In EDSA II, the multitude of people congregated at EDSA shrine in Ortigas corner EDSA after the Philippine Senate prevented the opening of the envelope that was a focal point during the impeachment proceedings against then Philippine president Joseph Estrada (1998-2001). The concern then was “what was the truth behind all the allegations,” i.e. his alleged involvement in instances of graft and corruption (i.e. the Singson expose on tobacco excise tax and jueteng¹ issue, the alleged market manipulation resulting from his BW shares holdings, the Jose Velarde bank account, among others.

The sentiment in EDSA II was towards the extra-legal remedy (”People’s Power”) to counter an institutionalized suppression of the truth. The direct effect was the downfall of the Estrada regime, and the incidental result was that Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA) was installed as President; GMA, being the Vice President at that time. Years after EDSA II, it could be argued that the suppression of the truth is apparently not being rectified under the GMA regime, considering the legal maneuvering pursued under the President’s office (such as EO 464) or through party influence (such as party control of the houses of Congress), among others.

Yes, it would appear that the goal of EDSA II has not been achieved, i.e. the search for truth, even if there was a change in the country’s leadership. Perhaps, it was not achieved because some would have been content with the short-sighted goal of forcing a leadership change rather than incessantly pursuing the goal of imperative accountability.

So, what will one be really sorry about: participating in EDSA II or harboring the myopic perception of a leadership change in favor of GMA?

Perhaps, also, the inherently folly of operating within personality-based political system?

Interestingly though, during the duration of EDSA II, leftist militants were repeatedly berated for openly cursing GMA, in explicit language, for being an utterly unacceptable alternative to Estrada, at the EDSA Shrine, which houses a religious infrastructure. Ignoring the religious sensitivity angle, is this a case of “I told you so”?

1. an illegal numbers game

Before the United States 2008 election, specifically on 2 November 2008, Philippine Star columnist William Esposo wrote an article entitled “Why Filipino-Americans should vote for Obama.” The article appeared to imply that the imperialist stance of the United States emanated from a Republican regime.

I can agree to Mr. Esposo’s article, but not in its totality. The reasons for this is, first, that US President-elect Obama may be a Democrat but he is not the Democratic Party; and, second, that the Democratic Party is not without substantial fault in the US colonial stance in the Philippines.

To elucidate my point in the second preposition, I need to provide my appreciation of the history of US-Philippine relations.

The Philippine colonial situation in the Philippines (1899-1945) indeed resulted from a policy emanating from the Republican regime under William McKinley (US President 1897-1901). The subsequent subjugation of the Philippine Islands under the Americans was continued by Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909) and William Howard Taft (1909-1913), both Republican. It was in the regime of the Democrat Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921) that a policy towards greater autonomy, or independence, for the Philippines was entertained. It was during Wilson’s term when the Philippine Autonomy Act of 1916 (Jones Law) was promulgated. The next highlight of US-Philippine relations, similar to this, was in 1934, during the regime of Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-1945), a Democrat, with the promulgation of the Tydings-McDuffy Act, a revised version of the Hare-Hawes-Cutting Act of January 1933 (which was originally vetoed by Herbert Hoover [1929-1933], a Republican. Incidentally, Hoover was preceded by Republican presidents Warren Harding [1921-1923] and Calvin Coolidge [1923-1929], which could well be an explanation to lack of development to the Philippine autonomy during that period.). The Tydings-McDuffy Act allowed the institution of the Philippine Commonwealth and provided the timetable for Philippine independence. The ten-year period was contemplated to allow the Philippine leaders to be capable to run an independent nation under a democratic framework. That ten-year period was interrupted, however, by the Great Pacific War of World War II, in 1941.

Under the above paragraph, it would appear that real essence of democracy in relation to the Philippines was more evident under a Democrat rule than a Republican one. The problem in the argument would arise, however, from the actuation of the US after World War II, or the onset of the Philippine independence from US colonial rule in 1945.

Mr. Esposo’s article expressed that:

This Mr. Hyde character of the US is what enables them to easily forget that Filipinos fought and died for the US war with Japan. That was not our war. That was a war of the US but more Filipinos died here than Americans.

What did the US do after Japan, the enemy, was defeated? Our poor war veterans remain unrecognized and uncompensated. Instead of pouring US resources to help us rise to our feet after World War II, they poured all their efforts and energies into helping Japan, the once enemy, to emerge as an Asian economic titan.

While the US was putting all the resources needed to get Japan back to its feet, the Mr. Hyde character of the US imposed on their Filipino allies a Parity Rights Agreement that opened Philippine natural resources to exploitation by American businessmen.

The problem, in the argumentation against a Republican regime, is that the Philippine Trade Act or Bell Trade Act was promulgated in 1946, under the regime of Harry S. Truman (1945-1953), a Democrat, where the 79th US Congress was Democrat by majority.

Without espousing support to the Republican Party since they are personally loathed upon, is a Democrat regime better, than a Republican one, for the Philippines?

Under an Obama administration, we have to wait and see.

*****

On the other points of Mr. Esposo’s article, I do not oppose his preposition that:

This Mr. Hyde character of the US is what accounts for their current interest to promote a Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE) in Mindanao even if that will mean a dismemberment of Philippine territory.

The actuation of the Republican-installed ambassador in the Philippines is suspect in the Bangsamoro problem. In general, however, due to the over breath of the US position on anti-terrorism under the Bush administration, it could be one reason for me to welcome the alternative regime.

Mr. Esposo further provided a quip:

Really, if you think logically, Filipinos ought to declare war against the US because following historical precedent we stand to gain more than if we remain their trusting friend and ally.

