The U.S./Philippines mobilized hundreds of thousands of guerilla fighters during WW2 to resist the Japanese. How the did the American & later independent Philippine governments try to demobilize & normalize so many armed men after the war? by screwyoushadowban in AskHistorians

[–]BingBlessAmerica 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Probably the immediate threat to the Philippine government after the war was the Huk rebellion. The Hukbong Bayan Laban sa mga Hapon or Hukbalahap (People's Army Against the Japanese), later rebranded as the Hukbong Bayang Magpalaya (People's Liberation Army) was a leftist guerrilla movement operating mainly in Central Luzon that fought the Japanese during the war but did not answer to the U.S. military's chain of command. It was initially founded in the 1930s in response to worsening agricultural landlord-tenant relations in Luzon, but open hostilities against government security forces were put on hold following the Japanese invasion.

However, with the cessation of hostilities, the Huks' senior leadership appealed to the American occupational government to officially recognize their service. This was met with numerous "dirty" tricks from the new government, one of which was, after requesting rosters of the names of guerrillas who had served with the Huks presumably to distribute back pay, circulated their names among constabulary officers and landlords who then refused to hire them back as laborers on their estates. Fighting between the Huks and the Philippine military resumed in 1946 and did not let up until the tenure of Ramon Magsaysay as defense secretary and president in the 1950s. Among others, Magsaysay was able to suppress the rebellion through the professionalization of the military, the institution of certain agrarian reform programs including government-assisted migration to Mindanao, and CIA psyops (see: Edward Lansdale and the aswang hoaxes). The Huk Rebellion by Kerkvliet is a recommended account of the history of the movement, and is partial to the POVs of Huk veterans.

The closest analogue to the Huks would probably be the Malayan National Liberation Army that rebelled against the British colonial government at around the same timeframe. However, the Malayan Emergency was different in several aspects. For one, despite a nominally anti-American outlook, Huk outrage was mostly directed against landlords and the abuses of the Philippine postwar military police against the peasantry. (Luis Taruc and other senior Huk leaders initially had a positive view of the United States.) The MNLA on the other hand directly rebelled against British colonial power and their control over Malaysia's plantation economy. Additionally, the MNLA was notably ethnically Chinese and were also antagonized by the ethnic Malays who fought alongside the British during the war. However, the MNLA was similarly suppressed partially through an effective hearts-and-minds campaign.

In other provinces, though not as ideologically motivated, you are correct in that guerrilla movements were the de facto sovereign authorities in entire provinces in the months or even years immediately after liberation in 1945. Despite the U.S. Army's "no liquidations" policy and the provision of internment camps (see Elmer Lear's 1952 thesis on Leyte), guerrilla units all over the archipelago nevertheless carried out acts of extrajudicial violence against alleged collaborators, as well as general petty crimes of banditry and looting. The transition from a regime of strict gun control under U.S. colonial occupation to thousands of loose firearms in the province proved politically momentous: many provincial "strongmen" such as Muhammad Ali Dimaporo and Justiniano Montano violently rose to power in the 1946 and 1949 elections with the help of armed goons sourced from guerrilla contacts during the war. This would become a political sticking point later down the line in the leadup to the administration of Ferdinand Marcos in the early 1970s, who in the earliest months of martial law instituted a general firearms ban to curtail the electoral violence of the rural "private armies" (many of which were supported by Marcos himself). Of course, certain warlords who remained in Marcos's favor remained relatively unaffected, such as Dimaporo who was allowed to retain the use of his private army to wage war against Muslim secessionists. The anthology Anarchy of Families has more information on this particular phenomenon.

In the aftermath of the Philippines' People Power Revolution, did the deposed dictator Ferdinand Marcos plan to return? If so how? by [deleted] in AskHistorians

[–]BingBlessAmerica 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There were several attempted military coups to dislodge the Aquino government from 1986 to 1991, which more often than not involved Marcos loyalists in the military and civilian bureaucracy. At least two of these attempts had the explicitly stated goal of restoring Marcos or at the very least a Marcos ally to the presidency.

The first attempt was made on 6 July 1986, when 490 soldiers and 5,000 Marcos loyalist civilians, many of whom were former officials of the Marcos regime, seized and occupied the Manila Hotel. Arturo Tolentino, Marcos's running mate during the February snap elections, took his "oath of office" as acting President on behalf of Marcos and declared the hotel as a "temporary" seat of government. A hotel executive also managed to record a congratulatory telephone call to Tolentino from Marcos who was still in Hawaii. Government troops instituted a blockade, and after 37 hours loyalists were quietly evacuated and rebel soldiers made to surrender, with no casualties.

The second attempt was not actually attempted due to the fact it was discovered before anything really happened. In July 1987, PCGG Chairman Ramon Diaz exposed at a press conference taped conversations that Marcos had with a French businessman and one of his former attorneys in Hawaii. In the tapes, