From Arizona to Pacific Asian American History

[violence in the media]

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I thought such things don't happen. Rather, I was trying to indicate that I thought such things were a bad way to go about solving the problem.

I live in Central Florida, so I understand what you're talking about in regards to the various methods of anti-homeless dickery that certain municipalities engage in.

[Crissa]

Now go wail on Ganbare and Frank who keeps insisting the Philippine-American War gained the Philippines independence. Since your position is that our independence is a sham, then Ganbare and Frank are total idiots in your book.

It won them the right to be a banana republic, instead of a state.

Woo.

Also, I've already said what you said in racist frames...

Racism is not the fucking problem for Hispanics and Blacks. It is poverty. Asian-Americans are proof of that. They succeeded in America despite racist shit like "The Yellow Peril" afflicting the minds of many idiots. Filipino-Americans are successful in spite of being mistaken for fucking Mexicans.

It's not racist. It's stating facts.

Look, we've linked to you being wrong, repeatedly. Why do you insist on this racist shit?

Spanish is an American language. A third of Arizona is latino, and always has been. There have always been more in California, New Mexico, Texas - but has been legal, and yes, it's easiest to point at the 1930s.

Why is it easiest to point at the 30s? Because it was blatant. But history is whitewashed. You wouldn't know from that site the history of the latino worker's village or the demise of the chinese village, would you? You wouldn't even know they existed. But the racism that was rampant before the war just returned afterwards, and more people from that time are still alive. We call them Teabaggers now a days.

They're still apologizing and covering up. Why are you joining them?

-Crissa

[mean_liar]

I don't even know what you're saying here, Crissa.

[Crissa]

I don't even know what you're saying here, Crissa.

It's easier to find documentation of someone else's crimes, or of crimes of someone who is dead. No one wants to talk about their own misdeeds.

-Crissa

ACLU studied the records of 11 police departments of those getting Federal funds via the Border Star program to hunt down alien criminals. Ten departments detained 656 non-criminal deportable aliens, and arrested five gang members. That means they got money to go after criminals, but less than one percent of those these police departments detained were criminals.

[Zinegata]

Look, we've linked to you being wrong, repeatedly. Why do you insist on this racist shit?

Spanish is an American language. A third of Arizona is latino, and always has been. There have always been more in California, New Mexico, Texas - but has been legal, and yes, it's easiest to point at the 1930s.

Why is it easiest to point at the 30s? Because it was blatant. But history is whitewashed. You wouldn't know from that site the history of the latino worker's village or the demise of the chinese village, would you? You wouldn't even know they existed. But the racism that was rampant before the war just returned afterwards, and more people from that time are still alive. We call them Teabaggers now a days.

They're still apologizing and covering up. Why are you joining them?

-Crissa

I fail to see how links showing civil rights activities in the 1930s and the 1960s prove that Asian Americans continue to march up and down the streets in very large numbers demanding more "equal rights" and insisting that Chinese be taught in public schools today.

Oh, right. Because you can't find any major Asian-American civil rights push in the present day. Which is why we're talking about native Filipinos as opposed to Asian Americans and the racism in the fucking 30s.

Again, like many left-wing nuts, you just play the fucking race card whenever somebody has the temerity to say "The problem with the Hispanic and African-American community isn't racism. It's poverty."

The fact is Crissa, you and Ganbare call people racist or sexist not because they're actually racist or sexist. You call them that because you don't like them or what they have to say.

[Zinegata]

I don't even know what you're saying here, Crissa.

She's just trying to slam Teabaggers again (Why she keeps trying when nobody cares... I dunno).

Which is why arguments tend to be utterly incoherent. Kinda hard to relate Teabaggers to the political activism and wealth levels of various American minorities.

[Kaelik]

Okay, so no more interest is apparent, I'm going to go ahead and call and end to submissions.

First, I want to give a shout out to Phone Lobster as an honorable mention.

He didn't quite follow the rules of pointing to a specific instance, but he did create a hypothetical instance where I might have said something totally sexist, and then explain why he couldn't actually link to it.

