THE COLONIZER AND THE COLONIZED IN HOMELAND...AS NATIVE FILIPINOS FOUGHT FOR AMERICA DURING WORLD WAR 2. ...WHO GOT SHAFTED?

“We gave the Philippines political freedom to enter the world family of nations, but did we give them internal political liberty? More important still, did we grant them economic freedom? – Harold L. Ickes, longest tenured U.S. Secretary of the Interior (1933-1946)

OUR HOMELAND PHILIPPINES: THE COLONIZER AND THE COLONIZED. WHO GOT SHAFTED?

LESSONS TO BE LEARNED:

GROWING UP WE NATIVE FILIPINOS ARE TOLD REPEATEDLY OF "US-PHILIPPINES SPECIAL RELATIONS"-- WHAT IS IT REALLY?
1. HIDDEN AND/OR GLOSSED OVER HISTORY LED TO OUR IGNORANCE, NAIVETE, AND SENTIMENTALITY.
2. FRIENDSHIP BETWEEN COUNTRIES IS NOT AND NEVER THE SAME AS PERSONAL FRIENDSHIP. WITH AMERICA/USA, DECLARATIONS, PROMISES, ETC. MADE BY ANY AMERICAN OFFICIAL WHETHER ITS PRESIDENT, MILITARY GENERAL, AMBASSADOR, ET AL. ARE NOT BINDING OR GUARANTEED UNLESS SUCH PRONOUNCEMENTS HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY CONGRESS. 3. NEED TO LOOK AT THE MIRROR: TO RECOGNIZE OUR NAIVETE, IGNORANCE, AND SENTIMENTALITY... AND GROW UP (HOWEVER LATE).
Below is an extremely costly and painful experience most native Filipinos were/are not aware of.
(Fast forward today, it seems the present Duterte regime is beholden to the new bully with resurgent imperial ambitions in the region: former Communist China.)

NOTES TO READERS:  
1. Colored and/or underlined words are HTML links. Click on them to see the linked posts/articles. Forwarding this and other posts to relatives and friends, especially those in the homeland, is greatly appreciated. To share, use all social media tools: email, blog, Google+, Tumblr, Twitter, Facebook, etc. THANKS!!
2. Click the following underlined title/link to checkout these Essential/Primary Readings About Us Filipino Natives:
Primary Blog Posts/Readings for my fellow, Native (Malay/Indio) Filipinos-in-the-Philippines
3. Instantly translate to any of 71 foreign languages. Go to the sidebar on the right to choose your preferred language.
*************************

LET US NOT KEEP OUR HEADS IN THE SAND

To be persuasive we must be believable; to be believable we must be credible; credible we must be truthful." - Edward R. Murrow (1908-1965)

                                    ***********

Filipino World War II veterans did receive recognition in 2017 when they were awarded the Congressional Gold Medal—the country’s highest civilian honor—but many still lack benefits. With many of these veterans in their nineties, their numbers are dwindling by the day.

“There are not many left, maybe less than 10,000, Taguba says, "so this is a battle of attrition.”

NATIVE FILIPINOS FOUGHT FOR AMERICA DURING WORLD WAR 2. THEN HAD TO FIGHT FOR VETERANS BENEFITS. - Christopher Klein

On an early December morning in 1941, waves of Japanese bombers roared through American airspace. While air sirens wailed and guns blazed, American nationals took cover as a surprise attack in the Pacific sank U.S. battleships and crippled the largest aggregation of American warplanes outside of North America.

This Japanese attack didn’t occur on the infamous date of December 7, 1941, however, but a day later on the other side of the International Dateline. And the target wasn’t Hawaii’s Pearl Harbor, but the Philippines, which had been an American possession since the 1898 Spanish-American War. Hours after the air raids, First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt spoke on the radio to decry the Japanese “bombing our citizens in Hawaii and the Philippines.”

After the attacks that drew the United States into World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt pledged to defend the American commonwealth of the Philippines. “So long as the flag of the United States flies on Filipino soil as a pledge of our duty to your people, it will be defended by our own men to the death,” he said.

