A case study of American Liberation

Vader

Addressing a joint session of the Philippine Congress on Saturday, President Bush said to skeptical critics of his Iraq policy, "Some say the culture of the Middle East will not sustain the institutions of democracy. The same doubts were once expressed about the culture of Asia. These doubts were proven wrong nearly six decades ago, when the Republic of the Philippines became the first democratic nation in Asia."

In his speech to the Philippine Congress, George W. Bush thanked "the citizens of Manila who lined the streets today for their warm and gracious welcome." He may not have seen the thousands of Filipinos protesting his visit. Bush's motorcade was delayed for an hour while the Secret Service worried about his security and U.S. and Philippine authorities (there's that democratic tutelage again) kept the demonstrators -- and real democracy -- penned behind traffic barriers and blockades of military vehicles.

A hundred years ago, the United States defeated the Spanish colonizers of the Philippines only to take over the islands for itself. In Bush's speech on Saturday this was summarized as "Together our soldiers liberated the Philippines from colonial rule."
The Spanish left, leaving an independent republic which was promptly conquered by the United States. When critics of the U.S. annexation of the Philippines charged that Washington had not obtained the consent of the inhabitants, Senator Henry Cabot Ledge replied that if consent of the inhabitants were necessary "then our whole past record of expansion is a crime."
No sh1t Sherlock

What did Filipinos want back in 1898? What was their democratic wish? According to a U.S. general testifying before the U.S. Senate, Filipinos had so little notion of what independence is. "They have no more idea of what it means than a shepherd dog," he explained. But shortly afterwards in his testimony, the general stated that the Filipinos "want to get rid of the Americans." "They do?" asked a confused Senator. "Yes, sir," replied the general. "They want us driven out, so that they can have this independence, but they do not know what it is."

This ignorance on the part of the Filipinos was explained to the rest of America in the 1945 motion picture "Back to Bataan." In a 1941 Philippine schoolhouse, an American teacher asks the students what the United States gave to the Philippines. "Soda pop!" "Hot dogs!" "Movies!" "Radio!" "Baseball!" scream the pupils. But, the teacher and the principal correct the erring youngsters by explaining that the real American contribution was teaching the Filipinos freedom. At first, however, says the teacher with a straight face, the Filipinos did not appreciate freedom for they "resisted the American occupation."

Indeed they did. And many thousands of Filipinos -- combatants and non-combatants -- were slaughtered by U.S. military forces to teach Filipinos the U.S. meaning of freedom.

The USA held Philippines as a colony until 1946. When the US decided to finally transferred power to a national legislator it first decided to retained two huge military bases and many smaller ones on a 99-year, rent-free lease. Washington, not Manila, decided how these bases would be used and against whom, and the Philippine people were not informed of the presence of nuclear weapons on their soil.

The independent Philippines was also subordinated to the United States economically. The Philippine government was prohibited from changing the value of its currency without the approval of the U.S. president and U.S. investors were given special investment rights in the Philippines.

By 1972, despite the best efforts of the Philippine elite and their U.S. allies, Philippine democracy was finally beginning to express itself. Reacting to the popular pressures, the Congress and even the Supreme Court were moving in a more and more nationalistic direction, threatening U.S. interests. And so when Marcos, approaching the end of his second and final term as president, declared martial law, there were no denunciations emanating from Washington.

For the more than decade-long dictatorial rule of Ferdinand Marcos, he was backed by the United States government. When he cosmetically lifted martial law in 1981, but retained all his martial law powers intact, the U.S. vice president George H. W. Bush visited Manila and raised a toast to Marcos: "We love your adherence to democratic principle and to the democratic processes."


If the Republic of the Philippines is the best example of what type of country grows from US interventions then I dont think I've been worrying or complaining enough about US policy in Iraq.

Geromino

Originally posted by Vader
Addressing a joint session of the Philippine Congress on Saturday, President Bush said to skeptical critics of his Iraq policy, "Some say the culture of the Middle East will not sustain the institutions of democracy. The same doubts were once expressed about the culture of Asia. These doubts were proven wrong nearly six decades ago, when the Republic of the Philippines became the first democratic nation in Asia."