Also, he recanted. So yeah, Honorable mention.

4th place goes to: Crissa. The "everyone who disagrees with anything ever promoted in the name of feminism, much less disagrees with the methods of large groups of feminists who are in turn opposed by other large groups of feminists is sexist" argument has a lot of collateral damage, and also indicates that she is a sexist, because she disagrees with some things that feminism promotes (unless she both supports pornography and wants to ban it at the same time?). Sorry, just too much collateral damage there.

3rd place: IGTN made a strong showing for last before Crissa beat him out, featuring the "If you insult anyone ever, you are sexist" argument, before running away from his own stupidity at light speed when faced with actual implications. But he only called most people in the world sexist, not all of them, so he only takes 4th.

2nd place: Ganbare takes second with his "What Ceiling Cat and IGTN said only I also imply you are a mind reader" argument. He loses points for originality, since he only stole other people's examples. But he did drop out early of any attempt to defend his wild assertions, and so never got driven into an actual "what constitutes sexism" definition that would include himself. Props on that front.

The jury is still out on whether his edit that occurred under a minute after he posted featured a correction of actually calling Ceiling Cat "he" and then correcting himself. But points are awarded on the principle of corrections counting for full credit if made ahead of time.

1st place: Ceiling Cat. While admittedly a lackluster showing, Ceiling Cat was completely original and didn't accidentally create any collateral sexism damage. Ceiling Cat is the only accuser to not say anything that might incidentally lead to the accusation itself indicating the sexism of the accuser, and for that alone takes first place in the Kaelik is sexist finals.

Next year, we hope to have a contestant that uses direct quotes and doesn't fundamentally redefine sexism after joining the challenge.

[Ganbare Gincun]

The intent was STILL to turn governance over to them. Later. Which is a dick move, but when that's their plan pre-revolution and then they follow through on that plan in an exaggeratedly slow method (due to threats from competing regional imperial powers, namely Japan), it's not an argument that the revolution did ANYTHING.

The United States never had any intention to turn over governance to the Filipinos. The conflict originated with the signing of the Treaty of Paris of 1898 between the United States and Spain following the United States' victory in the Spanish-American War. The treaty illegally stipulated that the United States could purchase the former colonial possessions of the Spanish Empire for $20 million, a controversial offer which was accepted by President McKinley despite the establishment of the First Philippine Republic and previous understandings with the Filipino people that the United States would not do so. There was already a Filipino government in place that they deliberately moved in to displace so they could take over the island as their colonial possession. The First Philippine Commission was little more then a smoke screen, a way to justify taking the country as a colonial possession. Kind of like invading a country for weapons of mass destruction that don't exist, or claiming that someone engaged your vessels in combat as a pretext for invasion. Your argument that America waged a genocidal war against the Filipino people is asinine bullshit.

So far you've got a lot of links showing that there was a resistance, but nothing really showing how that resistance did anything to change American plans for the nation.

The Benevolent Assimiliation Proclamation lays out what the United States originally intended to do with the Philippines:

With the signature of the treaty of peace between the United States and Spain by their respective plenipotentiaries at Paris on the 10th instant, and as a result of the victories of American arms, the future control, disposition, and government of the Philippine Islands are ceded to the United States. In the fulfillment of the rights of sovereignity thus acquired and the responsible obligations of government thus assumed, the actual occupation and administration of the entire group of the Philippine Islands becomes immediately necessary, and the military government heretofore maintained by the United States in the city, harbor, and bay of Manila is to be extended with all possible despatch to the whole of the ceded territory.

The Philippines would have come under the auspices of a military government that would have been administered by either American military officers or local collaborators that were willing to swear an oath of loyalty to the United States. It sounds like a fairly modest situation on paper, but this document was recognized as being little more then a pleasant euphemism for the invasion of their country by the Filipino people, and this suspicion was borne out by the loss of 30% of the Filipino population in the ensuing conflict with the United States. The Filipinos may have lost the war, but the "trouble" that they caused for the Americans encouraged them to give the Filipinos a much greater degree of local autonomy then other colonies that they acquired via the Treaty Of Paris, which eventually gave way to a puppet state (that the Hak fought against), and finally a degree of actual independence (which Frank talked about earlier in the thread).