A presidential order earlier in the year had brought all military forces in the Philippines under American control in the U.S. Armed Forces of the Far East, and Filipinos answered their commander-in-chief’s call and enlisted by the tens of thousands. As citizens of an American commonwealth, Filipino soldiers were legally American nationals, and Roosevelt promised them the same veterans’ benefits given to members of the U.S. Armed Forces.

Unlike the lightning strike on Pearl Harbor, the Japanese sustained their attacks on the Philippines in the weeks following the entry of the United States into World War II. After staging an amphibious landing, Japanese forces occupied Manila. Under the command of General Douglas MacArthur, Filipinos fought alongside American soldiers in the Battle of Bataan. After the defeat of the Allied forces and the escape of MacArthur to Australia, Filipinos were among the estimated 10,000 soldiers who died during the Japan-led, 60-mile “Death March” across the Bataan Peninsula.

Even after the surrender of the Philippines in May 1942, Filipino guerrilla forces continued to fight their Japanese occupiers in the archipelago’s jungles and mountains. For three years they kept up their resistance until MacArthur returned with troops that eventually drove out the Japanese. By the time it ended in 1945, the war had claimed a terrible toll, including the deaths of an estimated one million Filipinos.

In a clandestine radio broadcast to the Philippines in August 1943, Roosevelt said, “I give the Filipino people my word that the Republic of the Philippines will be established the moment the power of our Japanese enemies is destroyed.” That promise was fulfilled on the Fourth of July in 1946 when Filipinos celebrated an independence day of their own as the American flag was lowered and replaced by the ensign of the newly independent Philippines.

Another of Roosevelt’s promises, however, was quickly broken. Earlier in 1946, Congress passed the Rescission Act, which retroactively annulled the benefits promised to veterans and their widows and children because of concerns over its projected price tag of upwards of $3 billion.

“The priority after World War II was in Europe, and the government made a determination they would instead pay $200 million to the Filipino government, which would disperse the money,” says Antonio Taguba, a retired U.S. Army major general and chairman of the Filipino Veterans Recognition and Education Project, which is working for due recognition and benefits to Filipino World War II veterans and their widows.

In spite of his reluctance, President Harry Truman signed the legislation. “I consider it a moral obligation of the United States to look after the welfare of Philippine Army veterans,” he said in a statement at the bill signing. “They fought, as American nationals, under the American flag, and under the direction of our military leaders. They fought with gallantry and courage under most difficult conditions during the recent conflict.”

More than seven decades later, Filipino veterans were still waiting for the U.S. government to fulfill that obligation. While members of the “Old” Philippine Scouts were eligible to receive full benefits, that has not been the case with members of the Commonwealth Army of the Philippines, Recognized Guerrilla Forces, and New Philippine Scouts.

The 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided for one-time, lump-sum payments of $15,000 to surviving Filipino veterans who were American citizens and $9,000 to non-citizens. As of January 1, 2019, more than 18,000 claims had been approved by the U.S. government, but nearly 24,000 had been denied, in part because of requirements, Taguba says. In order to receive compensation, veterans must be on a list of 260,715 Filipino guerrilla fighters compiled by the federal government immediately after the war as well as the so-called “Missouri List” of veterans, which is incomplete as a result of a 1973 fire that destroyed millions of military records, including those of many Filipinos who served during World War II.

“It’s almost an exercise in futility,” says Taguba, whose father served in the Philippine Scouts, escaped from the Bataan Death March, and continued to fight as a guerrilla in northern Luzon.

Filipino World War II veterans did receive recognition in 2017 when they were awarded the Congressional Gold Medal—the country’s highest civilian honor—but many still lack benefits. With many of these veterans in their nineties, their numbers are dwindling by the day.

“There are not many left, maybe less than 10,000, Taguba says, "so this is a battle of attrition.”

