The Gaming Den

Kaelik wrote:Frank Trollman, Racist, according to IGTN

... Sexist, not racist.

Zinegata: do you even know of the 60's and 70's Asian-American protest movements? seriously?


so don't talk about Asian-Americans not protesting for their rights. Just because you are one person who descended from them doesn't mean you know what they are or what they stand for.

So shut the fuck up.

Cynic wrote:Zinegata: do you even know of the 60's and 70's Asian-American protest movements? seriously?


so don't talk about Asian-Americans not protesting for their rights. Just because you are one person who descended from them doesn't mean you know what they are or what they stand for.

So shut the fuck up.

Yes. That resulted in the 1965 Asian Immigration act (properly the "Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965"). Which I have already mentioned, in addition to the veterans back pay issue.

Besides, properly speaking, the protests were also part of the wider civil rights drive of the 60s - which is totally cool. Nobody's dissing on that.

Since then however, have you seen Asian Americans on the streets? So far every example cited - other than mine - has been from around 1965, or even prior to that. Or, in cases of dishonest shits, even totally outside of Asian Americans. How are the Asian-Americans active in politics in the present day?

The fact is, Asian-Americans don't really bother with politics so much in the present day, and they don't block as a whole block for one party or another. Unlike the Hispanics, who vote Democratic. Which is why illegal immigration for Mexicans is totally cool and anyone who goes against it is "racist", while Asians get stuck with a quota system that was last amended as a law in 1965.

Which is why certain hacks get pissed whenever the state of Asian Americans is pointed out. They get hit by discrimination, but so far they're doing okay. And that shows some very hypocritical stances being taken by many politicians (mainly Democrats), and of the "leaders" of the Hispanic and (to a lesser extent) African-American community. Because they don't want to acknowledge that the issue afflicting these communities is not racism, but poverty.

Also I'm not even Asian American, if you had actually bothered to read what I wrote.

So why don't you go fucking read first before you start telling other people to shut up?

So I split this out of the Crissa/Ceiling Cat thing because it is so terribly bad that it deserved it's own post, and there are so many things wrong with this argument.

IGTN wrote:

ubernoob wrote:

Crissa wrote: I don't care about you. Kaelik proved it be using sexist terms and slurs.

Actually, you didn't. All you showed is that Kaelik called you a bitch. That's not a slur. That's calling you a bitch (which you are).

Do you actually believe that? Do you actually think anyone else will believe that? Is "calling a woman a bitch isn't sexist" your actual argument here?

1) The everyone is sexist argument.

Is your argument that Frank Trollman, you, and literally every person on this forum is sexist because they have used the term bitch to describe someone? Is that really your argument?

I mean, only one word on this entire forum is actually edited out. And that word is c u n t.

Here is a direct quote of Frank talking about a woman since apparently that's really important.

Frank Trollman, Sexist, according to IGTN wrote:Personally, I've had Kkat on ignore for years, so I wouldn't know what the hell that [EDITED] was going off about or bother to hazard a guess as to why.

I sure if I weren't Time pressed, I could find a specific example of Frank calling specifically Crissa a bitch.

So either admit that calling a specific woman a bitch for reasons that have nothing to do with her being a woman is not sexist, or make my day and explicitly state that you think Frank Trollman is sexist, so I don't even have to post to watch you get piledrived.

2) The Asshole Argument.

Asshole is a term generally used to insult humans. If I use it to an insult a specific human being, am I implicitly insulting all human beings? Why is it any different from Bitch?

3) The definition, change over time argument.

Uber has this covered. Bitch is mostly gender neutral at this point.

4) The Gaming Den Argument

The special go to insult here is "suck a barrel of cocks" if you say that to a guy, that's probably a slight against gays, if saying bitch is an insult against all women. Therefore, the entire Gaming Den is homophobic.

5) The Kaelik hates everyone except Ceiling Cat argument.

If calling a woman a bitch is sexist, and calling a man a bitch is sexist against women because that other thing you posted then:

Calling a man a dick is sexist, calling a woman a dick is sexist.