I would surmise that the last quip was a natural consequence of Mr. Esposo’s appreciation of US-Philippine relations. Passion has led me to espouse the same in the past as a reaction of the US’ treatment of the Philippines as a mendicant in its push to secure US interests.

My ambivalence, sometimes distrust, on US leadership in relation to its position on the Philippines, resonates in parallel to a John Foster Dulles quote (Dulles was the Secretary of State of US President Dwight D. Eisenhower [1953-1961], a Republican: “The United States of America does not have friends; it has interests.”

I can be agreeable to the regulation of acts — as what may be acceptable would be ingrained in the laws of the country that enforces them, and the duty of people (whether personally agreeable or not to the scope of such laws) to comply therewith for the simple fact that they are subjects of such country (whatever the nature of the government that is subsisting therein). Conventions and treaties would be instrumental in expanding the scope of the enforcement of such laws, depending upon the adherence of countries to such treaty/convention, else the acceptance of such treaty/convention as customary international law by countries which do not formally adhere to such. I have, thus, no objection in the formulation of the “law of the net” in the determination of common prohibited acts and simplification of court jurisdiction to punish such acts. Corollarily, regulation of acts by private entities (such as determined in the terms and conditions provided by an Internet facility or service provider) does not depart from this premise, inasmuch as agreements are within the purview of the law on contracts. The content of the contract is the law between the parties. In furtherance, therefore, the content resulting from the infringing act would be justifiably removed, not because of censorship but due to the enforcement of law.

I cannot agree, however, with the regulation of content, per se — as what may be acceptable would be subject to the standards of governments, institutions, societies, and individuals; depending upon the relationship of the one advocating it in relation to power of control or formulation of policy; and depending whether the perceived evil sought to be prevented is actual/real or assumed to be real; among others. I am currently unable to find a single and consistent point of reference. The myriad of factors to be considered renders the application of such regulation, especially as to its “acceptable” scope, quite subjective and situational. The points of justification, further, to market its palatability, appear disjointed or alternative, rather than cumulative. I wonder, hence, considering the direction to promote fully the upheld freedom of expression, whether “the utilization of censorship would eventually be contradictory in the end” (similar to instances in the advocacy of democracy or the democratic process, which sometimes undermine the target audience’s right to self-determination in choosing their own preferred system).

Is censorship (at any degree) actually acceptable?

A central issue in my predicament is the proper appreciation of extreme content. Even considering the effect of such literature on real world events, which would provide the justification for their censorship, I still cannot bring myself to accept the prospect of having absolute non-availability of such content. I would not be able to make an informed criticism, else rejection, of such extreme position without resort to its original articulation. Resort to the abridged version of the literature from a “more acceptable” source, albeit secondary, would not suffice for such purpose. A sanitation of resources, depending upon the dominant agenda, could discourage a deeper discourse, and an introspection or reinforcement of certain beliefs or positions within the moderate spectrum. In the end, would the goals be better served by suppression of expression, or by the cultivation of a mature audience that would intelligently appraise expressions?

At the conclusion of the Spanish-American war, “[t]he city of Manila was surrendered to the United States on 13 August 1898, and the military commander was directed to hold the city, bay, and harbor, pending the conclusion of a peace which should determine the control, disposition, and government of the Islands.”¹ Subsequently, and similarly subsequent to the signing of the Treaty of Paris on 10 December 1898, the United States President announced on 22 December 1898 “that the destruction of the Spanish fleet and the surrender of [Manila] had practically effected the conquest of the Philippine Islands and the suspension of the Spanish sovereignty therein, and that by the treaty of peace the future control, disposition, and government of the Islands had been ceded to the United States.”² On 2 March 1901, the Spooner amendment to the Army Appropriation Bill was passed, providing that “all military, civil, and judicial powers necessary to govern the Philippine Islands shall until otherwise provided by Congress be vested in such person and persons, and shall be exercised in such manner, as the President of the United States shall direct, for the establishment of civil government, and for maintaining and protecting the inhabitants of said Islands in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and religion.”³

On 29 August 1916, the United States promulgated the Philippine Autonomy Act (or the Jones Law), on the premise that “(1) it was never the intention of the people of the United States in the incipiency of the war with Spain to make it a war of conquest or for territorial aggrandizement; (2) it is, as it has always been, the purpose of the people of the United States to withdraw their sovereignty over the Philippine Islands and to recognize their independence as soon as a stable government can be established therein; and (3) “for the speedy accomplishment of such purpose it is desirable to place in the hands of the people of the Philippines as large a control of their domestic affairs as can be given them without, in the meantime, impairing the exercise of the rights of sovereignty by the people of the United States, in order that, by the use and exercise of popular franchise and governmental powers, they may be the better prepared to fully assume the responsibilities and enjoy all the privileges of complete independence.”

On 24 March 1934, the Philippine Independence Act, or the Tydings-McDuffie Act, was promulgated; setting the foundation for a Commonwealth government in the Philippines, and setting the timeline for the withdrawal and surrender of all right of possession, supervision, jurisdiction, control, or sovereignty then existing and exercised by the United States in and over the territory and people of the Philippine Islands on the 4th of July, 10 years from the inauguration of such Commonwealth government. On 14 May 1935, the 1935 Constitution of the Philippines was ratified; fixing therefore the promised independence of the Philippines by 4 July 1946.

On 7 December 1941 (8 December in the Philippines), Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, destroying the US Pacific fleet. In the months after, Japan invaded western colonies in the Southeast Asian region, including the Philippines. On 12 March 1942, General Douglas McArthur and his key USAFFE staff withdrew from the Philippines, leaving US and Philippine forces to make a last stand at Bataan and Corregidor. On 9 April 1942, Bataan was surrendered by US Maj. Gen. Edward P. King. The Philippines was under the effective control of the Japanese empire until the return of Allied forces at Leyte Gulf on 20 October 1944. The Philippines was largely back under Allied control by 17 April 1945. The Pacific War ended 15 August 1945, when Japan surrendered in light of the US bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the USSR’s invasion of Manchuria.