SOURCE:https://www.history.com/news/filipino-americans-veterans-day?fbclid=IwAR05QsxjcxU5nh3uEhByNhUNihL8FJDknXNe9k7e-F5LLoF7Cl1PhcFCR3I

*****

See also: About the "Public Law 70-301, known as the Rescission Act of 1946."

The Filipino Veterans Movement

I, ______________, do solemnly swear...that I will bear true faith and allegiance...to the United States of America...that I will serve them honestly and faithfully...against all their enemies whomsoever...and I will obey the orders...of the President of the United States...And the orders of the officers appointed over me...according to the rules and Articles of War."

With this pledge, approximately 250,000 Filipino men joined the U.S. Armed Forces in the months before and the days just after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. For the next several years, they would share the fate of their American counterparts on the battlefield, in prisoner of war camps, and throughout the countryside as part of the guerrilla resistance. Accordingly, Washington promised them the same health and pension benefits as their American brothers. Even after the war, in October of 1945, Gen. Omar Bradley, then Administrator of the Veterans Administration, reaffirmed that they were to be treated like any other American veterans.

But on February 18, 1946, Congress passed and President Truman signed Public Law 70-301, known as the Rescission Act of 1946. It said that the service of Filipinos "shall not be deemed to be or to have been served in the military or national forces of the United States or any component thereof or any law of the United States conferring rights, privileges or benefits."

Ever since Filipino veterans and others appalled by this injustice have lobbied without success for a reversal of the Rescission Act. Mr. Gustavo Ingles, whose sacrifices are vividly described above, gave voice to their frustration in his interview with American Experience...

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/macarthur-filipino-veterans-movement/

****

ALSO:

Forgotten: The Battle Thousands of WWII Veterans Are Still Fighting

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/forgotten-battle-thousands-wwii-veterans-are-still-fighting-n520456?fbclid=IwAR2YmJcf6cH4-LlUwtk7DeXM1honpzEP7oOVCbeEQ2k87xTbQrv5nqDOEtU

OUR HOMELAND PHILIPPINES: THE COLLABORATIVE MIND

A Collaborative Philippine Leadership

NOTES:

1. Colored and/or underlined words are HTML links. Click on them to see the linked posts/articles. Forwarding this and other posts to relatives and friends, especially those in the homeland, is greatly appreciated). To share, use all social media tools: email, blog, Google+, Tumblr, Twitter, Facebook, etc. THANKS!!
2. Read on Scribd mobile apps: iPhone, iPad and Android.
3. Free download as PDF, TXT or read online for free from Scribd, point-click to open-->SCRIBD/TheFilipinoMind

Click the following underlined title/link to checkout these Essential/Primary Readings About Us Filipino Natives:
Primary Blog Posts/Readings for my fellow, Native (Malay/Indio) Filipinos-in-the-Philippines

******

"For a people to be without history, or to be ignorant of its history, is as for a man to be without memory - condemned forever to make the same discoveries that have been made in the past, invent the same techniques, wrestle with the same problems, commit the same errors; and condemned, too, to forfeit the rich pleasures of recollection. Indeed, just as it is difficult to imagine history without civilization, so it is difficult to imagine civilization without history." - American historian Henry Steele Commager (1965)