[Zinegata]

Ganbare, I called the Philippines your Iraq of the 1900s long before you did*. Stop plagiarizing.

Also, your point is still fundamentally wrong because while the McKinley administration did not intend to hand over power... subsequent administrations did. Hence the Schurman Commission, Jones Law, Tydings-McDuffie, and all the other stuff you quoted previously.

Seriously, you're shooting yourself in the foot. You presented all of the evidence that showed America WAS gonna turn over power to a Philippine government.

*Mean_Liar-> Some tidbits Ganbare missed:

The Filipinos and Americans were actually initially allied against Spain. Dewey provided transport ships to allow Aguinaldo to return from exile in Hong Kong to lead a rebellion.

Basically, Dewey's job was to take the Philippines. His problem was that while he had big ships, he had no marines. So he contacted Aguinaldo and convinced him to provide him with a Filipino ground force, which would be supported by the US Navy.

Dewey was also quoted by Aguinaldo as saying that "We've already promised Cuba independence. How can we be interested in a set of island even father away?" And Dewey may have sincerely believed that. Unfortunately, the US government's actual position turned out to be very different.

Ultimately though, one thing that Ganbare keeps missing is that Aguinaldo's republic... didn't exactly had huge popular support. In fact, Aguinaldo had already tried a revolt earlier without American naval superiority and failed miserably. Hence his exile in Hong Kong.

Moreover, Aguinaldo was never voted into office. It was really a junta of Revolutionary leaders (many half-Spanish, as opposed to native Filipinos), and its support mainly came from the Tagalog areas - Manila, Pampanga, Laguna, Batangas, Cavite, etc.

And it was also a junta that basically murdered two of our most prominent national heroes - Andres Bonifacio (who founded the original revolutionary moveent) and Antonio Luna (the only professionally trained officer in the Filipino Army). Both men were killed because they opposed Aguinaldo or some of his cronies from Cavite.

Which is probably why Aguinaldo ended up losing his bid for the Commonwealth presidency in 1934 - an actual election that applied to the whole country. He wasn't really that popular, and would probably have turned into a typical South American dictator if he hadn't fucked up the Philippine-American War.

[Ganbare Gincun]

how we are "crazy" to be posting anything about these laws. Your implicit consent is quite clear.

Once again. This is something I have never said, and you have repeatedly failed to be able to point to me saying. You are just lying here. This is just a lie.

Bullshit! This is exactly what you said when you entered the thread, in reaction to my links concerning the debacle in Arizona:

Ganbare, could you tone back the crazy somewhat? I would rather learn French from someone who speaks French than someone who speaks Quebecois.

If you have ability to do so, go ahead.

And you'll note that the ethnic studies groups are being cancelled for the exact reason black only schools are. It may not be a wise choice. It may not be an informed choice. But to cast it as racist is only a symptom of your paranoia.

Your first point in this statement was bullshit, and so was your second statement, and indeed, bullshit pretty much comprises all of your arguments that I've seen so far!

"Repeatedly"? Maybe two or three times in this thread, and probably not more than once outside of this thread in the last month. Compared to the four hundred times I've called her stupid, and 30+ retardeds. Clearly I think she has a learning disorder, not that she's female. Why don't you harp on that for five minutes?

I'll reiterate - you are not using the kind of generic, commonplace insults that are a staple of this Forum, but you are using insults that are sexist and pronouns that are derogatory because you can't support your arguments and statements and you want to draw attention from that fact.

But yet, Kaelik is an omniscient mind reading god who could only possibly use the pronoun he had been using for the past four years to describe Ceiling Cat as part of an elaborate insult.

Kaelik, I've only been on this Forum for a year, and when I discovered that Ceilingcat was transgendered, it took me all of one second to deduce that using a male pronoun to refer to her would be considered ignorant at best and insulting at worst. You don't need to be a mind reader to figure this out - you just need a little common sense, an attribute that you have demonstrated that you significantly lack in this thread.