In his speech to the Philippine Congress, George W. Bush thanked "the citizens of Manila who lined the streets today for their warm and gracious welcome." He may not have seen the thousands of Filipinos protesting his visit. Bush's motorcade was delayed for an hour while the Secret Service worried about his security and U.S. and Philippine authorities (there's that democratic tutelage again) kept the demonstrators -- and real democracy -- penned behind traffic barriers and blockades of military vehicles.

A hundred years ago, the United States defeated the Spanish colonizers of the Philippines only to take over the islands for itself. In Bush's speech on Saturday this was summarized as "Together our soldiers liberated the Philippines from colonial rule."
The Spanish left, leaving an independent republic which was promptly conquered by the United States. When critics of the U.S. annexation of the Philippines charged that Washington had not obtained the consent of the inhabitants, Senator Henry Cabot Ledge replied that if consent of the inhabitants were necessary "then our whole past record of expansion is a crime."
No sh1t Sherlock

What did Filipinos want back in 1898? What was their democratic wish? According to a U.S. general testifying before the U.S. Senate, Filipinos had so little notion of what independence is. "They have no more idea of what it means than a shepherd dog," he explained. But shortly afterwards in his testimony, the general stated that the Filipinos "want to get rid of the Americans." "They do?" asked a confused Senator. "Yes, sir," replied the general. "They want us driven out, so that they can have this independence, but they do not know what it is."

This ignorance on the part of the Filipinos was explained to the rest of America in the 1945 motion picture "Back to Bataan." In a 1941 Philippine schoolhouse, an American teacher asks the students what the United States gave to the Philippines. "Soda pop!" "Hot dogs!" "Movies!" "Radio!" "Baseball!" scream the pupils. But, the teacher and the principal correct the erring youngsters by explaining that the real American contribution was teaching the Filipinos freedom. At first, however, says the teacher with a straight face, the Filipinos did not appreciate freedom for they "resisted the American occupation."

Indeed they did. And many thousands of Filipinos -- combatants and non-combatants -- were slaughtered by U.S. military forces to teach Filipinos the U.S. meaning of freedom.

The USA held Philippines as a colony until 1946. When the US decided to finally transferred power to a national legislator it first decided to retained two huge military bases and many smaller ones on a 99-year, rent-free lease. Washington, not Manila, decided how these bases would be used and against whom, and the Philippine people were not informed of the presence of nuclear weapons on their soil.

The independent Philippines was also subordinated to the United States economically. The Philippine government was prohibited from changing the value of its currency without the approval of the U.S. president and U.S. investors were given special investment rights in the Philippines.

By 1972, despite the best efforts of the Philippine elite and their U.S. allies, Philippine democracy was finally beginning to express itself. Reacting to the popular pressures, the Congress and even the Supreme Court were moving in a more and more nationalistic direction, threatening U.S. interests. And so when Marcos, approaching the end of his second and final term as president, declared martial law, there were no denunciations emanating from Washington.

For the more than decade-long dictatorial rule of Ferdinand Marcos, he was backed by the United States government. When he cosmetically lifted martial law in 1981, but retained all his martial law powers intact, the U.S. vice president George H. W. Bush visited Manila and raised a toast to Marcos: "We love your adherence to democratic principle and to the democratic processes."

Then of course came General Suharto whose rise to power was on the back of US military aid, which was prohibited by Congress, and who remained "Our kind of guy" throughout his genocidal campaign in East Timor.

If the Republic of the Philippines is the best example of what type of country grows from US interventions then I dont think I've been worrying or complaining enough about US policy in Iraq.

Excerpts from Filipino History:

"The United States had not expressed an interest in taking over the remnants of Spain's colonial empire. On news of Dewey's victory, warships began arriving in Manila Bay from Britain, France, Japan and Germany. The German fleet of eight warships was especially aggressive and menacing. All of these imperial powers had recently obtained concessions from China for naval bases and designated commercial spheres of interest. American interests had reason to fear that leaving the Philippines to the designs of the imperial powers might exclude the United States from the Asia-Pacific trade altogether."

"The Treaty of Paris was signed on December 10, 1898. By the Treaty, Cuba gained its independence and Spain ceded the Philippines, Guam and Puerto Rico to the United States for the sum of US$20 million."

"The hostilities in the Philippine War of Independence began on February 4, 1899 and continued for two years. The United States needed 126,000 soldiers to subdue the Philippines. The war took the lives of 4,234 Americans and 16,000 Filipinos. As usually happens in guerrilla campaigns, the civilian population suffers the worst. As many as 200,000 civilians may have died from famine and disease."