On 4 July 1946, the United States recognized the independence of the Philippines, upon the signing of the Treaty of General Relations between the US and the Philippines.

From 1946 to 1964, the Philippine Independence Day was observed on 4 July, coinciding with the Independence Day celebrations of the United States. On 4 August 1964, however, Republic Act 4166 was promulgated; changing the date of the Philippine Independence Day from July 4 to June 12 (the original Philippine declaration of independence against Spain), and declaring July 4 as Philippine Republic Day instead.

July 4 was declared as the “Philippine-American Friendship Day” on 4 July 1996 by then President Fidel Ramos in commemmoration of the 50th anniversary of the US “recognition of Philippine Independence.”⁴

Remembering

It has been a hundred and ten years since the relationship of the Philippines and the United States, relevant to sovereignty matters, began; and it has been sixty two years since the United States has treated the Philippines as a “theoretical” equal.

Nevertheless, the intentions of the United States remain suspect.

For one, notwithstanding the fact that the United States champions itself as a bastion of freedom and democracy, such position remains contrary to its actuations overseas for the past century. Its national interest is primordial over any other precept available in a free world.⁵ It articulates the concept of “freedom and democracy” as a justification for its invasion of sovereign states, where in fact it tramples upon those peoples’ value of self-determination.⁶ Similarly, to highlight the inconsistency of its position, it must be of note that the United States holds on to a colonial remnant called Puerto Rico even at this present day and time, notwithstanding the call from Special Committee on Decolonization, of the United Nations, for the US to expedite the self-determination process for the Puerto Rican people.

On the other hand, US legislators had in the past called upon Japan to apologize for its acts in World War II, 62 years upon its conclusion. The United States, however, seems to be oblivious of its own acts — especially during the period they call “the Philippine insurrection” — such as those atrocities committed in Samar in 1901 and in Jolo in 1906, both in the Philippines. Shouldn’t the US apologize too?

To reiterate, the intentions of the United States remain suspect, and in addition to the above, for the reason that Filipinos have been taught the US brand of friendship differently 110 years ago. To clarify, on the other hand, I would emphasize the distinction between the United States and the American people, as a generalization of the latter (as a racial retort) would not be justifiable.

Hence, in commemoration of the Philippine-American Friendship Day today (in the context of two countries), and consistent with gist of Philippine history I was made aware of when I was young, I am republishing a collaborating excerpt, later the full text, from, ironically (and fortunately to dispel complete bias on my part), an American living at that period of history, Samuel Langhorn Clemens, or more known as Mark Twain (”Adventures of Hunkleberry Finn” and “Adventures of Tom Sawyer”):

“Our case is simple. On the 1st of May, Dewey destroyed the Spanish fleet. This left the Archipelago in the hands of its proper and rightful owners, the Filipino nation. Their army numbered 30,000 men, and they were competent to whip out or starve out the little Spanish garrison; then the people could set up a government of their own devising. Our traditions required that Dewey should now set up his warning sign, and go away. But the Master of the Game happened to think of another plan – the European plan. He acted upon it. This was, to send out an army – ostensibly to help the native patriots put the finishing touch upon their long and plucky struggle for independence, but really to take their land away from them and keep it. That is, in the interest of Progress and Civilization. The plan developed, stage by stage, and quite satisfactorily. We entered into a military alliance with the trusting Filipinos, and they hemmed in Manila on the land side, and by their valuable help the place, with its garrison of 8,000 or 10,000 Spaniards, was captured – a thing which we could not have accomplished unaided at that time. We got their help by – by ingenuity. We knew they were fighting for their independence, and that they had been at it for two years. We knew they supposed that we also were fighting in their worthy cause – just as we had helped the Cubans fight for Cuban independence – and we allowed them to go on thinking so. Until Manila was ours and we could get along without them. Then we showed our hand. Of course, they were surprised – that was natural; surprised and disappointed; disappointed and grieved. To them it looked un-American; uncharacteristic; foreign to our established traditions. And this was natural, too; for we were only playing the American Game in public – in private it was the European. It was neatly done, very neatly, and it bewildered them. They could not understand it; for we had been so friendly – so affectionate, even – with those simple-minded patriots! We, our own selves, had brought back out of exile their leader, their hero, their hope, their Washington – Aguinaldo; brought him in a warship, in high honor, under the sacred shelter and hospitality of the flag; brought him back and restored him to his people, and got their moving and eloquent gratitude for it. Yes, we had been so friendly to them, and had heartened them up in so many ways! We had lent them guns and ammunition; advised with them; exchanged pleasant courtesies with them; placed our sick and wounded in their kindly care; entrusted our Spanish prisoners to their humane and honest hands; fought shoulder to shoulder with them against “the common enemy” (our own phrase); praised their courage, praised their gallantry, praised their mercifulness, praised their fine and honorable conduct; borrowed their trenches, borrowed strong positions which they had previously captured from the Spaniard; petted them, lied to them – officially proclaiming that our land and naval forces came to give them their freedom and displace the bad Spanish Government – fooled them, used them until we needed them no longer; then derided the sucked orange and threw it away. We kept the positions which we had beguiled them of; by and by, we moved a force forward and overlapped patriot ground – a clever thought, for we needed trouble, and this would produce it. A Filipino soldier, crossing the ground, where no one had a right to forbid him, was shot by our sentry. The badgered patriots resented this with arms, without waiting to know whether Aguinaldo, who was absent, would approve or not. Aguinaldo did not approve; but that availed nothing. What we wanted, in the interest of Progress and Civilization, was the Archipelago, unencumbered by patriots struggling for independence; and the War was what we needed. We clinched our opportunity. It is Mr. Chamberlain’s case over again – at least in its motive and intention; and we played the game as adroitly as he played it himself.”