[IGTN]

I stand by what I said; I just haven't had time to come up with a proper rebuttal. When Frank said the thing you quoted him on, that was a sexist act. "Bitch" is a gendered word. Calling a woman a "bitch" as an attack is attacking her for being a woman. It is a slur. Calling a man a "bitch" is attacking him for being unmanly. The usage is different used on men and woman. On women, it's used to mean "woman whom I don't like", on men it's almost exactly synonymous with "[EDITED]" (except in cases like "prison bitch", where it means "rape victim"), which I'd hope nobody here is going to argue isn't a slur. The verb usage (as in "quit your bitching") is questionable and I'm not going to address it here.

Frank's not a deity; he does, in fact, do wrong things on occasion. And was there ever a time when "he does it too" makes something right? But slipping up once in a while doesn't make Frank a bad person.

There's an important point here that I think you missed in your "you're calling Frank sexist" rant. It's far more meaningful to call out sexist acts than sexist people. Saying someone is sexist on the basis of one act is as worthless as using the present tense for something that happened, if the timestamps are right, more than five years ago. If someone consistently commits and defends sexist acts, then calling them sexist might be more useful. Not before.

Next, this

Asshole is a term generally used to insult humans. If I use it to an insult a specific human being, am I implicitly insulting all human beings? Why is it any different from Bitch?

Before, I'd been giving you the credit that you were smart and just wrong. When I read that, I was tempted to think you were too stupid to breathe and just stop engaging. In case you're just playing at being stupid, or genuinely are unable to see things from any perspective other than your own,

Let me define my terms here, so that we don't get into a huge semantic debate without knowing what we're doing. I'm defining a slur to be a word that separates two groups of people and casts one as the worse thing to be. For it to have power, it also has to reinforce a difference in social standing or what-have-you. Without that it's practically empty.

Let's deal with the first part first. "Bitch" applies to women or describes a man as like a woman. "[EDITED]" applies to gay men or describes a straight man as "acting gay". "N____r" (this word gets edited) applies to black people, not to white people. "Asshole" applies to people in general. It does not separate one group of people from another and cast them as the worse thing to be. A slur takes that separation.

I suppose you could have a hypothetical race of aliens with radically different digestive processes from ours who use "asshole" only to refer to people who have them. In that case, "asshole" would become a slur. Not necessarily a powerful one, since we've said nothing about the relative power and social status of the humans and the aliens.

The status thing is less obvious, but it's necessary. It's the reason why "n____r" has power, and "honky" doesn't. That women have less status than men in the ways we conventionally measure it is fairly obvious. High-paying careers in engineering, finance, and so on are mostly male (this says 83% of directorships and 97.5% of CEO positions in investment banking, for instance). Also, the majority of the US belongs to a religion whose holy texts say that women are unclean and should not speak in church.

In the aliens analogy, if we're invading them and looting their planets, "asshole" is an empty slur; they call us "assholes" and we go back home confident that they'll be shot when their uppityness becomes a threat to us. Maybe the police will shoot a few more that weren't doing anything, just to be sure. If it's the other way around, it's not; being called an "asshole" might well be a prelude to shooting you and getting away with it.

[Ganbare Gincun]

Ganbare, I called the Philippines your Iraq of the 1900s long before you did. Stop plagiarizing.

Fuck you, Zinegata. The parallels between the Philippine War and the Iraq War are uncanny, and you know it.

Also, your point is still fundamentally wrong because while the McKinley administration did not intend to hand over power... subsequent administrations did. Hence the Schurman Commission, Jones Law, Tydings-McDuffie, and all the other stuff you quoted previously.

The United States never intended to hand over power. But when their hand was forced, they made enough concessions to ensure that they would have a puppet state in place without having to murder everyone on the island. The acts that came after the Philippine Organic Act were an extension of this idea, which did eventually result in Filipino sovereignty.

Moreover, Aguinaldo was never voted into office. It was really a junta of Revolutionary leaders (many half-Spanish, as opposed to native Filipinos), and its support mainly came from the Tagalog areas - Manila, Pampanga, Laguna, Batangas, Cavite, etc.