"Aguinaldo disbanded his regular forces in November and began a guerrilla campaign concentrated mainly in the Tagalog areas of central Luzon. Aguinaldo was captured on March 23, 1901."

"The Tydings-McDuffie Act of 1934 established the Commonwealth of the Philippines which at the end of a ten year transition period would become the fully independent Republic of the Philippines. A plebiscite on the constitution for the new Republic was approved in 1935 and the date for national independence was set for July 4, 1946. "

"Following American practice, the Philippine Organic Act imposed the strict separation of church and state and eliminated the Roman Catholic Church as the official state religion. In 1904 the administration paid the Vatican US$7.2 million for most of the lands held by the religious orders. The lands were later sold back to Filipinos. Some tenants were able to buy their land but it was mainly the established estate owners who could afford to buy the former church lands. "

"The first elections to the Philippine Assembly were held in July 1907 and the first session opened on October 16, 1907. The Nacionalista Party of Manuel Quezon and Sergio Osmena won the election and continued to dominate Philippine electoral politics until World War II."

"The Jones Act of 1916 carried forward the Philippine Organic Act of 1902. An elected Philippine Senate replaced the appointed Philippine Commission and the former Philippine Assembly was renamed the House of Representatives. As before, the Governor-General, responsible for the executive branch, was appointed by the United States President."

"Osmena's Nacionalista Party had split with Manuel Roxas leading the newly formed Liberal Party. Roxas had served in Laurel's government and a bitterly divisive election campaign centered on his conduct during the war. Roxas won the election on April 23, 1946 to become the first President of Republic of the Philippines on July 4, 1946."

"The criticism of Marcos grew directly from the dishonesty of the 1969 campaign and his failure to curb the bribery and corruption in government. There was also a more general discontent because the population continued to grow faster than the economy causing greater poverty and violence. The Communist Party of the Philippines formed the New People's Army and the Moro National Liberation Front fought for the secession of Muslim Mindanao. Marcos took advantage of these and other incidents such as labour strikes and student protests to create a political atmosphere of crisis and fear that he later used to justify his imposition of martial law. "

"In order to gain the implicit endorsement of the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church for his regime, Marcos ostensibly lifted martial law on January 17, 1981 - although all of the orders and decrees issued under martial law remained in effect. Pope John Paul II visited the Philippines in February 1981. A new election was scheduled for June 16, 1981. The opposition boycotted the election and Marcos won a huge majority for another six year term as President. "

This comes from the University of Alberta web site on the history of the Philippines. Having stayed there and developed many friends, they would all laugh at the suggestion, "it is all America's fault." They will acknowledge the colonialism of the USA in 1898, but they would welcome USA colonialism and not European.

Vader

What, if anything, was your reply about?
You admit that the Philippines were colonized by the US and that 200 000 innocents died when the US suppressed a revolution demanding self-determination.

The hostilities in the Philippine War of Independence began on February 4, 1899 and continued for two years. The United States needed 126,000 soldiers to subdue the Philippines. The war took the lives of 4,234 Americans and 16,000 Filipinos. As usually happens in guerrilla campaigns, the civilian population suffers the worst. As many as 200,000 civilians may have died from famine and disease.

You don’t deny that the US gave themselves and their citizens an elite status during a "ten year transition period" between colony and republic.

In 1946, after nearly half a century, U.S. colonial rule in the Philippines came to an end. But U.S. domination continued and Philippine democracy remained thwarted. This was not the first instance where a colony was given independence and colonialism was replaced with neocolonialism. To take one example at random, Britain gave Iraq independence in 1932, but not before it had signed a 25-year treaty granting London access to Iraqi military bases and western oil companies had attained a lock on Iraqi oil.

The pattern in the Philippines was similar: Washington retained two huge military bases and many smaller ones on a 99-year, rent-free lease. The Philippine city of Olongapo became, in the words of a 1959 account in Time magazine, "the only foreign city run lock, stock and barrel by the U.S. Navy." The terms of the bases agreement were revised several times over the next few decades, but as U.S. officials acknowledged even in the 1970s nowhere did the United States have more extensive and more unhindered base rights than in the Philippines. These bases served for years as the logistic hub for U.S. interventions from Vietnam to the Persian Gulf; Washington, not Manila, decided how these bases would be used and against whom, and the Philippine people were not informed of the presence of nuclear weapons on their soil.

