Their question: Are the islands that experienced European colonization for a longer period of time richer today?...

...Feyrer and Sacedote's key findings are that the longer one of the islands spent as a colony, the higher its present-day living standards and the lower its infant mortality rate. Each additional century of European colonization is associated with a 40 percent boost in income today and a reduction in infant mortality of 2.6 deaths per 1,000 births...

...The authors also compare the experiences of separate Pacific islands with eight different colonizers: the United States, Britain, Spain, the Netherlands, Portugal, Japan, Germany, and France. Their verdict is that the islands that are best off, in terms of income growth, are the ones that were colonized by the United States—as in Guam and Puerto Rico. Next best is time spent as a Dutch, British, or French colony. At the bottom are the countries colonized by the Spanish and especially the Portuguese..."

hmmmm....I find the article very suspicious in a world when the developing countries (like China) are slowly defying the "conventions" imposed by "first world" or former colonial powers and their agencies (IMF-WB, WTO).

My apologies with the threadsetter, but i want to puke :puke1:after reading the arguments of the authors of the article(I doubt if this paper will be accepted in international scholastic journals. Its too bias. I hope the Latin Americans will read this where an entire civilization was wipe out :nolurk: when Columbus,Cortes and Pizarro invaded the New World. Btw, they hate Columbus)

This article it seems in my opinion is nothing more but a way of justifying the colonization of free nations....In the first place these colonizers have no right to stripped their "colonies" dry...I mean whatever wealth they have earned or accumulated in the past came from the raw materials and human resources (free labor from slaves) they exploited from conquered lands...

Plain and simple, Mercantilism at its height...these colonial powers need more capital, labor and new market so they started to move out of their country and "discover" and explore new lands.

Malas natin, nakita tayo ni Magellan (before 1521, magellan passed by the Philippines not knowing the country exists. They only know Moluccas of Portugal then..Now, when they came here, Spain for instance talked about spreading Christianity as their main reason for conquering nations but the truth is they are looking for new lands that they can freely exploit...(because Europeans are sick and tired of screwing each other. or the monarchy wants to find lands to kick out their restless populace i.e. poor people/peasants, protestants (germans, dutch), catholics (irish), convicts (australia, philippines?)

Isa pa, because of their colonizers, conflict between ethnic races intensified because of their devide and rule policy (In the Philippines, sabi ng kastila, wag magtiwala ang Tagalog sa Ilocano o Pampango, ang taga LUzon sa Visayas at Mindanao.etc.). reducing our chance of developing as a true nation. Did you know for 333 years only about a few thousand or more spaniards came to this country? So to quell revolts here (like the famous Dagohoys revolt) The Spaniards used Pinoys against Pinoys in battle.

So in my opinion, mas mayaman tayo kung hindi sinira ng colonizers ang
bansa natin. Late na nga tayo naging independent- nation. US nga 1776 e. Mexico and other Bolivar republics in 1820s ata...

So the arguments of the authors of the article are nothing more but #*!%*