And it was also a junta that basically murdered two of our most prominent national heroes - Andres Bonifacio (who founded the original revolutionary moveent) and Antonio Luna (the only professionally trained officer in the Filipino Army). Both men were killed because they opposed Aguinaldo or some of his cronies from Cavite.

Wikipedia has this to say about Luna:

At the end of May, Colonel Joaquín Luna, Antonio’s brother, warned him about a plot concocted by “old elements’ of the Revolution (who were bent on accepting autonomy under American sovereignty to stop the terror of “the American rampage” that was ravaging the country) and a clique of army officers whom Luna had disarmed, arrested, or insulted.

Wikipedia doesn't directly lay the blame at Aguinaldo's feet for the murder of Luna, but if this is indeed true, then it was incredibly retarded.

The demise of Luna, the most brilliant and capable of the Filipino generals, was a decisive factor in the fight against the American forces. Even the Americans developed an astonished admiration for him. One of them, General Hughes, said of his death, probably relishing the irony, “The Filipinos had only one general, and they have killed him.”

Subsequently, Aguinaldo suffered successive, disastrous losses in the field, retreating towards northern Luzon. In less than two years, he was captured in Isabela by American forces, led by General Frederick Funston and their Kapampangan allies, the Macabebe mercenaries. Aguinaldo was later brought to Manila, and made to pledge allegiance to the United States.

The Wikpedia entry on Andres Bonifacio's death doesn't definitively address the issue of whether or not his execution was justified. I'd have to do more research to come to a conclusion in my mind about this issue, but I don't think that it would be a definitive one given the fact that actual historians seem to have vastly differing views regarding the situation. And I believe that the stance that you hold regarding this issue pretty much determines whether or not Aguinaldo's election as President on January 1, 1899 by the Philippine Constitutional Convention is valid or not. But he was still the leader of the insurgency against the Americans, and regardless of the legitimacy of his election, this lent him a great deal of military and political capital that led to his recognition as the person that the United States had to defeat to "win the war".

Which is probably why Aguinaldo ended up losing his bid for the Commonwealth presidency in 1934 - an actual election that applied to the whole country. He wasn't really that popular, and would probably have turned into a typical South American dictator if he hadn't fucked up the Philippine-American War.

If Aguinaldo was responsible for the murder of two revolutionary heroes, then I would have to agree with this assessment. Once again, I'd have to do more research to come to a conclusion regarding this matter. That being said, it doesn't make our invasion of the Philippines any more legitimate or justified.

[Ganbare Gincun]

We didn't move any goalposts - you did. You decided to use your own racial background as an example of how a particular Asian-American minority has such "wonderful relations" with the United States, and then Frank and I posted links and proved that the foundation for both the freedom of the Philippines and the security of Filipino-Americans is one that is drenched in blood and built on the bodies of dead Filipino soldiers.

Yes. You moved the goalpost from Asian-Americans to native Filipinos. Thank you for confirming it with your own words even though you deny it, you lying shit.

Fuck you. You're just sore that you ran your mouth off about how your people "didn't protest" and "didn't lobby" to gain your freedoms, and then Frank and I show up with a bunch of evidence showing that your people - like most minorities - had to fight for what they've earned, both in the United States and on the world stage. You got called on your bullshit attempt to separate yourself from the other minorities that you clearly loathe, everyone knows it, and all you can do it yell and scream like a petulant fucking child.

[Ganbare Gincun]

See, the reason why you're doing it? Because if you say I'm a racist, you look fucking silly. Because if you do that you're gonna accuse a yellow-skinned guy of racism. And that doesn't work. The Race Card works only against white boys .

Are you fucking serious? You're the person that came into the thread saying that you think that the "blacks and the mexicans should shut the fuck up". I don't care if you're a Filipino or not - your overt racism and your desire to differentiate yourself from other colored people comes through loud and clear.

