4 ms·
Wait - so the special relationship with the Philippines then ... which was in mostly fairly autonomous? ... that's the big ole' 'Empire'? ... and a few mostly
by sonnyblarney 8y ago
Wait - so the special relationship with the Philippines then ... which was in mostly fairly autonomous?
... that's the big ole' 'Empire'?
... and a few mostly unpopulated dots in the Ocean?
Oh, so scary! The power!
And to consider that Filipinos, who are culturally distinct from Americans in every way, and who have almost nothing in common with Americans but a temporary geopolitical alignment should be considered 'Americans' in the same way as those from New Orleans and NYC?
So that's 2018 intersectionalist history?
Rubbish.
America is quite fundamentally distinct from the Philippines and always has been, there's no fundamental reason that most Americans on the street should care enough to 'go to war' over foreign interdiction.
Going to war for those with whom the US has a special arrangement, and going to war for the 'homeland' are indeed quite different questions.
There's no 'hiding' here.
Thanks for the history tidbits Graun, but as usually the headline is ridiculous.
- dade_ 8y agoI don't think this article characterizes the relationship with the Philippines accurately at all. No mention of Japan's horrific occupation that the Americans fought with the Filipinos to expel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines_Campaign_(1944%E2%80%931945) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines_Campaign_(1944%E2%...
- yazboo 8y agoWhat does this have to do with intersectionalism?
- gjm11 8y ago> 2018 intersectionalist history No version of the word "intersectional" appears in the article, nor (so far as I can tell) in anything else by its author. I agree that the word "empire" here seems overblown, but it seems like perhaps you're bringing your own pet hates into this for some reason? Also: The article, and the book it's based on, are from 2019 (though I'm sure much of the work was done in 2018 and indeed earlier). Not sure what the point of specifying "2018" is meant to be.
- SllX 8y ago1941 Philippines was as American as 1941 Hawaii which were both about as American as or 1848-1859 Oregon Territory was or 1941-present Puerto Rico is. So, American, if you consider territory where Americans live on American soil to be American. Where they fork off is the Philippines are now an independent nation, Hawaii is now a US State, Oregon Territory was eventually split into 3 entire US States and part of a couple of others, and Puerto Rico still has more or less the same status as it did in 1941, but a few more rights and privileges afforded to them along with present day Guam, present day Northern Marianas Islands, and present day US Virgin Islands. American Samoa is US Territory, but a Navy playground so while the people are American Nationals living under the US Constituton, they’re not American Citizens and their territory is considered to be on par with all those unpopulated guano Islands we once claimed. That’s the law, 2019. The Filipinos are culturally distinct but we still count large numbers of them as American Citizens, both as immigrants and as a people that have lived in the mainland since before the Philippines were granted independence. The Native Hawaiians were and still are considered culturally distinct but they are still American Citizens by birthright. Put another way, your defensive posture is simply out of place here. On December 7th 1941, the Japanese attacked the United States. That shouldn’t need qualification. If they had only attacked Manila but didn’t make it to Oahu, they still would have been attacking the United States and that was certainly the intent of their attack.