I use Dick more than I use Bitch, but I use both, therefore, I am sexist against men and women. Oh shit, I guess the only people I'm not sexist against are transexuals.

6) The prevalence of insults. In Crissas post where she quotes all my insults, I call her retarded, stupid, asshole, bitch, and some other stuff.

Based on your principle of calling people names reserved for other groups, you should also be getting mad at me for being Smartest/intellectualist/elitist, whatever you call someone who hates people with learning disorders, um... someone who hates things with assholes, but likes things without assholes? Like Plants? And whatever else.

Kaelik, your argument is so gay.

mean_liar wrote:Kaelik, your argument is so gay.

It also needs some proofreading/reformating, because the original was more concise .

Eh, Zine has shown me he's an American.

I know that it's hard to see laws change and all of a sudden people get it easier than you yourself had it. I get irritated too, I was mad when I found out that when I was a full time student and nearly starved to death last summer they had just then revised WiC to include college students and it was possible that I could have drawn it instead of dropping 60 pounds from lack of food.

But you know what? Life wasn't designed to be fair. And if changing the laws makes things benefits everyone, then we need to squash our feelings of entitlement and do what needs to be done.

1) The everyone is sexist argument.

Is your argument that Frank Trollman, you, and literally every person on this forum is sexist because they have used the term bitch to describe someone? Is that really your argument?

I mean, only one word on this entire forum is actually edited out. And that word is c u n t.

Here is a direct quote of Frank talking about a woman since apparently that's really important.

Frank Trollman, Sexist, according to IGTN wrote:
Personally, I've had Kkat on ignore for years, so I wouldn't know what the hell that [EDITED] was going off about or bother to hazard a guess as to why.


I sure if I weren't Time pressed, I could find a specific example of Frank calling specifically Crissa a bitch.

So either admit that calling a specific woman a bitch for reasons that have nothing to do with her being a woman is not sexist, or make my day and explicitly state that you think Frank Trollman is sexist, so I don't even have to post to watch you get piledrived.

This thread is a train wreck and is going to get locked soon. I will go ahead and admit that it is only staying open because I want to see how this particular facet pans out.

Game on,
fbmf

Zinegata wrote:
Again, the issue is fairness. If you're saying it's cool to have illegals because they get paid less, you're already being unfair.

So, it's unfair the way it is now, and it's unfair to remove incentive so no one hires illegals. But a hugely expensive wall guarded my military we don't even have that wouldn't stop anything is the way to go?

I am starting to question your cognitive processes. It's like you're not even reading anything anyone is saying and going on about "fairness" and spouting off random things in between crying about how unfair it would be to cut off the supply for illegal immigrants, and not once commented on the effectiveness of what I said. Seriously, if there are flaws in my thinking I am game to hear them, you just keep whining about geography. (Note that you ignore the idea that if my plan were the rule, then an illegal from Asia would also be given the same wages as citizens. However, they wouldn't be able to anyway because no one would hire a goddamn foreigner if we couldn't work them to death for pennies an hour.)

That is the ONLY reason why there are illegals crossing the border to work. It's because employers like having people that work their asses off that don't make them provide safe workplaces or require the same wages as Americans. Which in turn drives all wages down.

You are letting your rage cloud your mind. The carrot is always the better negotiating tactic, not the stick.

Are you claiming that all illegals are Mexican? Be real careful when you say that, Hispanics who are not Mexican tend to take that as offensive.

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:So, it's unfair the way it is now, and it's unfair to remove incentive so no one hires illegals. But a hugely expensive wall guarded my military we don't even have that wouldn't stop anything is the way to go?

I don't get what you're saying. You're against walling up the border because of the cost. That's a valid concern.

But saying you should allow illegal immigrants to legally get jobs? That's truly unfair to the rest of the world. Because the rest of the world is waiting in line to get into the United States legally (applying for travel VISAS and stuff just to get int) - but Mexicans and others can simply sneak in over the border. In fact, all you're doing is to encourage illegal immigration. "Just get in and we have a job ready for you!"