[Kaelik]

I stand by what I said; I just haven't had time to come up with a proper rebuttal. When Frank said the thing you quoted him on, that was a sexist act. "Bitch" is a gendered word. Calling a woman a "bitch" as an attack is attacking her for being a woman. It is a slur. Calling a man a "bitch" is attacking him for being unmanly. The usage is different used on men and woman. On women, it's used to mean "woman whom I don't like", on men it's almost exactly synonymous with "[EDITED]" (except in cases like "prison bitch", where it means "rape victim"), which I'd hope nobody here is going to argue isn't a slur. The verb usage (as in "quit your bitching") is questionable and I'm not going to address it here.

Once again. Calling someone a bitch is not insulting them for being a women. Just like calling someone a bastard is not insulting them for their parents not being married, and calling someone a retard is not insulting them for having a learning disorder.

These are terms that have become generic insults.

Why do you steadfastly state that anyone who ever does anything you disagree with is sexist regardless of intent or consequence. What the fuck are you using as a measurement?

When I call Crissa a bitch, is it actually because I think she's acting like a woman and that's bad? No, not any more so than I think she is acting like someone who's parents aren't married, or like someone who has sex with monkeys.

When I call Crissa, is anyone (other than you apparently) going to think less of her for "being a woman?" No. Because that would be stupid.

I mean fuck, I didn't want to have to actually break out another dictionary definition, but damn:

"sex·ism (skszm)
n.
1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender."

Am I discriminating based on gender? Of course not, I fucking call everyone a bitch.

Is insulting someone because I disagree with them "promoting stereotyping of social roles based on gender"? How? And why only when I insult Crissa instead of when I insult everyone else in the fucking gaming den?


FYI: When I say "My Motherfucking God" the my indicates possessiveness. Since there are no actual deities at all, it goes without saying that he's not actually a deity. It is merely a metaphor for how I respect him more than 99% of the people in the world.

[Ganbare Gincun]

Guys, Kaelik's been imploding at an accelerating rate for a while now. It's pretty obvious only a mass-ignore will do any good here. I'll start.

How "typical" of me. What with Zinegata and his extensive experience of either me (What? I acknowledged the existence of his raving insanity in like in ONE part of ONE thread!) or alternately my type (yeah, sure this guy doesn't have severe prejudice issues).

Anyway, apparently Up is Down because he quoted something stating Up was Up. Again. I'm amazed you guys are even attempting talking to him.

Perhaps the most sensible things said in this thread thus far.

Lord knows I have better things to do then continue to debate in vain with intellectually dishonest trolls that have no compunctions about lying through their teeth and derailing threads in order to prevent any honest discussion of political issues by rational people.

[Crissa]

Asian Americans continue to march up and down the streets in very large numbers demanding more "equal rights" and insisting that Chinese be taught in public schools today.

WTF does this come from? Who said that asian-americans needed to? You were the one who said they didn't need to protest to get equal rights! As if they hadn't!

There are schools that teach asian languages. For children. I just was at the grocery store where dozens of little boys and girls - like, five year olds - had their colorings displayed, and their names proudly in english or japanese.

There are entire towns that still speak Spanish, and you're saying their children shouldn't be taught as anything other than second-class citizens.

-Crissa

[Zinegata]

Fuck you, Zinegata. The parallels between the Philippine War and the Iraq War are uncanny, and you know it.

... I am staking claim to the fact I said it first. Again, you're fucking plagiarizing off me.

The United States never intended to hand over power. But when their hand was forced, they made enough concessions to ensure that they would have a puppet state in place without having to murder everyone on the island. The acts that came after the Philippine Organic Act were an extension of this idea, which did eventually result in Filipino sovereignty.

The Mckinley Administration and the United States are not interchangeable terms.

Wikipedia has this to say about Luna:

At the end of May, Colonel Joaquín Luna, Antonio’s brother, warned him about a plot concocted by “old elements’ of the Revolution (who were bent on accepting autonomy under American sovereignty to stop the terror of “the American rampage” that was ravaging the country) and a clique of army officers whom Luna had disarmed, arrested, or insulted.

