The PHILIPPINES has been there before.

Discussion of current events
Post Reply
neverfail
Posts: 1247
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

The PHILIPPINES has been there before.

Post by neverfail » Fri Dec 01, 2017 2:34 am

http://www.atimes.com/article/dutertes- ... evolution/

(quote) Rather than declaring martial law nationwide, a rights-curbing move many feared he might impose in response to the Islamic State siege on the southern city of Marawi, Duterte has instead upped the ante by proposing to suspend the entire constitution. (unquote)

The last time that any Philippines president suspended their constitution was when Ferdinand Marcos did so back in 1972: in the wake of the startup of a backblocks Communist insurgency known as the New People's Army. Marcos claimed that their nation's constitution was under threat. That of course was bullshit! The brushfire insurgency never won mass support from within the Philippines nor attract any significant assistance from abroad. "Defending the constitution" was Marcos' excuse for seizing dictatorial power - not the real reason.

Duerte's current proposal looks so much like that - just replace the 1972 formation of the NPA with the recent experience of the ISIS seizure of a city on the troubled southern island of Mindanao and you have a virtual re-run of the script for Marcos' seizure of dictatorial powers.

There is only one significant difference. Back in 1972 the Philippines armed forces stood aside and allowed Marcos to get away with his coup. This time the Philippines army stands opposed to Duerte's takeover bid. It seems that the Philippines has learned something positive from the Marcos years after all.

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 1273
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: The PHILIPPINES has been there before.

Post by Doc » Fri Dec 01, 2017 9:46 am

neverfail wrote:
Fri Dec 01, 2017 2:34 am
http://www.atimes.com/article/dutertes- ... evolution/

(quote) Rather than declaring martial law nationwide, a rights-curbing move many feared he might impose in response to the Islamic State siege on the southern city of Marawi, Duterte has instead upped the ante by proposing to suspend the entire constitution. (unquote)

The last time that any Philippines president suspended their constitution was when Ferdinand Marcos did so back in 1972: in the wake of the startup of a backblocks Communist insurgency known as the New People's Army. Marcos claimed that their nation's constitution was under threat. That of course was bullshit! The brushfire insurgency never won mass support from within the Philippines nor attract any significant assistance from abroad. "Defending the constitution" was Marcos' excuse for seizing dictatorial power - not the real reason.

Duerte's current proposal looks so much like that - just replace the 1972 formation of the NPA with the recent experience of the ISIS seizure of a city on the troubled southern island of Mindanao and you have a virtual re-run of the script for Marcos' seizure of dictatorial powers.

There is only one significant difference. Back in 1972 the Philippines armed forces stood aside and allowed Marcos to get away with his coup. This time the Philippines army stands opposed to Duerte's takeover bid. It seems that the Philippines has learned something positive from the Marcos years after all.
JUst one factoid to add NF. The American revolution did not have a majority support while it was being fought. It is estimated that only 1/3 of Americans supported it while 1/3 supported the British and 1/3 stayed out of it. Which sounds a lot like Brexit :D
The classes and the races to weak to master the new conditions of life must give way {..} They must perish in the revolutionary holocaust --Karl Marx

neverfail
Posts: 1247
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: The PHILIPPINES has been there before.

Post by neverfail » Fri Dec 01, 2017 1:21 pm

Doc wrote:
Fri Dec 01, 2017 9:46 am

JUst one factoid to add NF. The American revolution did not have a majority support while it was being fought. It is estimated that only 1/3 of Americans supported it while 1/3 supported the British and 1/3 stayed out of it. Which sounds a lot like Brexit :D
Yep, I fully agree with your above historical assessment doc. But does this have anything to do with the current situation in the Philippines?

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 1273
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: The PHILIPPINES has been there before.

Post by Doc » Fri Dec 01, 2017 11:43 pm

neverfail wrote:
Fri Dec 01, 2017 1:21 pm
Doc wrote:
Fri Dec 01, 2017 9:46 am

JUst one factoid to add NF. The American revolution did not have a majority support while it was being fought. It is estimated that only 1/3 of Americans supported it while 1/3 supported the British and 1/3 stayed out of it. Which sounds a lot like Brexit :D
Yep, I fully agree with your above historical assessment doc. But does this have anything to do with the current situation in the Philippines?
You said the majority did not support the communists under Marcos. I am saying that is irrelevant as historically revolutions don't need a majority. Lenin for example leveraged his support and won in 1917 He certainly did not have a majority.
The classes and the races to weak to master the new conditions of life must give way {..} They must perish in the revolutionary holocaust --Karl Marx

neverfail
Posts: 1247
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: The PHILIPPINES has been there before.