Screwy wages are unfair to the illegal immigrants. But letting illegal immigrants get jobs legally is unfair to legal immigrants. They're both unfair, but to different people.

If you want it to be fair, like I said, employ a green card system even before they get into the US. That way everybody goes through the same line and everybody has a fair shot. And all the green card people get decent wages. The point is - nobody should get in the US unless they're properly documented, which also helps prevent labor abuse. That way it's fair for everyone.

(Of course, this also means clamping down on illegal immigration)

I am starting to question your cognitive processes. It's like you're not even reading anything anyone is saying and going on about "fairness" and spouting off random things in between crying about how unfair it would be to cut off the supply for illegal immigrants, and not once commented on the effectiveness of what I said.

No. It's because you don't read what I actually wrote in favor of innuendo. If you want to insult someone, say it to his face.

You are letting your rage cloud your mind. The carrot is always the better negotiating tactic, not the stick.

Oh, gee, and yet people here were arguing the Philippine insurgency worked .

Are you claiming that all illegals are Mexican? Be real careful when you say that, Hispanics who are not Mexican tend to take that as offensive.

Nope. But the majority of illegals are Hispanics going through Mexico. If you again, read all of what I write, you'll notice I already noted the biggest block of Hispanics are Mexicans, followed by Puerto Ricans.

fine that's identification. i called you an asian-american because you said a distinct portion of your family was. that's fine.

Actually, yes. I have seen Asian-Americans on the streets since 1965. asian-americans participate in anti-immigration rights all the time

hell there was an indian-american anti-immigration march just a couple years ago in nyc.

Kaelik wrote:I don't suppose you could actually point to any defense/support/whatever you were going to say of those laws by me? Or are you as allergic to backing up your shitty lies as Crissa and Ceiling Cat.

Look at everything that you've posted in this thread so far!

However, your reaction to me posting the links in the first place was particular poignant, when you said that I was "crazy" for even posting about this in the first place, and you said this about the matter:

Kaelik wrote:No, what your links and the comments of the "informed posters" have demonstrated is that there is a racial problem in Arizona. And that races in Arizona are segregated, and that they hate each other.

What the hell? I just posted a ton of links about how bona fide birthers and white supremacists drafted the Arizona law to drive Mexicans - both legal and illegal - from the state, and you're still willing to just chalk everything up to some kind of benign and natural tendency for self-segregation?

What a fucktard.

Ganbare, you have a serious problem with reading comprehension.

Ganbare Gincun wrote:Look at everything that you've posted in this thread so far!

And I don't suppose you could actually point to a single instance of me saying that these are good laws that I support or agree with, could you.

Ganbare Gincun wrote:However, your reaction to me posting the links in the first place was particular poignant, when you said that I was "crazy" for even posting about this in the first place, and you said this about the matter:

I don't suppose you quote an actual place where I said that instead of just claiming I said it. I did say you were crazy for claiming that the people writing the law are evil racist fucktards. Not for posting links.

But I can see how you might have trouble grasping such a difficult concept.

Ganbare Gincun wrote:What the hell? I just posted a ton of links about how bona fide birthers and white supremacists drafted the Arizona law to drive Mexicans - both legal and illegal - from the state, and you're still willing to just chalk everything up to some kind of benign and natural tendency for self-segregation?

No, you posted a bunch of links to review pieces talking about the possible effects of laws that are being passed or might be passed none of which have anything to do with people leaving the state.

Zinegata wrote:

I have relatives in the United States who belong to another minority. The Asian-American minority. Specifically, the Filipino-American minority. Do you ever see Asians marching up and down the streets demanding more "civil rights" even though their grandparents were regularly under the threat of being lynched for being "yellow", or that their grandma was sent to a fucking internment camp just because they're Japanese? Hell, the only issue Filipino-Americans were ever sore about was the WW2 veteran's backpay issue.

