-Caveat Lector- <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/"> </A> -Cui Bono?- an excerpt from: The Untold Philippine Story Hernado J. Abaya Malaya Books, Inc©1967. Quezon City, Philippines 370pps. -2nd Printing- --[1]-- THE FILIPINO AND "MANIFEST DESTINY 1 A Contingent Necessity The writing of history, says Goethe, is one way of getting rid of the weight of the past. Thus we view events from the long perspective of history. But often, when judgment is brought to bear upon an event, the event is weighed not as it is, but as it might be. When this happens, as it does so often with us, the writing of history becomes imagination, not thought. This results in myths that we take for historical truths. And myths are a consequence of the bankruptcy of the mind. As a people, we have entertained many notions that we take for historical facts when they are nothing but myths nurtured by our own ignorance of our past. A simple case in point is this: school textbooks still record the "discovery" of the Philippines by Magellan and the "grant" of independence by the United States. Both are historically inaccurate. Rizal, in his annotations of Morga's Sucesos, ridiculed how Spanish conquistadores claimed "discovery" of islands already visited by others as a pretext to annex them. The truth is, the Spaniards were subjects of the Moors, who ruled them for seven centuries, when the much-maligned indios were already in active trade with the Cambodians, the Chinese, the Javanese, the Arabs and others. And Aguinaldo and his men had already won by arms their independence from Spain, when McKinley decided to annex us. America merely restored our freedom. She could not grant what it was not hers to give away. It is less a question of semantics than of historical truth. Yet the fiction persists because many of us have confused other people's history with our own, not realizing, as Tagore wisely says, that we cannot borrow another's history, and that if we stifle our own, we are committing suicide. Unwittingly perhaps, but with unhappy results for us, some writers of our history, including the most assiduous among them, have colored their judgments by an undue concern with trying to convert rather than to tell the truth, and with appealing to the emotions rather than to the intellect. We have, for example, a Philippine history for Catholic schools. We have also the many learned treatises on our "special relations" with the United States accepting, and defending with no little vehemence, as a historical necessity our continued economic subservience -to the United States. Many have even convinced themselves that we cannot exist as a free nation without American dole and guidance.[1] This has become a hallowed myth, almost as sacrosanct as the dogma laid down by the friars of our recent past that the moment the in dio separates from his carabao, he becomes, as Marcelo del Pilar notes in La Soberania Monacal, a traitor to God and to his king ("se hace traidor a Dios y a su rey"). It is the tragedy of weak peoples, like us, to have our history written or made to order for us. Not literally. But it has been so tailored to serve the interests of others first before our own. Rizal knew this. He saw where we were heading. He tried to emancipate us from the dead weight of the past. He opened the "book of our past" so that we might have a glimpse of our ancient glory. But we were weak. This was our curse, our tragedy. After all, he writes in El Filibusterismo, the indios were guilty of no crime other than that of weakness. "A strange destiny, that of some peoples!" muses Isagani, as he promenades on the Malecon drive in the gathering dusk. "Because a traveler arrives at his shores, they lose their liberty and become subjects and slaves, not only of the traveler, not only of his heirs, but even of all his countrymen, and not for a generation, but for all time! A strange conception of justice!" We can fully appreciate the irony of Rizal's observation if we look back in retrospect to the men and events that together helped change the course of our history in the last half century. It was in 1898 that America, under McKinley, began active participation in the affairs of Asia. This was the dawn of her "manifest destiny." The chance for America to fall back on Washington's dictum: "We shall make war or peace as our interest shall dictate ... it is folly in one nation to expect disinterested favors from another . . . " It was in 1898 when McKinley suddenly found the Philippines on his lap, and he had to implore divine guidance, for he did not know what to do with us. He walked the floor of the White House "night after night," and then, one night, it came to him 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 