The most important step in establishing a new political system was the successful cooptation of the Filipino elite--called the "policy of attraction." Wealthy and conservative ilustrados, the self-described "oligarchy of intelligence," had been from the outset reluctant revolutionaries, suspicious of the Katipunan and willing to negotiate with either Spain or the United States.  Trinidad H. Pardo de Tavera, a descendant of Spanish nobility, and Benito Legarda, a rich landowner and capitalist, had quit Aguinaldo's government in 1898 as a result of disagreements with Mabini. Subsequently, they worked closely with the Schurman and Taft commissions, advocating acceptance of United States rule. In December 1900, de Tavera and Legarda established the Federalista Party, advocating statehood for the islands. In the following year they were appointed the first Filipino members of the Philippine Commission of the legislature. In such an advantageous position, they were able to bring influence to bear to achieve the appointment of Federalistas to provincial governorships, the Supreme Court, and top positions in the civil service.  Although the party boasted a membership of 200,000 by May 1901, its proposal to gain statehood had limited appeal, both in the islands and in the United States, and the party was widely regarded as being opportunistic. In 1905 the party revised its program over the objections of its leaders, calling for "ultimate independence" and changing its name to the National Progressive Party (Partido Nacional Progresista). The Nacionalista Party, established in 1907, dominated the Philippine political process until after World War II. It was led by a new generation of politicians, although they were not ilustrados and were by no means radical. One of the leaders, Manuel Quezon, came from a family of moderate wealth. An officer in Aguinaldo's army, he studied law, passed his bar examination in 1903, and entered provincial politics, becoming governor of Tayabas in 1906 before being elected to the Philippine Assembly the following year. His success at an early age was attributable to consummate political skills and the support of influential Americans.  His Nacionalista Party associate and sometime rival was Sergio Osmeña, the college-educated son of a shopkeeper, who had worked as a journalist. The former journalist's thoroughness and command of detail made him a perfect complement to Quezon. Like Quezon, Osmeña had served as a provincial governor (in his home province of Cebu) before being elected in 1907 to the assembly and, at age twenty-nine, selected as its first speaker. Although the Nacionalista Party's platform at its founding called for "immediate independence," American observers believed that Osmeña and Quezon used this appeal only to get votes. In fact, their policy toward the Americans was highly accommodating. In 1907 an understanding was reached with an American official that the two leaders would block any attempt by the Philippine Assembly to demand independence. Osmeña and Quezon, who were the dominant political figures in the islands up to World War II, were genuinely committed to independence. The failure of Aguinaldo's revolutionary movement, however, had taught them the pragmatism of adopting a conciliatory policy. The appearance of the Nacionalista Party in 1907 marked the emergence of the party system, although the party was without an effective rival from 1916 for most of the period until the emergence of the Liberal Party in 1946. Much of the system's success (or, rather, the success of the Nacionalistas) depended on the linkage of modern political institutions with traditional social structures and practices. Most significantly, it involved the integration of local-level elite groups into the new political system.  Philippine parties have been described by political scientist Carl Landé as organized "upward" rather than "downward." That is, national followings were put together by party leaders who worked in conjunction with local elite groups--in many cases the descendants of the principalía of Spanish times--who controlled constituencies tied to them in patron-client relationships. The issue of independence, and the conditions and timing under which it would be granted, generated considerable passion in the national political arena. According to Landé, however, the decisive factors in terms of popular support were more often local and particularistic issues rather than national or ideological concerns. Filipino political associations depended on intricate networks of personalistic ties, directed upward to Manila and the national legislature. The linchpins of the system created under United States tutelage were the village- and province-level notables--often labeled bosses or caciques by colonial administrators--who garnered support by exchanging specific favors for votes. Reciprocal relations between inferior and superior (most often tenants or sharecroppers with large landholders) usually involved the concept of utang na loob (repayment of debts) or kinship ties, and they formed the basis of support for village-level factions led by the notables. These factions decided political party allegiance.  The extension of voting rights to all literate males in 1916, the growth of literacy, and the granting of women's suffrage in 1938 increased the electorate considerably. The elite, however, was largely successful in monopolizing the support of the newly enfranchised, and a genuinely populist alternative to the status quo was never really established. The policy of attraction ensured the success of what colonial administrators called the political education of the Filipinos. It was, however, also the cause of its greatest failure.  Osmeña and Quezon, as the acknowledged representatives, were not genuinely interested in social reform, and serious problems involving land ownership, tenancy, and the highly unequal distribution of wealth were largely ignored.  The growing power of the Nacionalista Party, particularly in the period after 1916 when it gained almost complete control of a bicameral Philippine legislature, barred the effective inclusion of non-elite interests in the political system. Not only revolution but also moderate reform of the social and economic systems were precluded. Discussions of policy alternatives became less salient to the political process than the dynamics of personalism and the ethic of give and take.  Source: U.S. Library of Congress