1. |
|
To commemorate the Centennial Anniversary of
the Philippine conflict that broke on February 4, 1899 and to last until
1913, a conflict that has been buried from the history of the Philippines
and its its people. |
|
|
|
2. |
|
To present an interpretative account of the history
of the Philippine-American War using simple charts, tables, diagrams, and
photos. |
|
|
|
3. |
|
To assert the following historical claims -That
in carrying out an undeclared war, the United States divided the Philippines
into two fronts, namely: |
|
|
|
|
|
-
The Christian front (covering Aguinaldo's Luzon and
Visayas forces) that was officially closed on July 4, 1902.
|
|
|
-
The Muslim front (covering various Moros tribes in
Mindanao and Sulu) that was considered "pacified" only in 1913.
|
|
|
This "divide-and-conquer" strategy is clearly
evidenced by the signing of the Bates Treaty between the United States
and the Sultan of Jolo on August 20, 1899, at the very height of the Philippine-American
War. |
|
|
|
4. |
|
To present an analysis that within the independence
movement led by Emilio Aguinaldo, there was also a silent religious struggle
led by Rev. Fr. Gregorio Aglipay to emancipate the native priests from
racial and intellectual descrimination instituted by the Spanish friars
which would mean separating the Church from the control of Rome or the
Pope. This struggle would eventually lead to the creation of the Independent
Church of the Philippines. |
|
|
|
5. |
|
To present some lessons that could be learned
from the war, such as the following: |
|
|
|
|
|
-
The essence of diplomacy in trying to resolve conflicts.
Realizing the military might of the U.S. after series of defeats in the
battlefields, Aguinaldo used diplomatic means to allow the Filipino army
to retire with dignity. But the unbending demand for unconditional surrender
by General Elwell Otis was too humiliating for Aguinaldo and his army.
|
|
|
-
The factionalism and rivalry among Filipinos while
fighting a common enemy was self-destructive of them, albeit their knowledge
on the military disadvantage from their enemy. If the Aguinaldo-Luna power
struggle [Aguinaldo-Bonifacio during the earlier revolution days] was motivated
by their "survival of the fittest" instinct, this was shortsightedness
if not fatalistic on their part, for it only weakened their cause and sealed
their defeat in the hands of their enemy.
|
|
|
-
The unilateral abbrogation of the Bates-Sultan of
Jolo Treaty by the United States upon recommendation of General Leonard
Wood when he became the Military-Governor of Jolo, for reasons that the
treaty was a hindrance to effective administration of the Morolands, is
something that the Philippines should be learn and be careful in dealing
with the United States most especially in signing future treaties.
|
6. |
|
To remind everyone that there are open issues
of the Philippine-American War that are worth discussing and debating,
such as the following: |
|
|
|
|
|
-
The propriety of using the 'Bells of Balangiga',
a well-known war booty, as a war memorial for the dead U.S. soldiers by
their comrades.
|
|
|
-
The title "Philippine Insurrection", a humiliating
and downgraded title of the Philippine conflict. The U.S. may not understand
the feeling of the Filipinos on this issue but would simply ask: "what's
in the name?" As vanquished people the Filipinos have nothing except
their pride and dignity, and if this humiliation persist it is tantamount
to denying justice and recognition to their forefathers and ancestors for
their sacrifices in fighting an honorable war for independence.
|
|
|
-
U.S. century-old denial or 'silence' on the Philippine
war atrocities. To inflict almost half a million war casualties, clean
their dirty act, and leave with their hands clean is itself a big victory
for the U.S.
|
|
|
-
The immorality behind Spain's desperate act of selling
of the Philippines to the United States for $20 Million when Spain had
already lost control of the Philippines to both the U.S. (controled Manila
only by virtue of Peace Protocol) and the Filipinos (controlled the rest
of the Christian archipelago), at the time the Treaty of Paris was signed
on December 10, 1898.
|
|
|
-
The dismantling by the U.S. of the centuries-old Sultante of Sulu, a once-powerdul
and influencial power of the Sulu Archipleago.
|
|
|
-
The failure of the U.S. to carefully supervise the drafting of the Constitution
of the Philippine Commonwealth Government in order to safeguard the rights
of the Moro people over their ancestral lands. This oversight would later
on be realized when the Moro people openly rebelled against the Philippine
governments over the issue of ancestral lands and self-determination.
|
7. |
|
To create and bring awareness among Filipinos
to give importance to all commemorative anniversaries relating to the Philippine-American
Wars equal to that of the Philippine Independence celebrations. There is
no question about the historical significance of the June 12, 1898 Declaration
of the Philippine Independence, but if one were asked: which Philippine
flag is heavier, the flag that was raised at Kawit, Cavite by Emilio Aguinaldo,
or the flag that was soaked with blood and tears of thousands of Filipinos
during the 42-month independence war? |
|
|
|
|
|
In their search for national identity and character,
the Filipinos must re-examine their 'form' to ascertain that such is filled
with 'substance.' This 'form' is symobilized in their Declaration
of the Philippine Independence, while they seem to fail to grasp the real
'substance' of their national character as exemplified in the bravery and
willingness of their forefathers to fight and give up their lives for an
honorable independence war. |
|
|
|
|
|
Certainly, the rich history of the Philippine-American
War have defined the national identity and character of the Filipino. But
until the history of the war is seriously taught in the Philippine educational
curriculum, the Filipino people will be confronted by a perpetual search
for their national identity. |
|
|
|
8. |
|
To introduce the Retaliation Theory ,
a new theory that may shed more light on the truth on the Balangiga Massacre
that occured on September 27, 1901. Most history books describes the incident
as pure 'treachery' of the Filipinos without looking into the underlying
motive that propelled the courage of the bolo -yeilding Samarenos
to confront the Americans. In John Foreman's book titled "Philippine
Islands" published in 1906, he wrote |
|
|
|
|
|
"In January, 1901, the cry of rebellion was
raised by one Pedro Samson, whose band of Boholanos, augmented by levies
from Leyte, Samar, and Panay Islands numbered about 2,000."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Connecting the above acount to the Lonoy
Massacre (Lonoy, Jagna, Bohol) of March 10, 1901 a separate incident
from a not too far distant island of Bohol, where the Americans ambushed
and killed 406 "insurrectos" led by Capt. Gregorio Casenas leaving only
a few survivors, when they pretended to be dead, to tell their
stories --that the Americans had no intention of taking any prisoners.
Based on strong kinship among Filipinos, could
it be possible that the Balangiga Massacre was a joint retaliatory
measure by the Samarenos and Leytenos to avenge their fallen brothers in
the Lonoy Massacre?
|