Wikipedia doesn't directly lay the blame at Aguinaldo's feet for the murder of Luna, but if this is indeed true, then it was incredibly retarded.

The demise of Luna, the most brilliant and capable of the Filipino generals, was a decisive factor in the fight against the American forces. Even the Americans developed an astonished admiration for him. One of them, General Hughes, said of his death, probably relishing the irony, “The Filipinos had only one general, and they have killed him.”

Subsequently, Aguinaldo suffered successive, disastrous losses in the field, retreating towards northern Luzon. In less than two years, he was captured in Isabela by American forces, led by General Frederick Funston and their Kapampangan allies, the Macabebe mercenaries. Aguinaldo was later brought to Manila, and made to pledge allegiance to the United States.

The unit that murdered Luna was basically Aguinaldo's elite guard. And were never punished for it. Draw your own concluion.

The Wikpedia entry on Andres Bonifacio's death doesn't definitively address the issue of whether or not his execution was justified. I'd have to do more research to come to a conclusion in my mind about this issue, but I don't think that it would be a definitive one given the fact that actual historians seem to have vastly differing views regarding the situation.

Bonifacio was basically forced out the revolutionary leadership by Aguinaldo's faction, who were latecomers to the whole revolution deal. When Bonifacio threatened to continue the struggle seperately from Aguinaldo, he was murdered along with his brother.

And then Aguinaldo proceeded to surrender to the Spanish a few months later, took a huge wad of cash, and went on exile in Hong Kong. Needless to say, that made him pretty unpopular with surviving Bonifacio supporters.

Which is why very few of them were eager to join the second revolution when Aguinaldo returned. At least until Aguinaldo started distributing more modern rifles shipped in with the help of the Americans.

And I believe that the stance that you hold regarding this issue pretty much determines whether or not Aguinaldo's election as President on January 1, 1899 by the Philippine Constitutional Convention is valid or not. But he was still the leader of the insurgency against the Americans, and regardless of the legitimacy of his election, this lent him a great deal of military and political capital that led to his recognition as the person that the United States had to defeat to "win the war".

It doesn't really matter if he was a valid leader or not. But to claim that he represents the Philippines as a whole is pretty far-fetched. He was the leader of a particular segment of the population (Tagalogs, Half-Spaniards), but he wasn't seen - during his time - as the legitimate leader for all the Philippines.

In fact, the Malolos Constitution specifically excludes the Muslim quarter in the south from the Philippine's area of sovereignty. It recognized that there is something called the Sultanate of Sulu - a seperate independent state - that encompassed what is today the southern part of the Philippines.

Unfortunately, the Spaniards lied to the Americans and said the Sultanate was part of their deal. This then led to the 10 year insurgency in the south, which was totally unrelated to the Aguinaldo revolution.

Today however, official Philippine history tends to gloss over this. Because the government in Manila tends to not like the Muslims being right about the whole "We were never actually PART of the Philippines deal" .

If Aguinaldo was responsible for the murder of two revolutionary heroes, then I would have to agree with this assessment. Once again, I'd have to do more research to come to a conclusion regarding this matter. That being said, it doesn't make our invasion of the Philippines any more legitimate or justified.

No evidence proves he actually ordered it. But it is also historical fact that Aguinaldo never even tried to punish the murderers. And that they were committed by his most loyal men. However, much like Benedict Arnold these incidents are now glossed over.

Moreover, again, his power base was with the Tagalogs, specifically Cavite. The rest of the country was pretty "meh" towards him. Which is why he got his ass kicked in the 1934 elections. The 1934 election was a national election, as opposed to just being one in his home province.

Basically, Aguinaldo represented a minority ala Saddam representing the Sunnis of Iraq. Maybe he would have tried to make it more represetative if he had the chance. But given that he had a tendency to let his cronies murder his rivals, it didn't seem bloody likely.

[Lich-Loved]

If the new Arizona law is racist because it would have the effect of targeting Mexicans, are crack laws racist because many of those arrested on crack charges black?

[Zinegata]

WTF does this come from? Who said that asian-americans needed to?