Full Text: To the Person Sitting in Darkness (Mark Twain, 1901. Public domain material since 1960)

Extending the Blessings of Civilization to our Brother who Sits in Darkness has been a good trade and has paid well, on the whole; and there is money in it yet, if carefully worked – but not enough, in my judgement, to make any considerable risk advisable. The People that Sit in Darkness are getting to be too scarce ­– too scarce and too shy. And such darkness as is now left is really of but an indifferent quality, and not dark enough for the game. The most of those People that Sit in Darkness have been furnished with more light than was good for them or profitable for us. We have been injudicious.

The Blessings-of-Civilization Trust, wisely and cautiously administered, is a Daisy. There is more money in it, more territory, more sovereignty, and other kinds of emolument, than there is in any other game that is played. But Christendom has been playing it badly of late years, and must certainly suffer by it, in my opinion. She has been so eager to get every stake that appeared on the green cloth, that the People who Sit in Darkness have noticed it – they have noticed it, and have begun to show alarm. They have become suspicious of the Blessings of Civilization. More – they have begun to examine them. This is not well. The Blessings of Civilization are all right, and a good commercial property; there could not be a better, in a dim light. In the right kind of a light, and at a proper distance, with the goods a little out of focus, they furnish this desirable exhibit to the Gentlemen who Sit in Darkness:

– and so on.

There. Is it good? Sir, it is pie. It will bring into camp any idiot that sits in darkness anywhere. But not if we adulterate it. It is proper to be emphatic upon that point. This brand is strictly for Export – apparently. Apparently. Privately and confidentially, it is nothing of the kind. Privately and confidentially, it is merely an outside cover, gay and pretty and attractive, displaying the special patterns of our Civilization which we reserve for Home Consumption, while inside the bale is the Actual Thing that the Customer Sitting in Darkness buys with his blood and tears and land and liberty. That Actual Thing is, indeed, Civilization, but it is only for Export. Is there a difference between the two brands? In some of the details, yes.

We all know that the Business is being ruined. The reason is not far to seek. It is because our Mr. McKinley, and Mr. Chamberlain, and the Kaiser, and the Czar and the French have been exporting the Actual Thing with the outside cover left off. This is bad for the Game. It shows that these new players of it are not sufficiently acquainted with it.

It is a distress to look on and note the mismoves, they are so strange and so awkward. Mr. Chamberlain manufactures a war out of materials so inadequate and so fanciful that they make the boxes grieve and the gallery laugh, and he tries hard to persuade himself that it isn’t purely a private raid for cash, but has a sort of dim, vague respectability about it somewhere, if he could only find the spot; and that, by and by, he can scour the flag clean again after he has finished dragging it through the mud, and make it shine and flash in the vault of heaven once more as it had shone and flashed there a thousand years in the world’s respect until he laid his unfaithful hand upon it. It is bad play – bad. For it exposes the Actual Thing to Them that Sit in Darkness, and they say: “What! Christian against Christian? And only for money? Is this a case of magnanimity, forbearance, love, gentleness, mercy, protection of the weak – this strange and over-showy onslaught of an elephant upon a nest of field-mice, on the pretext that the mice had squeaked an insolence at him -–conduct which ‘no self-respecting government could allow to pass unavenged?’ as Mr. Chamberlain said. Was that a good pretext in a small case, when it had not been a good pretext in a large one? ­– for only recently Russia had affronted the elephant three times and survived alive and unsmitten. Is this Civilization and Progress? Is it something better than we already possess? These harryings and burnings and desert-makings in the Transvaal ­– is this an improvement on our darkness? Is it, perhaps, possible that there are two kinds of Civilization – one for home consumption and one for the heathen market?”

Then They that Sit in Darkness are troubled, and shake their heads; and they read this extract from a letter of a British private, recounting his exploits in one of Methuen’s victories, some days before the affair of Magersfontein, and they are troubled again:

“We tore up the hill and into the intrenchments, and the Boers saw we had them; so they dropped their guns and went down on their knees and put up their hands clasped, and begged for mercy. And we gave it them – with the long spoon.”

The long spoon is the bayonet. See Lloyd’s Weekly, London, of those days. The same number – and the same column – contains some quite unconscious satire in the form of shocked and bitter upbraidings of the Boers for their brutalities and inhumanities!

Next, to our heavy damage, the Kaiser went to playing the game without first mastering it. He lost a couple of missionaries in a riot in Shantung, and in his account he made an overcharge for them. China had to pay a hundred thousand dollars apiece for them, in money; twelve miles of territory, containing several millions of inhabitants and worth twenty million dollars; and to build a monument, and also a Christian church; whereas the people of China could have been depended upon to remember the missionaries without the help of these expensive memorials. This was all bad play. Bad, because it would not, and could not, and will not now or ever, deceive the Person Sitting in Darkness. He knows that it was an overcharge. He knows that a missionary is like any other man: he is worth merely what you can supply his place for, and no more. He is useful, but so is a doctor, so is a sheriff, so is an editor; but a just Emperor does not charge war-prices for such. A diligent, intelligent, but obscure missionary, and a diligent, intelligent country editor are worth much, and we know it; but they are not worth the earth. We esteem such an editor, and we are sorry to see him go; but, when he goes, we should consider twelve miles of territory, and a church, and a fortune, over-compensation for his loss. I mean, if he was a Chinese editor, and we had to settle for him. It is no proper figure for an editor or a missionary; one can get shop-worn kings for less. It was bad play on the Kaiser’s part. It got this property, true; but it produced the Chinese revolt, the indignant uprising of China’s traduced patriots, the Boxers. The results have been expensive to Germany, and to the other Disseminators of Progress and the Blessings of Civilization.