The independent Philippines was also subordinated to the United States economically. The Philippine government was prohibited from changing the value of its currency without the approval of the U.S. president and U.S. investors were given special investment rights in the Philippines. U.S. officials insisted that Filipinos democratically accepted the special investment rights, but in fact, the enabling legislation passed the Philippine Congress only after dissenting legislators were improperly suspended, and Filipinos ratified the investment rights in a referendum only because Washington made rehabilitation aid to the war-ravaged Philippines dependent upon Filipinos voting yes.

So what if the Americans separated church from state? That isn’t necessarily a good thing when you look at the American oppression and terrorism that went on and continues to go on in East Timor and South and Central America. In those places the Christian Church is the only thing capable of providing sanctuary to innocents(and not even churches are always safe), providing alms, education and relief and keeping honest records.


From 1946 to 1972, the Philippines was a formal democracy in the sense
of having contested elections. But it was a political system in which
two coalitions of the wealthy elite, indistinguishable by ideology or
program, competed for power, with a major determinant of success being
the overt or covert backing of the U.S. government. It is true that
there was an issue separating the candidates in 1965 when Ferdinand
Marcos ran on a pledge not to send Philippine civic action troops to
Vietnam, but since Marcos violated his campaign promise as soon as he
won the election, this is hardly a meaningful exception.

This may have been another instance of U.S. political tutelage of the Filipinos -- recall that during the 1964 U.S. presidential campaign Lyndon Johnson had pledged "No Wider War" and then promptly escalated U.S. military involvement -- but more likely Marcos's reversal was swayed by the U.S. funds secretly sent his way.

By 1972, despite the best efforts of the Philippine elite and their U.S. allies, Philippine democracy was finally beginning to express itself. Politicians were finding that their usual vote-buying no longer worked ("They take money but vote for the man they think is qualified," complained one politician.) Peasants, students, and workers were increasingly challenging the status quo. Reacting to the popular pressures, the Congress and even the Supreme Court were moving in a more and more nationalistic direction, threatening U.S. interests. And so when Marcos, approaching the end of his second and final term as president, declared martial law, there were no denunciations emanating from Washington.

On the contrary, as Marcos closed down Congress and the press and arrested his political opponents, Washington stepped up its military and economic aid. As a U.S. Senate staff report summarized the U.S. reaction, "military bases and a familiar government in the Philippines are more important than the preservation of democratic institutions which were imperfect at best."

For the more than decade-long dictatorial rule of Ferdinand Marcos, he was backed by the United States government. When he cosmetically lifted martial law in 1981, but retained all his martial law powers intact, the U.S. vice president George H. W. Bush visited Manila and raised a toast to Marcos: "We love your adherence to democratic principle and to the democratic processes."

In 1986, the Philippine people, showing that they, unlike their leaders or those in Washington, really understood democracy, ousted Marcos, while the Reagan administration hung on to him until the last possible moment.

Corazon Aquino replaced Marcos and initially she had several progressives in her government and announced a program of social reform as the way to deal with the country's long-running insurgency problem. But under pressure from the United States and the Philippine armed forces, the progressives were removed and Aquino's agenda became one of military action instead of social reform.

Despite Aquino's best efforts, the new post-Marcos constitution stated that "foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate." Nationalist sentiment was strong enough in the country that in 1991 the Philippine Senate voted against extending the U.S.-Philippines Military Bases Agreement. But almost as soon as the vote was taken, the U.S. tried with the help of cooperative Philippine officials to get around the constitution.

In 1999, an agreement was concluded giving the U.S. "access" to Philippine bases and in 2002 hundreds of U.S. troops were sent to the Philippines to help fight the Abu Sayyef guerrillas. Today, according to an Agence France Presse report, "the Pentagon is working to maintain on the islands what US Pacific Command head Admiral Thomas Fargo called 'critical tactical mobility platforms,' including UH-1H helicopters, C-130 transport aircraft, heavy trucks and patrol boats that could be used in case of major U..S. military operations in the region."