Again, Gabare, you're a lying shit. I didn't move the goalpost. It was always fucking there with Asian-Americans and Filipino Americans.

You and Frank however, are moving the goal post to native Filipinos. Which is why you keep citing shit you don't really understand like Tydings McDuffie.

We didn't move any goalposts - you did. You decided to use your own racial background as an example of how a particular Asian-American minority has such "wonderful relations" with the United States, and then Frank and I posted links and proved that the foundation for both the freedom of the Philippines and the security of Filipino-Americans is one that is drenched in blood and built on the bodies of dead Filipino soldiers. And Frank has already cited the fact that Japanese-Americans in this country had to fight very hard to secure their civil rights and to obtain reparations for their time in our internment camps. You're asking us to believe that unlike the Blacks and the Hispanics, Asian-Americans simply sat on their hands and waited for everything to pan out, but this is nothing more then another one of your lies.

Zinegata wrote:The Philippine-American War is something I have already cited numerous times... and tend to downplay because the independence came forty decades after the end of that war.

It was NOT a very successful insurgency. To the point that Aguinaldo ended up running against the guy who lobbied for independence (Quezon), and lost that too.

If you want to say "They died as heroes", sure, they're entitled that. Aguinaldo is enshrined in our pantheon as our equivalent of George Washington. But to say the Americans left because of Aguinaldo despite a forty year gap between the war and independence is nuts.

We *lost* the insurgency. That's a fact. Not all revolutions end with a happy George Washington ending.

You lost the war, but you won your independence in the process. The fact that the Filipino people were willing to fight so dearly for their freedom is what prompted America to give it to them. You may have had 44 years in the interim to further secure that freedom, but the it was the sacrifices of Filipino patriots that won it from America in the first place. America had no intention of giving the Philippines independence after we annexed the island - we thought that they were pirates, barbarians, and savages that were incapable of civilization and that the Filipino people had "no more idea of its meaning then a shepard dog". The bodies of million dead Filipinos convinced the American people that they were original assessment of the situation was wrong, and this is why the Philippine Organic Act was passed in 1902.

Hmm... kinda wish I paid more attention to this thread now... the sexist language thing is kinda right up my alley....

I agree with Kaelik, I guess, in that the word "bitch" is really just a word. Now granted, it does technically have gender connotations, but so does the word "she" or "wife". If you're going to say that words like "bitch" and "that c word" are sexist because they (used to) imply gender, then words like "she", "wife", "woman", "seamstress", "mistress", and, oh fuck, let's go there, "lioness" are sexist too, because they are terms created to denote a gender as well as a position, occupation, personhood, species, whatever. And, as Kaelik said, then so are words like dick, cock, whatever.

In the greater arguement about "unsavoury" words, I always argue "They're just words goddamnit! They can't hurt you physically, and if they hurt you emotionally, then fight back, if they hurt your virgin ears, let me know so I can curse up a storm and get you to go the fuck away."

Kaelik wrote:And I don't suppose you could actually point to a single instance of me saying that these are good laws that I support or agree with, could you.

Here's your reaction to the banning of ethic studies classes in Arizona, a state where 30% of the population is of Hispanic decent:

Kaelik wrote:And you'll note that the ethnic studies groups are being cancelled for the exact reason black only schools are. It may not be a wise choice. It may not be an informed choice. But to cast it as racist is only a symptom of your paranoia.

Really? This is simply paranoia? You don't detect a pattern of racist behavior here on the part of the Arizona government, what with the Great Brown-Out, the move to ban Hispanic accents from Arizona classrooms, and the fact that their Anti-Immigration bill was written by white supremacists and birthers? You don't see a pattern here? Do we need to call Batman in to crack the case for you?

The evidence clearly indicates that the Arizona government is run by people that want to do everything that they can to harass and disenfranchise Mexican-Americans, and I'm supposed to simply write this off as "paranoia"? You may not have come out and said that you support these laws, and you did tell Crissa that you thought that banning teachers with accents was wrong when you were cornered, but the fact that you can maintain that there is no racial intent behind what is going in Arizona implies that you are either sympathetic to their agenda or too intellectually bankrupt to realize what's really going on here.