The Kaiser’s claim was paid, yet it was bad play, for it could not fail to have an evil effect upon Persons Sitting in Darkness in China. They would muse upon the event, and be likely to say: “Civilization is gracious and beautiful, for such is its reputation; but can we afford it? There are rich Chinamen, perhaps they could afford it; but this tax is not laid upon them, it is laid upon the peasants of Shantung; it is they that must pay this mighty sum, and their wages are but four cents a day. Is this a better civilization than ours, and holier and higher and nobler? Is not this rapacity? Is not this extortion? Would Germany charge America two hundred thousand dollars for two missionaries, and shake the mailed fist in her face, and send warships, and send soldiers, and say: ‘Seize twelve miles of territory, worth twenty millions of dollars, as additional pay for the missionaries; and make those peasants build a monument to the missionaries, and a costly Christian church to remember them by?’ And later would Germany say to her soldiers: ‘March through America and slay, giving no quarter; make the German face there, as has been our Hun-face here, a terror for a thousand years; march through the Great Republic and slay, slay, slay, carving a road for our offended religion through its heart and bowels?’ Would Germany do like this to America, to England, to France, to Russia? Or only to China the helpless ­– imitating the elephant’s assault upon the field-mice? Had we better invest in this Civilization ­– this Civilization which called Napoleon a buccaneer for carrying off Venice’s bronze horses, but which steals our ancient astronomical instruments from our walls, and goes looting like common bandits ­– that is, all the alien soldiers except America’s; and (Americans again excepted) storms frightened villages and cables the result to glad journals at home every day: ‘Chinese losses, 450 killed; ours, one officer and two men wounded. Shall proceed against neighboring village to-morrow, where a massacre is reported.’ Can we afford Civilization?”

And, next, Russia must go and play the game injudiciously. She affronts England once or twice – with the Person Sitting in Darkness observing and noting; by moral assistance of France and Germany, she robs Japan of her hard-earned spoil, all swimming in Chinese blood ­– Port Arthur – with the Person again observing and noting; then she seizes Manchuria, raids its villages, and chokes its great river with the swollen corpses of countless massacred peasants – that astonished Person still observing and noting. And perhaps he is saying to himself: “It is yet another Civilized Power, with its banner of the Prince of Peace in one hand and its loot-basket and its butcher-knife in the other. Is there no salvation for us but to adopt Civilization and lift ourselves down to its level?”

And by and by comes America, and our Master of the Game plays it badly – plays it as Mr. Chamberlain was playing it in South Africa. It was a mistake to do that; also, it was one which was quite unlooked for in a Master who was playing it so well in Cuba. In Cuba, he was playing the usual and regular American game, and it was winning, for there is no way to beat it. The Master, contemplating Cuba, said: “Here is an oppressed and friendless little nation which is willing to fight to be free; we go partners, and put up the strength of seventy million sympathizers and the resources of the United States: play!” Nothing but Europe combined could call that hand: and Europe cannot combine on anything. There, in Cuba, he was following our great traditions in a way which made us very proud of him, and proud of the deep dissatisfaction which his play was provoking in Continental Europe. Moved by a high inspiration, he threw out those stirring words which proclaimed that forcible annexation would be “criminal aggression;” and in that utterance fired another “shot heard round the world.” The memory of that fine saying will be outlived by the remembrance of no act of his but one – that he forgot it within the twelvemonth, and its honorable gospel along with it.

For, presently, came the Philippine temptation. It was strong; it was too strong, and he made that bad mistake: he played the European game, the Chamberlain game. It was a pity; it was a great pity, that error; that one grievous error, that irrevocable error. For it was the very place and time to play the American game again. And at no cost. Rich winnings to be gathered in, too; rich and permanent; indestructible; a fortune transmissible forever to the children of the flag. Not land, not money, not dominion – no, something worth many times more than that dross: our share, the spectacle of a nation of long harassed and persecuted slaves set free through our influence; our posterity’s share, the golden memory of that fair deed. The game was in our hands. If it had been played according to the American rules, Dewey would have sailed away from Manila as soon as he had destroyed the Spanish fleet – after putting up a sign on shore guaranteeing foreign property and life against damage by the Filipinos, and warning the Powers that interference with the emancipated patriots would be regarded as an act unfriendly to the United States. The Powers cannot combine, in even a bad cause, and the sign would not have been molested.

Dewey could have gone about his affairs elsewhere, and left the competent Filipino army to starve out the little Spanish garrison and send it home, and the Filipino citizens to set up the form of government they might prefer, and deal with the friars and their doubtful acquisitions according to Filipino ideas of fairness and justice – ideas which have since been tested and found to be of as high an order as any that prevail in Europe or America.

But we played the Chamberlain game, and lost the chance to add another Cuba and another honorable deed to our good record.

The more we examine the mistake, the more clearly we perceive that it is going to be bad for the Business. The Person Sitting in Darkness is almost sure to say: “There is something curious about this – curious and unaccountable. There must be two Americas: one that sets the captive free, and one that takes a once-captive’s new freedom away from him, and picks a quarrel with him with nothing to found it on; then kills him to get his land.”