Post by neverfail » Sat Dec 02, 2017 2:09 pm

Doc wrote:
Fri Dec 01, 2017 11:43 pm
neverfail wrote:
Fri Dec 01, 2017 1:21 pm
Doc wrote:
Fri Dec 01, 2017 9:46 am

JUst one factoid to add NF. The American revolution did not have a majority support while it was being fought. It is estimated that only 1/3 of Americans supported it while 1/3 supported the British and 1/3 stayed out of it. Which sounds a lot like Brexit :D
Yep, I fully agree with your above historical assessment doc. But does this have anything to do with the current situation in the Philippines?
You said the majority did not support the communists under Marcos. I am saying that is irrelevant as historically revolutions don't need a majority. Lenin for example leveraged his support and won in 1917 He certainly did not have a majority.
Oh, I see your point!

Well, I do not see the Philippines as being in any imminent danger of a takeover by the New People's Army, Doc. It was simmering away in some backblocks districts back in the Marcos days - that is already 3 to 4 decades in the past; it spluttered on in the same regions throughout the subsequent changes in elected leadership and still today, almost 40 years on, it still seems to have made no significant gains.

I find the Philippines an amazing place this way: When I first visited the country just over 35 years ago, I had never previously been to a place so visibly and palpably ripe for revolution. Yet 35 years later, with nothing up there significantly improved since, it still seems to limp and stumble on in its own peculiar way :)

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 1273
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: The PHILIPPINES has been there before.

Post by Doc » Sat Dec 02, 2017 7:13 pm

neverfail wrote:
Sat Dec 02, 2017 2:09 pm
Doc wrote:
Fri Dec 01, 2017 11:43 pm
neverfail wrote:
Fri Dec 01, 2017 1:21 pm
Doc wrote:
Fri Dec 01, 2017 9:46 am

JUst one factoid to add NF. The American revolution did not have a majority support while it was being fought. It is estimated that only 1/3 of Americans supported it while 1/3 supported the British and 1/3 stayed out of it. Which sounds a lot like Brexit :D
Yep, I fully agree with your above historical assessment doc. But does this have anything to do with the current situation in the Philippines?
You said the majority did not support the communists under Marcos. I am saying that is irrelevant as historically revolutions don't need a majority. Lenin for example leveraged his support and won in 1917 He certainly did not have a majority.
Oh, I see your point!

Well, I do not see the Philippines as being in any imminent danger of a takeover by the New People's Army, Doc. It was simmering away in some backblocks districts back in the Marcos days - that is already 3 to 4 decades in the past; it spluttered on in the same regions throughout the subsequent changes in elected leadership and still today, almost 40 years on, it still seems to have made no significant gains.

I find the Philippines an amazing place this way: When I first visited the country just over 35 years ago, I had never previously been to a place so visibly and palpably ripe for revolution. Yet 35 years later, with nothing up there significantly improved since, it still seems to limp and stumble on in its own peculiar way :)

The Philippines has gone from the "Amucks" running around to the communists and back to the Islamic insurgents. That would seem to be a full circle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moro_Rebellion
The classes and the races to weak to master the new conditions of life must give way {..} They must perish in the revolutionary holocaust --Karl Marx

neverfail
Posts: 1247
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: The PHILIPPINES has been there before.

Post by neverfail » Sun Dec 03, 2017 1:02 pm

Doc wrote:
Sat Dec 02, 2017 7:13 pm

The Philippines has gone from the "Amucks" running around to the communists and back to the Islamic insurgents. That would seem to be a full circle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moro_Rebellion
Doc, I would like to thank you for your interest in this topic under discussion.

Yes, the Moro south is a permanent pain in the butt for the central government in Manila.

The old sultanate of Sulu was not even incorporated into the Spanish empire until almost the middle of the 19th century. Spain had previously shown no interest in the area. Then the Sultan of Sulu sold what is today Sabah province in Malaysian Borneo to the British North Borneo Company: a private corporation ambitious to establish profitable plantations in the area. Britain and Spain then had to establish an international frontier with the result that the remainder of Sulu was placed on the Spanish side of the line. The Spanish grip was always "on paper" nominal in nature. The local Muslims just kept on doing things in their accustomed way and ignored the foreign occupier. The only reason why Spain bothered to occupy the area was to save face in front of the other imperial powers of the day. As far as I am aware Spain derived no benefit from the area.

Everyone who has come to power in Manila ever since; the Americans, the Japanese and then the Philippines themselves have successively inherited the same painful conundrum.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Jim the Moron, Sertorio and 4 guests