selfgovernment — 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 fellowmen for whom Christ also died. And then I went to bed, and went to sleep and slept soundly ... (Commented The Christian Advocate of New York City on January 22, 1903: "It seems probable that McKinley confused the voice , of the people with the voice of God, for he touched upon almost every string in the familiar harmony of imperialism.") This was a fateful turn in our destiny. Before this events had followed one another with inexorable logic. Admiral Dewey destroyed the Spanish armada in an hour's battle in Manila Bay losing one man. History books record this battle as a major event in the Spanish-American war. However, historians can find no justification for such action in the origin of the war with Spain. The U.S. Congress resolution declaring war on Spain mentioned only Cuba. There was nothing in its wording to indicate that Congress had any interest in any territory other than Cuba. This resolution was passed on April 20, 1898. Yet it was only eleven days later that Dewey, rushing down from Hongkong, attacked the Spanish fleet in Manila Bay — some 7,000 miles away from the American continent. What was he doing at Hongkong at that particular time? A few days later, McKinley authorized military operations to follow up Dewey's naval victory. An army of occupation was dispatched to Manila. By August, American troops took the city with only token opposition. An eye-witness called it a prearranged farce.'[2] This action ended Spanish rule and McKinley was faced with a soulsearching dilemma. Divine providence came to his rescue. What lay behind this turn of events? The motives remain obscure. But a number of things on record shed some light on the question. It is known, George F. Kerman says in American Diplomacy, that Theodore Roosevelt, then the young Assistant Secretary of the Navy, had long felt that America should take the Philippines; that he wangled Dewey's appointment to the command of the Asiatic fleet; that both he and Dewey wanted war; and that he had a prior understanding with Dewey to the effect that Dewey would attack Manila, regardless of the circumstances of the origin or purpose of the war. Teodoro Agoncillo writes in this connection: At this critical moment, on February 25 (1898) Secretary (John) Long, weary of the day's work, took his afternoon off. Roosevelt, acting as Secretary that afternoon, took advantage of the temporary absence of his chief and immediately cabled Dewey: Order the squadron except the Monocacy to Hongkong. Keep full of coal. In the event declaration of war Spain, your duty will be to see that the Spanish squadron does not leave the Asiatic coast, and then offensive operations in Philippine Islands. Keep Olympia until further orders. The cable was sent to Dewey fully eight days after his arrival in Hongkong, showing that Dewey knew precisely what was in the mind of Roosevelt ... (Malol os, the Crisis of the Republic, p. 93.) The imperialists at the time, the great "T.R." among them, maintained that the Philippine action was a "contingent necessity," that is, unless America took the Philippines, somebody else would, either the British or the Germans, or the Japanese. Whatever the motives, the ends justified the means. The American people of that day, Kennan observes, ... simply liked the smell of empire and felt an urge to range themselves among the colonial powers of the time, to see our flag flying on distant tropical isles, to feel the thrill of foreign adventure and authority, to bask in the sunshine of recognition as one of the great imperial powers of the world. (American Diplomacy, p. 17.) As one looks into the mirror and sees his god, so the United States put on robes of empire and found them exceedingly flattering. It was in the year 1898 that America's "manifest destiny" took on imperial dimensions. pps. 1-5 --[notes]-- 1. A Philippine Embassy official in Washington reacted in this childish fashion when President Eisenhower announced that 100,000 tons of the 700,000-ton cut in Cuba's sugar quota would go to the Philippines: "Wonderful, wonderful! This is the greatest news since President Eisenhower's visit to Manila. I am sure our people will be dancing with joy!" (Associated Press dispatch, July 7, 1960.) 2. Richard BrinsIey Sheridan in The Filipino Martyrs, published in London, 1900. ----- Aloha, He'Ping, Om, Shalom, Salaam. Em Hotep, Peace Be, All My Relations. Omnia Bona Bonis, Adieu, Adios, Aloha. Amen. Roads End Aloha, He'Ping, Om, Shalom, Salaam. Em Hotep, Peace Be, All My Relations. Omnia Bona Bonis, Adieu, Adios, Aloha. Amen. Roads End <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soap-boxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
