Martial Law in Philippines Analysis

I do not think that the United States were the good guys in the Philippine- American war. The only right that we had to be in the Philippines was the right taken from Spain. In many ways the imperialism idea that the U.S. had were undemocratic. The United States at the time was developing and did not have adequate resources to keep military in foreign places. I think that we should have focused on own land. We have a large chunk of land full of growth possibilities. The war was not only brutal on both sides, but it also increased tensions about race. Overall the war did not accomplish much besides hurt both sides. The United States should have stopped their efforts after they met resistance.

would consent to be the civil governor of the Philippines. He took the position organizing civil

The Filipino people had helped the US fight the Spanish-American War in hope to gain independence in return. However, instead of gaining independence the Philippines was annexed to the United States on December 10, 1898. When the Filipino’s had found they were going to be ruled over once again they were very unhappy, after all they had helped the US. When Aguinaldo had found out that the Philippines were going to be controlled by the US, he had declared war on the United States.

Lastly we shouldn't have took control of the Philippines is because the war led to the loss of many lives . McKinley said “by Gods grace do the very best we can by them our fellowmen who Christ also died” (Doc C). He is saying that God would approve of us “saving “ the Philippines but like William Bryan said , “ imperialism finds no warrant in the Bible . The command “Go ye into the world and preach the gospel to every creature , has no Gatling gun attachment” . He is explaining that Bible doesn't recommend violence . Lincoln strongly denounced “the slaughter of the Filipinos as a needless horror” We have murdered their loved ones and destroying families . Because of us 20, 000 rebels have died from either the bloody battle or from the

Late spring of 1898, The United States went to war with Spain in Cuba and the Philippines. We attacked the Spanish in the Philippines who had a large military presence there. The United States had an easy victory and suddenly became a major world power. The reasoning for this attack was because of the bad treatment of the Cubans by their Spanish masters.

For a brief period of time, America became the exact thing it once strived to defeat: an imperialist.  The moment the Treaty of Paris was signed on February 6, 1899, America became an imperialist.  America was divided on the issue of imperialism.  Some said that imperialism was wrong because it was against everything our nation was founded upon.  Others saw imperialism as a chance to exploit people and land to earn power and prestige.  The following paragraphs will explore America’s experimentation with imperialism in the Philippines.

insurgent’s revolt was the revolution for the Philippines. It was violent protest for Philippine independence.

The U.S. decision to annex the Philippines was accompanied by strong rallies of support as well as many people who opposed it. But what brought about this monumental event in the history of the U.S? On April 24th 1898 the Spanish declared war on the United States after the U.S. had demanded that Spain withdrawal their armed forces from Cuba. The U.S. had been aiding Cuba in their attempt to gain independence from Spain. On December 10th 1998, the signing of the Treaty of Paris formally ended the war. The treaty proclaimed that Spain would relinquish their claims to Cuba, which would soon become a U.S. protectorate. They would also give the U.S. Guam and Puerto Rico and sell the Philippines to the U.S. for a price of $20 million. The decision to annex the Philippines would trigger with domestic controversy

Through time, he has become a very public figure, even considered relevant in the political sphere due to his abilities with as a writer and as a speaker. The mysticism of Marcos as a leader relies in the fact that he is more than a name, but instead represents the ideals of Zapatismo and as the author says “Marcos, more than a name, is a universal symbol of resistance”

In this argument, I believe the failures of the initial Philippine colonial project not only retrogressed the islanders back into their primitive informal aristocracy but actually help unify and modernize a regime that was the complete reversal of American intentions. The result of the type of Filipino government after reconstruction were significantly constrained by Anti-Imperialists tensions from the metropole and continued to reshape itself by many additional constraints from the Filipino legislation. Only about fifty years later of political administration would enable the development of an autonomic government.

He initiated the Philippine Organic Act (1902) which imposed a form of government in the Philippines. He instigated (2)“a revolt of Panamanians against the government of Colombia so that a favorable PANAMA CANAL TREATY could be negotiated (1903)” . He authorised “police actions” in Caribbean and Latin American countries that sometimes led to

that the settlers, who were uninvolved in the conflict, were in danger and fear for their lives from the attacks and it has been necessary to introduce the ability to take any action necessary to stop it. There is also mention of attacks on black women in the reasons for implementation, although it does not advise who the perpetrators of the attacks were. The document goes on to advise that cruelty towards those being brought to order under the decree was deemed unnecessary and women and children were to

However, it was Marcos who envisioned a “New Society” or a “Bagong Lipunan” that urged the “poor and privileged” to work as one for the country’s economic goals through “self-realization.” (5.Y) Which, as previously stated, are work and/or study ethics of the Chinese and Jewish (a strong sense of self – of hunger for knowledge). In addition, it was also during Marcos’ regime that the GNP (Gross National Product, a development indicator of a country [definition from Turning Points IV]) in 1980 became four times greater than the country’s GNP in 1972 with an average annual growth rate of 6.6%. It was also during this time

In 1972, President Ferdinand E. Marcos (1965-86) declared martial law, citing growing lawlessness and open rebellion by the communist rebels as his justification. Marcos governed from 1973 until mid-1981 in accordance with the transitory provisions of a new constitution that replaced the commonwealth constitution of 1935. He suppressed democratic institutions and restricted civil liberties during the martial law period, ruling largely by decree and popular referenda. The government began a process of political normalization during 1978-81, culminating in the reelection of President Marcos to a 6-year term that would have ended in 1987. The Marcos government's respect for human rights remained low despite the end of martial law on January 17, 1981. His government retained its wide arrest and detention powers. Corruption and favoritism contributed to a serious decline in economic growth and development under Marcos.

In the past few years, Macau has become an international destination. The liberation of gaming license had bought about large foreign investments and facilities infrastructure. Macau, a sparkling metropolis at night, is home to thousands of overseas Filipino workers . One of its eye-catching characteristics is certainly its large Filipino community. Filipinos represent the second largest group of non-resident workers in Macau after mainland Chinese. It also becomes abundantly clear that these people are mostly found working in lower paid jobs. Maybe because the most compelling advantages the Philippines has over any Asian country, is the fact that Filipinos are competent and highly-educated. However, more