Prior to 1965, Chinese were completely banned from immgrating to the United States. And when people say "no colored people allowed", that included Chinese.

Plus the whole "Yellow Peril" deal.

If you want something more recent, see the anti-Japan hate in the 80s, and the current Sinophobia about how "China now owns America".

There are schools that teach asian languages. For children. I just was at the grocery store where dozens of little boys and girls - like, five year olds - had their colorings displayed, and their names proudly in english or japanese.

Likewise you can teach Spanish in a private school. So why the fuck are Hispanic "leaders" still complaining about English being the primary language of discourse in public schools?

There are entire towns that still speak Spanish, and you're saying their children shouldn't be taught as anything other than second-class citizens.

-Crissa

No, you're a fucking idiot who again does not read. Read what I actually fucking wrote again about the language in schools issue, and don't limit yourself to tiny snippets from the latest post.

[Crissa]

If the new Arizona law is racist because it would have the effect of targeting Mexicans, are crack laws racist because many of those arrested on crack charges black?

Yes.

They were never challenged in court, that I know of, but last year the discrepancy was changed. Elections have consequences.

-Crissa

[Zinegata]

See, if it targets African-Americans or Hispanics, it's racist.

But if it targets Asian-Americans like unfair immigration practices, it's not.

The only real difference? Asian-Ameicans don't vote overwhelmingly Democrats.

Democrats are self-serving hypocrites when it comes to race.

[IGTN]

Kaelik:
So now you're arguing that history is meaningless. In a fucking history thread. The word has a history of being a sexist slur. It wouldn't be a "generic insult" if it didn't have that history as a sexist slur. It wouldn't have any power at all without that history; it'd be a word used exclusively by dog-breeders. Because of this, it is received as a sexist slur. You're arguing that what's going on in your head (we're not mindreaders) makes all of this irrelevant.

Even if you actually don't use it disproportionately for women compared to men, though. I don't know, maybe the people you speak with speak a form of English where the word has absolutely no gendered meaning. It's unlikely, but I'm not ruing it out. But to most of the English-speaking world it is, in fact, a sexist slur, whether they acknowledge it or not. It's power comes from the ability to either put women in their place or call men women.

Just for an example of conventional usage, who does the sentence "how do we beat the bitch" refer to? You can google it if you want.

In communication, how something is received is more important than what it meant to the sender. But it's the sender's responsibility to ensure that what is received is actually what they meant. How "bitch" is received by all of us who are calling you on this is as a sexist slur. The proper response to a situation where you say something you don't mean is to apologize, correct yourself, and say what you mean. If you insist that using "bitch" to put down specifically (in this thread) a woman is important to you, then to everyone else it really looks like there's something you're not willing to admit.

[Cielingcat]

Kaelik, I've only been on this Forum for a year, and when I discovered that Ceilingcat was transgendered, it took me all of one second to deduce that using a male pronoun to refer to her would be considered ignorant at best and insulting at worst. You don't need to be a mind reader to figure this out - you just need a little common sense, an attribute that you have demonstrated that you significantly lack in this thread.

I've mostly stayed quiet because everything I could say is being said better by other people, but I'd like to add that Kaelik has also said he has absolutely no respect for my identity, so he's clearly aware of what that is-he just intentionally misgenders me to insult me. He doesn't lack common sense, because he's doing it on purpose to hurt me, specifically.

[ubernoob]

Kaelik, I've only been on this Forum for a year, and when I discovered that Ceilingcat was transgendered, it took me all of one second to deduce that using a male pronoun to refer to her would be considered ignorant at best and insulting at worst. You don't need to be a mind reader to figure this out - you just need a little common sense, an attribute that you have demonstrated that you significantly lack in this thread.

I've mostly stayed quiet because everything I could say is being said better by other people, but I'd like to add that Kaelik has also said he has absolutely no respect for my identity, so he's clearly aware of what that is-he just intentionally misgenders me to insult me. He doesn't lack common sense, because he's doing it on purpose to hurt me, specifically.

Do you seriously believe you are that important? Seriously?