Of course, these U.S. troops and equipment need not violate the Philippine constitution if only President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo would submit the appropriate treaty to the Senate. But suspecting that such a treaty would be voted down, the Arroyo administration and its U.S. counterpart have chosen to simply ignore the constitution. This is the hallmark not of democracy but of neocolonialism.

This comes from the University of Alberta web site on the history of the Philippines. Having stayed there and developed many friends, they would all laugh at the suggestion, "it is all America's fault." They will acknowledge the colonialism of the USA in 1898, but they would welcome USA colonialism and not European.

How very good of you to speak on behalf of a population of 800,000,000 people or do you just represent 800m - the thousands of Filipinos protesting Bush's visit. I don’t recall saying its all Americas fault, but the general populace didn’t exactly benefit from being ruled by the cruel puppets of absentee landlords. What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name European colonialism or the name USA colonialism?

Geromino

Originally posted by Vader
What, if anything, was your reply about?
You admit that the Philippines were colonized by the US and that 200 000 innocents died when the US suppressed a revolution demanding self-determination.

You don’t deny that the US gave themselves and their citizens an elite status during a "ten year transition period" between colony and republic.

My reply was to give you excepts of Filipino History. Yes, it was a colony, however, I do disagree directly with your assertions. First, you cannot make the claim, "it was America's fault" in guerilla war. The point being made by the except is that civilians get caught in the middle, not matter who started what. Filipino history makes no reference, even today, that it was the fault of the US. There is a huge difference between recognizing why something was being done while not making judgements and making your assertions and judgements when you have not read a history book or analysis. Furthermore, Philippines were colonized originally by Spain. The Treaty of Paris was between Spain and the US. The Philippines was owned by Spain, not the Filipinos. The treaty recognized that Spain would surrender its possessions and the US will take over said possessions with the exception of Cuba. That is what the Treaty of Paris was all about, Vader.

In 1946, after nearly half a century, U.S. colonial rule in the Philippines came to an end. But U.S. domination continued and Philippine democracy remained thwarted. This was not the first instance where a colony was given independence and colonialism was replaced with neocolonialism. To take one example at random, Britain gave Iraq independence in 1932, but not before it had signed a 25-year treaty granting London access to Iraqi military bases and western oil companies had attained a lock on Iraqi oil. [/QUOYE]

There is no such thing as neocolonialism.

The pattern in the Philippines was similar: Washington retained two huge military bases and many smaller ones on a 99-year, rent-free lease. The Philippine city of Olongapo became, in the words of a 1959 account in Time magazine, "the only foreign city run lock, stock and barrel by the U.S. Navy." The terms of the bases agreement were revised several times over the next few decades, but as U.S. officials acknowledged even in the 1970s nowhere did the United States have more extensive and more unhindered base rights than in the Philippines. These bases served for years as the logistic hub for U.S. interventions from Vietnam to the Persian Gulf; Washington, not Manila, decided how these bases would be used and against whom, and the Philippine people were not informed of the presence of nuclear weapons on their soil.

The independent Philippines was also subordinated to the United States economically. The Philippine government was prohibited from changing the value of its currency without the approval of the U.S. president and U.S. investors were given special investment rights in the Philippines. U.S. officials insisted that Filipinos democratically accepted the special investment rights, but in fact, the enabling legislation passed the Philippine Congress only after dissenting legislators were improperly suspended, and Filipinos ratified the investment rights in a referendum only because Washington made rehabilitation aid to the war-ravaged Philippines dependent upon Filipinos voting yes.

So what if the Americans separated church from state? That isn’t necessarily a good thing when you look at the American oppression and terrorism that went on and continues to go on in East Timor and South and Central America. In those places the Christian Church is the only thing capable of providing sanctuary to innocents(and not even churches are always safe), providing alms, education and relief and keeping honest records.[/QUOTE}

First, seperation of church and state means that the head of state is not the head of the Church. It also means you have freedom of religion.

The bases were there as a direct result of WWII. The bases were also seen as protection against Communist aggression during the Cold War. Vietnam and Korea were conflichts that resulted from the Cold War logic.

From 1946 to 1972, the Philippines was a formal democracy in the sense......Despite Aquino's best efforts, the new post-Marcos constitution stated that "foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate." Nationalist sentiment was strong enough in the country that in 1991 the Philippine Senate voted against extending the U.S.-Philippines Military Bases Agreement. But almost as soon as the vote was taken, the U.S. tried with the help of cooperative Philippine officials to get around the constitution.