Kaelik wrote:I did say you were crazy for claiming that the people writing the law are evil racist fucktards. Not for posting links.

No, you posted a bunch of links to review pieces talking about the possible effects of laws that are being passed or might be passed none of which have anything to do with people leaving the state.

If you would have read any of those fucking links instead of simply dismissing them out of hand and running off at the mouth about how "you hate everyone equally" and how that gives you an excuse to use sexist, derogatory language against Ceilingcat and Crissa instead of addressing their arguments, you'd realize that yes, in fact these people are evil racist fucktards, they should be treated as such, and these laws are going to have severe repercussions for the state. And we know that because they have tried to pull this kind of racist shit before and got bitten in the ass by it.

Ganbare Gincun wrote:...and then Frank and I posted links and proved that the foundation for both the freedom of the Philippines and the security of Filipino-Americans is one that is drenched in blood and built on the bodies of dead Filipino soldiers.

You didn't prove this at all.

From what I've read, the Philippines fought a revolution, kicked out the Spanish, then fought and lost against the Americans... and then?

The US passes the Organic Act, which basically says that the natives would get some limited autonomy. Of course, the natives wouldn't have any elected legislative officials until 1907, so the Organic Act was more a signpost of the slow transition than any real acquiescence of autonomy greater than what was originally contemplated back in McKinley's 1899, pre-hostility Benevolent Assimilation policy.

Prior to the first open hostilities, America had a real problem with being seen as a colonial power. The intent appears to be that they intended to cede control to the natives at some point and institute some degree of autonomy very early in the process - White Man's Burden and all that. The timeline is such that the Schurman Commission was formed to investigate transition prior to the onset of hostilities, though their ultimate recommendations came out during the revolution.

You'd really need to get into the weeds of what was going on at the White House and Congress between 1899-1902 to parse out "proof" that the molasses-slow forty-five year diplomatic and legislative transition from American protectorate to independent nation was a result of the revolution rather than the American policy of Benevolent Assimilation. On it's face, forty-five years of peaceful wrangling is a good signpost that no one was worried about shooting each other. Not only that but it appears to me that the hurdle would be to show that McKinley's address on the subject and it's promise of eventual autonomy were a ruse, that the Schurman Commission was also a ruse, and that those ruses collapsed in the face of a failed insurgency.

That's a high hurdle that I don't believe you've met.


McKinley's Benevolent Assimilation address, Dec 1898
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_assimilation

Schurman Commission on government transition, Jan 1899
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schurman_Commission
...with final recommendations a year later during the revolution

ubernoob wrote:Actually, you didn't. All you showed is that Kaelik called you a bitch. That's not a slur. That's calling you a bitch (which you are).

Intentional ignorance is not a virtue. That isn't the statement I pointed out. I posted it again. Why should I post it a third time?

-Crissa

Ganbare Gincun wrote:You may not have come out and said that you support these laws, and you did tell Crissa that you thought that banning teachers with accents was wrong when you were cornered, but the fact that you can maintain that there is no racial intent behind what is going in Arizona implies that you are either sympathetic to their agenda or too intellectually bankrupt to realize what's really going on here.

So just to be clear, you were absolutely 100% wrong when you claimed that I support any of these laws, and you can't find any evidence of it occurring because it didn't.

And two, The fact that I never claimed there was "no racial intent." And if you want a third option, you could try the reason I said that I don't think they are racist.

They are people who are attempting to solve a problem that they see. They are attempting to solve that problem in a very dumb way because they are dumb people. That problem is not the existence of other races, it is the racial tensions in the state, primarily caused by a bunch of old white people. But because changing old white people is difficult, and because they are not good at figuring out the root cause of problems, they have done stupid things instead.

Kaelik wrote:If you would have read any of those fucking links instead of simply dismissing them out of hand and running off at the mouth about how "you hate everyone equally" and how that gives you an excuse to use sexist, derogatory language against Ceilingcat and Crissa instead of addressing their arguments, you'd realize that yes, in fact these people are evil racist fucktards

1) I did read those links, which is how I know that none of them present evidence for, or even claim that they are evil racist fucktards.

2)

Ganbare the filthy liar wrote:running off at the mouth about how "you hate everyone equally" and how that gives you an excuse to use sexist, derogatory language against Ceilingcat and Crissa

Hey Ganbare, not to make too much of a refrain about this, but how about you motherfucking point to an example of me using sexist derogatory langauge.

Or you know, shut up and stop lying.

EDIT: And while you are backing up your fucking lies with actual quotes that didn't occur, how about you point to a single instance before this post in which I use the words "hate everyone equally"

Crissa wrote:

ubernoob wrote:Actually, you didn't. All you showed is that Kaelik called you a bitch. That's not a slur. That's calling you a bitch (which you are).

Intentional ignorance is not a virtue. That isn't the statement I pointed out. I posted it again. Why should I post it a third time?

-Crissa

Yeah, you posted it in with a hundred insults at the bottom of the list, and nobody realized it was what you were talking about, because even people who think I'm sexist don't think that comment is sexist, because they have more brains than you.

Then you reposted it, as the last post on a page, and no one read it but me. Then you waited until after I had countered your ridiculous assertion, and instead of addressing my rebuttal, you quoted Uber quoting a different post where you arbitrarily claim that you already proved it, even though obviously everyone missed your one sentence clarification at the end of the page, and got mad at him for not seeing into the future to your third post which will actually not be designed to obscure your actual claim.

Way to go Crissa. A real Class Act that.

Kaelik, I didn't call you on the bitch comment, because you used it as a verb. It's still a sexist term, but I believe our language should be more flexible than that. There is a continuum of sexist (or any -ist) behavior, from little things like using appropriated language, to supporting framing, to what I did call you on: Actually denigrating tenets of equality.

But then you brought up your own experience (not fact) to say feminism is done wrong, which is horribly, and demonstrably, incorrect. But that doesn't matter, only a sexist dick would bring it up.

And yes, apparently due to your lack of actually bringing in links (which is what the thread is about) we used a synonym of defend for support, and this you've been using as a red herring argument for several pages without actually defending the statements which were called out. 'What segregation' would be one of the questions for you.

Ugh. Let's get back to the news, please?

-Crissa

Crissa wrote:Kaelik, I didn't call you on the bitch comment, because you used it as a verb. It's still a sexist term, but I believe our language should be more flexible than that. There is a continuum of sexist (or any -ist) behavior, from little things like using appropriated language, to supporting framing, to what I did call you on: Actually denigrating tenets of equality.

But then you brought up your own experience (not fact) to say feminism is done wrong, which is horribly, and demonstrably, incorrect. But that doesn't matter, only a sexist dick would bring it up.

And yes, apparently due to your lack of actually bringing in links (which is what the thread is about) we used a synonym of defend for support, and this you've been using as a red herring argument for several pages without actually defending the statements which were called out. 'What segregation' would be one of the questions for you.

Ugh. Let's get back to the news, please?

-Crissa

Kaelik wrote:Because stupid people are bad. Because people in general are bad. Because anything that undermines the role of women as servants is good. Because abortion is a voluntary and therefore self selective method of getting rid of stupid people, and so is not subject to abuse like gas chambers would be. Because every time a fetus is aborted, people become less attached to false morality imposed on them by various stupid sources who valued that fetus for reasons even more stupid than the reason people normally value them. Because idiots like you think that abortion should be avoided because other idiots think that fetus has any fucking worth at all, and the only way you'll learn is through constant unceasing abortions.

Again, is this a sexist statement? You can seriously fucking argue that Kealik is elitist or hates morons. You can't fucking argue that the guy is sexist. Stop getting so butthurt, Crissa.

Crissa wrote:But then you brought up your own experience (not fact) to say feminism is done wrong, which is horribly, and demonstrably, incorrect. But that doesn't matter, only a sexist dick would bring it up.

Kaelik's right. Feminism is frequently done wrong. There are many attitudes that fall under the umbrella category of feminism, and some of them seriously make me embarrassed to be a woman (and a sexist dick, apparently).

Zinegata wrote:. In fact, all you're doing is to encourage illegal immigration. "Just get in and we have a job ready for you!"

Let me try this one more time, maybe you will read what I said this time.

There is one AND EXACTLY ONE reason why illegals get jobs here: because illegals work cheap and don't snitch their bosses out when forced to work in inhumane conditions.

If you take the ability of employers to do that, you take the one reason to hire illegals.

Why would you hire someone who doesn't speak English, in many cases are illiterate in Spanish as well, who doesn't know the customs, who usually doesn't have the education and skills of a native born person if you couldn't pay them slave wages and work them to death?

You wouldn't. There wouldn't be "jobs waiting for illegals",there wouldn't be jobs for them at all.

Take away the reason employers have for hiring illegals, and no one hires them. Then they need a more compelling reason to come here other than work. Also, you put the burden onto employers in making sure they follow all laws and all of a sudden you have every employer in the country working for you without ever doing anything.

Take away the demand for illegal labor, and there won't be as many illegal immigrants.

It really is that simple.

mean_liar wrote:The US passes the Organic Act, which basically says that the natives would get some limited autonomy. Of course, the natives wouldn't have any elected legislative officials until 1907, so the Organic Act was more a signpost of the slow transition than any real acquiescence of autonomy greater than what was originally contemplated back in McKinley's 1899, pre-hostility Benevolent Assimilation policy.

Are you fucking serious? You know what the result of that "pre-hostility Benevolent Assimilation policy" was? Overthrow the First Phillipine Republic and take over the place. This is what Dr. Schurman, the chairman of the First Phillipine Commission, had to say about the matter:

Should our power by any fatality be withdrawn, the commission believe that the government of the Philippines would speedily lapse into anarchy, which would excuse, if it did not necessitate, the intervention of other powers and the eventual division of the islands among them. Only through American occupation, therefore, is the idea of a free, self-governing, and united Philippine commonwealth at all conceivable. And the indispensable need from the Filipino point of view of maintaining American sovereignty over the archipelago is recognized by all intelligent Filipinos and even by those insurgents who desire an American protectorate. The latter, it is true, would take the revenues and leave us the responsibilities. Nevertheless, they recognize the indubitable fact that the Filipinos cannot stand alone. Thus the welfare of the Filipinos coincides with the dictates of national honour in forbidding our abandonment of the archipelago. We cannot from any point of view escape the responsibilities of government which our sovereignty entails; and the commission is strongly persuaded that the performance of our national duty will prove the greatest blessing to the peoples of the Philippine Islands.

Dr. Schurman’s statement illustrates the ideology that the United States is the moral crusader who can “rescue and save” countries by imposing a Westernized and democratic system. His ideas regarding the situation demonstrate how this ideology has become a pattern/trend of United Stated foreign policy especially in consideration of the Philippine War. The United States acted out of the idea that morally, it is their duty as a superior nation to ensure the successful future of the inferiorly-portrayed Philippines. Dr. Schurman’s evaluation of the Philippine situation as being at the mercy of the US’s primary ability to save the islands is a prime illustration of this pattern/trend. If we had really intended to let the Filipinos govern themselves, we wouldn't have started the Philippine-American War in the first place. But no, we viewed them as being lower then dogs and didn't budge from this viewpoint until we got the message that they would never submit to our domination, no matter what the cost in lives. Once we realized that we had gotten more then we bargained for out of the whole "imperialism" deal, we folded like a card table.

So much for "peaceful assimilation".

mean_liar wrote:On it's face, forty-five years of peaceful wrangling is a good signpost that no one was worried about shooting each other.

Did you forget about the 10 year insurgency that carried on even after the war was formally concluded? Yeah, I thought so.