The truth is, the Person Sitting in Darkness is saying things like that; and for the sake of the Business we must persuade him to look at the Philippine matter in another and healthier way. We must arrange his opinions for him. I believe it can be done; for Mr. Chamberlain has arranged England’s opinion of the South African matter, and done it most cleverly and successfully. He presented the facts – some of the facts – and showed those confiding people what the facts meant. He did it statistically, which is a good way. He used the formula: “Twice 2 are 14, and 2 from 9 leaves 35.” Figures are effective; figures will convince the elect.

Now, my plan is a still bolder one than Mr. Chamberlain’s, though apparently a copy of it. Let us be franker than Mr. Chamberlain; let us audaciously present the whole of the facts, shirking none, then explain them according to Mr. Chamberlain’s formula. This daring truthfulness will astonish and dazzle the Person Sitting in Darkness, and he will take the Explanation down before his mental vision has had time to get back into focus. Let us say to him:

“Our case is simple. On the 1st of May, Dewey destroyed the Spanish fleet. This left the Archipelago in the hands of its proper and rightful owners, the Filipino nation. Their army numbered 30,000 men, and they were competent to whip out or starve out the little Spanish garrison; then the people could set up a government of their own devising. Our traditions required that Dewey should now set up his warning sign, and go away. But the Master of the Game happened to think of another plan – the European plan. He acted upon it. This was, to send out an army – ostensibly to help the native patriots put the finishing touch upon their long and plucky struggle for independence, but really to take their land away from them and keep it. That is, in the interest of Progress and Civilization. The plan developed, stage by stage, and quite satisfactorily. We entered into a military alliance with the trusting Filipinos, and they hemmed in Manila on the land side, and by their valuable help the place, with its garrison of 8,000 or 10,000 Spaniards, was captured – a thing which we could not have accomplished unaided at that time. We got their help by – by ingenuity. We knew they were fighting for their independence, and that they had been at it for two years. We knew they supposed that we also were fighting in their worthy cause – just as we had helped the Cubans fight for Cuban independence – and we allowed them to go on thinking so. Until Manila was ours and we could get along without them. Then we showed our hand. Of course, they were surprised – that was natural; surprised and disappointed; disappointed and grieved. To them it looked un-American; uncharacteristic; foreign to our established traditions. And this was natural, too; for we were only playing the American Game in public – in private it was the European. It was neatly done, very neatly, and it bewildered them. They could not understand it; for we had been so friendly – so affectionate, even – with those simple-minded patriots! We, our own selves, had brought back out of exile their leader, their hero, their hope, their Washington – Aguinaldo; brought him in a warship, in high honor, under the sacred shelter and hospitality of the flag; brought him back and restored him to his people, and got their moving and eloquent gratitude for it. Yes, we had been so friendly to them, and had heartened them up in so many ways! We had lent them guns and ammunition; advised with them; exchanged pleasant courtesies with them; placed our sick and wounded in their kindly care; entrusted our Spanish prisoners to their humane and honest hands; fought shoulder to shoulder with them against “the common enemy” (our own phrase); praised their courage, praised their gallantry, praised their mercifulness, praised their fine and honorable conduct; borrowed their trenches, borrowed strong positions which they had previously captured from the Spaniard; petted them, lied to them – officially proclaiming that our land and naval forces came to give them their freedom and displace the bad Spanish Government – fooled them, used them until we needed them no longer; then derided the sucked orange and threw it away. We kept the positions which we had beguiled them of; by and by, we moved a force forward and overlapped patriot ground – a clever thought, for we needed trouble, and this would produce it. A Filipino soldier, crossing the ground, where no one had a right to forbid him, was shot by our sentry. The badgered patriots resented this with arms, without waiting to know whether Aguinaldo, who was absent, would approve or not. Aguinaldo did not approve; but that availed nothing. What we wanted, in the interest of Progress and Civilization, was the Archipelago, unencumbered by patriots struggling for independence; and the War was what we needed. We clinched our opportunity. It is Mr. Chamberlain’s case over again – at least in its motive and intention; and we played the game as adroitly as he played it himself.”

At this point in our frank statement of fact to the Person Sitting in Darkness, we should throw in a little trade-taffy about the Blessings of Civilization – for a change, and for the refreshment of his spirit – then go on with our tale:

“We and the patriots having captured Manila, Spain’s ownership of the Archipelago and her sovereignty over it were at an end – obliterated – annihilated – not a rag or shred of either remaining behind. It was then that we conceived the divinely humorous idea of buying both of these spectres from Spain! [It is quite safe to confess this to the Person Sitting in Darkness, since neither he nor any other sane person will believe it.] In buying those ghosts for twenty millions, we also contracted to take care of the friars and their accumulations. I think we also agreed to propagate leprosy and smallpox, but as to this there is doubt. But it is not important; persons afflicted with the friars do not mind the other diseases.

“With our Treaty ratified, Manila subdued, and our Ghosts secured, we had no further use for Aguinaldo and the owners of the Archipelago. We forced a war, and we have been hunting America’s guest and ally through the woods and swamps ever since.”

At this point in the tale, it will be well to boast a little of our war-work and our heroisms in the field, so as to make our performance look as fine as England’s in South Africa; but I believe it will not be best to emphasize this too much. We must be cautious. Of course, we must read the war-telegrams to the Person, in order to keep up our frankness; but we can throw an air of humorousness over them, and that will modify their grim eloquence a little, and their rather indiscreet exhibitions of gory exultation. Before reading to him the following display heads of the dispatches of November 18, 1900, it will be well to practice on them in private first, so as to get the right tang of lightness and gaiety into them:

“ADMINISTRATION WEARY OF PROTRACTED HOSTILITIES!”
“REAL WAR AHEAD FOR FILIPINO REBELS!”*
“WILL SHOW NO MERCY!”
“KITCHENER’S PLAN ADOPTED!”

Kitchener knows how to handle disagreeable people who are fighting for their homes and their liberties, and we must let on that we are merely imitating Kitchener, and have no national interest in the matter, further than to get ourselves admired by the Great Family of Nations, in which august company our Master of the Game has bought a place for us in the back row.

Of course, we must not venture to ignore our General MacArthur’s reports – oh, why do they keep on printing those embarrassing things? – we must drop them trippingly from the tongue and take the chances:

“During the last ten months our losses have been 268 killed and 750 wounded; Filipino loss, three thousand two hundred and twenty-seven killed, and 694 wounded.”

We must stand ready to grab the Person Sitting in Darkness, for he will swoon away at this confession, saying: “Good God, those ‘niggers’ spare their wounded, and the Americans massacre theirs!”

We must bring him to, and coax him and coddle him, and assure him that the ways of Providence are best, and that it would not become us to find fault with them; and then, to show him that we are only imitators, not originators, we must read the following passage from the letter of an American soldier-lad in the Philippines to his mother, published in Public Opinion, of Decorah, Iowa, describing the finish of a victorious battle:

“WE NEVER LEFT ONE ALIVE. IF ONE WAS WOUNDED, WE WOULD RUN OUR BAYONETS THROUGH HIM.”

Having now laid all the historical facts before the Person Sitting in Darkness, we should bring him to again, and explain them to him. We should say to him:

“They look doubtful, but in reality they are not. There have been lies; yes, but they were told in a good cause. We have been treacherous; but that was only in order that real good might come out of apparent evil. True, we have crushed a deceived and confiding people; we have turned against the weak and the friendless who trusted us; we have stamped out a just and intelligent and well-ordered republic; we have stabbed an ally in the back and slapped the face of a guest; we have bought a Shadow from an enemy that hadn’t it to sell; we have robbed a trusting friend of his land and his liberty; we have invited our clean young men to shoulder a discredited musket and do bandit’s work under a flag which bandits have been accustomed to fear, not to follow; we have debauched America’s honor and blackened her face before the world; but each detail was for the best. We know this. The Head of every State and Sovereignty in Christendom and ninety per cent. of every legislative body in Christendom, including our Congress and our fifty State Legislatures, are members not only of the church, but also of the Blessings-of-Civilization Trust. This world-girdling accumulation of trained morals, high principles, and justice, cannot do an unright thing, an unfair thing, an ungenerous thing, an unclean thing. It knows what it is about. Give yourself no uneasiness; it is all right.”

Now then, that will convince the Person. You will see. It will restore the Business. Also, it will elect the Master of the Game to the vacant place in the Trinity of our national gods; and there on their high thrones the Three will sit, age after age, in the people’s sight, each bearing the Emblem of his service: Washington, the Sword of the Liberator; Lincoln, the Slave’s Broken Chains; the Master, the Chains Repaired.

It will give the Business a splendid new start. You will see.

Everything is prosperous, now; everything is just as we should wish it. We have got the Archipelago, and we shall never give it up. Also, we have every reason to hope that we shall have an opportunity before very long to slip out of our Congressional contract with Cuba and give her something better in the place of it. It is a rich country, and many of us are already beginning to see that the contract was a sentimental mistake. But now – right now – is the best time to do some profitable rehabilitating work – work that will set us up and make us comfortable, and discourage gossip. We cannot conceal from ourselves that, privately, we are a little troubled about our uniform. It is one of our prides; it is acquainted with honor; it is familiar with great deeds and noble; we love it, we revere it; and so this errand it is on makes us uneasy. And our flag – another pride of ours, our chiefest! We have worshipped it so; and when we have seen it in far lands – glimpsing it unexpectedly in that strange sky, waving its welcome and benediction to us – we have caught our breath, and uncovered our heads, and couldn’t speak, for a moment, for the thought of what it was to us and the great ideals it stood for. Indeed, we must do something about these things; we must not have the flag out there, and the uniform. They are not needed there; we can manage in some other way. England manages, as regards the uniform, and so can we. We have to send soldiers – we can’t get out of that – but we can disguise them. It is the way England does in South Africa. Even Mr. Chamberlain himself takes pride in England’s honorable uniform, and makes the army down there wear an ugly and odious and appropriate disguise, of yellow stuff such as quarantine flags are made of, and which are hoisted to warn the healthy away from unclean disease and repulsive death. This cloth is called khaki. We could adopt it. It is light, comfortable, grotesque, and deceives the enemy, for he cannot conceive of a soldier being concealed in it.

And as for a flag for the Philippine Province, it is easily managed. We can have a special one – our States do it: we can have just our usual flag, with the white stripes painted black and the stars replaced by the skull and cross-bones. And we do not need that Civil Commission out there. Having no powers, it has to invent them, and that kind of work cannot be effectively done by just anybody; an expert is required. Mr. Croker can be spared. We do not want the United States represented there, but only the Game.

By help of these suggested amendments, Progress and Civilization in that country can have a boom, and it will take in the Persons who are Sitting in Darkness, and we can resume Business at the old stand.

1. United States vs. HN Bull, GR 5270, 15 January 1910, First Division, Elliott [J]
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2794.htm ; The US State department still states “50th anniversary of Philippine independence” on the Philippines page of its website.
5. See, for example, custody issues viz criminal procedure, justice: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1757163/posts and http://subicbaynews.blogspot.com/2007/01/rp-acts-to-ease-strain-in-ties.html
6. For example, the United States justified its invasion of Iraq in 2003 by “claiming that Iraq had or was developing weapons of mass destruction and stating a desire to remove an oppressive dictator from power and bring democracy to Iraq.” [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq#Invasion_by_American-led_Coalition_forces ] The WMD justification was proven to be false in 2004 [ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/oct/07/usa.iraq1 ] I, personally, wonder why the United States has not invaded Burma “to remove the oppressive military junta from power and bring democracy to Burma” just to drive the point.

Friendster, as a social network, is popular in Southeast Asia, particularly in the Philippines. Some may use it to acquire new friends, and still there could be a distinction as to those actively seeking “new friends” or merely passively accepting “new friends” requesting connection; if that would in any way relevant to the arguments being made. By and large, however, most would use it to connect to acquaintances, friends, and family — either from way back or just recently. It is similarly convenient to use the communication facilities (messaging) of the social networking site to contact another, especially if one does not remember the other person’s email address. Although Friendster is argued to be more of a jologs network, some individuals (who would have such reservation) would maintain accounts therein, considering the possibility that previous acquaintances and friends — who are just getting aboard the jologs bandwagon — might find them there after decades of separation, and hence not allow themselves to miss out.

I would not try to second guess the intent of the female judge in setting up the account; but on the other hand, I am unsure whether the intent of legal and judicial ethics was to reduce officers of the court as hermits in both real and virtual life, so as to avoid any appearance of impropriety, by the way the initial argument was presented. If the argument is allowed to further degenerate, the living space between any judge’s home and court room would be quite perilous. Any magistrate’s contact with any other living individual — even an innocent smile — could be taken as suspect.

Further, I am unsure whether an off-shoulder gown can be taken as inappropriate. The congressman could have been stuck to the time when the Imeldific baro’t saya was still in vogue. Nevertheless, if such argument should be taken seriously, it could be suggested that Philippine female magistrates wear burqas, to protect themselves from such malicious appreciation by any party of contrary interest. Puritanical conservatism, could it be?

It remains still with the appreciation of those who are investigating the matter and the Court itself whether having a social network account would by itself indeed violate Sections 1 and 2, Canon 4, of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for Philippine Judiciary (A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC), among others.

By itself, however, reading the motivations behind the collateral attack, it could be one of the trivial arguments necessary to propel interest in an erstwhile non-sensational but related case.

“Bataan has fallen. The Philippine-American troops on this war-ravaged and bloodstained peninsula have laid down their arms. With heads bloody but unbowed, they have yielded to the superior force and numbers of the enemy.” (Opening lines of the broadcast announcing the surrender of US-Philippine troops in Bataan on 9 April 1942)

April 9 marks a Philippine national holiday called “Araw ng Kagitingan” (some call it “Bataan Day,” or more accurately, “The fall of Bataan Day,” in the past).

9 April 1942, in history, marked the day when the United States Forces in the Philippines (USFIP) (formerly United States Forces in the Far East [USAFFE], renamed when US General Douglas McArthur fled from the Bataan peninsula a month before), through then Maj. Gen. Edward King, surrendered to the Japanese during World War II. This led subsequently to the infamous Bataan Death March.

My reservation for the celebration of this holiday comes in two fronts. One is on the issue on why we celebrate defeats (Fall of Bataan day). The other lies in the contradictory assertion of valor (Araw ng Kagitingan, or Day of Valor).

I perceive that a celebration of the fall of Bataan, in World War II, is a proxy celebration in favor of the Japanese. If there would have been any celebration that could be had to commemorate favorable events in World War II, the reconquest of the islands from the Japanese, would have been more vindicative. Still, even with that, I would hardly find that such celebration would merit a status of a national holiday in the Philippines, since it would be a derivative triumph that would be rightfully claimed principally by the United States (if it does, which I doubt, since the “liberation” of the Philippines was only incidental to the primary campaign to invade Japan at that time, as a retribution for the Pearl Harbor bombing).

The notion of celebrating defeat is not novel in this archipelago since there is premium on outcome generated from the emphasis of pain and suffering (which I find “Kundimatic”). Such fixation is disturbing since it foments a culture of non-physical masochism, and adoption of false achievements (such as, in the present, an alleged success in the fight against graft and corruption with the teary-eyed exposition of one Jun Lozada, where in fact there has been no such success yet.) It seems there is an improper blurring of the lines between a euphemistic consolation and a proper celebration, which is untenable.

On the other hand, adopting the title “Araw ng Kagitingan” (Day of Valor) to substitute “Bataan Day,” without detaching the context of the date of celebration did not help in rectify its flaw. What it actually did was an emphasis on the inherent ambiguity of the term “valor” (such as through Miguel De Cervantes: “True valor lies between cowardice and rashness.”). Occidental perception on valor may adopt a scale leaning towards the pragmatic notion of the power of self-recovery, while oriental perception can entertain the notion of valor which could be just one step less than foolhardiness. The correlation of the commemoration and the actual event provides a euphemistic appreciation of “valor,” in the context of surrender. In this light, I can’t see why a mitigation against rashness would not constitute rashness in itself.

On the other hand, if there is valor in surrender, without an admission of cowardice, I guess then that there is a valor in surrendering the Pag-asa group of islands in the Spratlys to the Chinese, without promulgating the necessary laws to establish the claim as required in a UN deadline, so as not to solicit their ire and allow the continuation of the benefits acquired from their economic concessions/loan facilities supposedly utilized for the “welfare” of the Filipino people. Section 7, Article II of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which provides that “The State shall pursue an independent foreign policy. In its relations with other states, the paramount consideration shall be national sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest, and the right to self-determination” is a mere State principle anyhow, isn’t it?