You are really grabbing at straws on this "analysis."

In 1999, an agreement was concluded giving the U.S. "access" to Philippine bases and in 2002 hundreds of U.S. troops were sent to the Philippines to help fight the Abu Sayyef guerrillas. Today, according to an Agence France Presse report, "the Pentagon is working to maintain on the islands what US Pacific Command head Admiral Thomas Fargo called 'critical tactical mobility platforms,' including UH-1H helicopters, C-130 transport aircraft, heavy trucks and patrol boats that could be used in case of major U..S. military operations in the region."

Of course, these U.S. troops and equipment need not violate the Philippine constitution if only President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo would submit the appropriate treaty to the Senate. But suspecting that such a treaty would be voted down, the Arroyo administration and its U.S. counterpart have chosen to simply ignore the constitution. This is the hallmark not of democracy but of neocolonialism.{/B]

President Arroyo is allowing US troops access to Filipino bases. The American troops are advising, training, and helping Filipino forces combat the terrorist groups that threaten her country's pride, nationalism, and governance. Further, Filipino Congress has further applauded, with concern, about Arroyo's leadership. This is a very good President, according to my friends. And I do not think you are in any position to tell, demand, or even ask the Filipino people their own affairs, VADER.

I noticed you never even tried to defend Suharto or disprove the universally accepted link between him and the white house.

Suharto was president of Indonesia, not the Philippines. And what does Suharto have to do with the discussion of the Philippines.

How very good of you to speak on behalf of a population of 800,000,000 people or do you just represent 800m - the thousands of Filipinos protesting Bush's visit. I don’t recall saying its all Americas fault, but the general populace didn’t exactly benefit from being ruled by the cruel puppets of absentee landlords. What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name European colonialism or the name USA colonialism?

This comes from the fact that I have lived there, worked there, and developed friendships there. (Yes, I am one of those evid corporate dudes you keep reading about!) I did not say I am speaking on behalf of the Filipinos, but my opinon comes from my knowledge and experience with my friends and co-workers and what I believe they would say.

TomF

I'd say the best local barometer of Filipino opinion of the U.S.A. is to take a poll among Filipino nurses about where they would rather work: in hospitals in Ireland or hospitals in the U.S.A. .

Vader

do you honestly think I could write that much without reading a history book?
Neo before X means new aged X so neocolonialism means new aged colonialism. I defined it by giving Iraq as an example of how a past colonial power retains it power over a country by signing away its resouces agus le leitheid(because I thought someone wouldnt understand) and I can give many more throughout africa is you need.
History is written by the victors and by your own admission "This comes from the University of Alberta web site".
I gave a general analysis of The Philippines right up untill "bases and in 2002 hundreds of U.S. troops were sent to the Philippines to help fight the Abu Sayyef guerrillas" so dont say Im pinning everything on guerrilla campaigns of the late 1800s.

Oh my god What an ass am I for mentioning Suharto. My appologies.

Geromino

Originally posted by Vader
do you honestly think I could write that much without reading a history book?
Neo before X means new aged X so neocolonialism means new aged colonialism. I defined it by giving Iraq as an example of how a past colonial power retains it power over a country by signing away its resouces agus le leitheid(because I thought someone wouldnt understand) and I can give many more throughout africa is you need.
History is written by the victors and by your own admission "This comes from the University of Alberta web site".
I gave a general analysis of The Philippines right up untill "bases and in 2002 hundreds of U.S. troops were sent to the Philippines to help fight the Abu Sayyef guerrillas" so dont say Im pinning everything on guerrilla campaigns of the late 1800s.

Oh my god What an ass am I for mentioning Suharto. My appologies.

Let me put it to you this way, I have heard and read worse when it comes to historical analysis. What you and others like Jean-Paul Sartre are attempting to do is trying to create a historical philosophy based on a political idealogy. Now you also have cultural colonialism, economic colonialism, political colonialism,and language colonialism. This philosophy does not work when it comes to traditional historical analysis. Most learned historians have rejected the term neo-anything when it comes to historical analysis.

As far as Abu Sayyef, these are thugs and criminals as viewed by most Filipinos. Not even the National Muslim Liberation Front wants to have anything to do with Abu Sayyef.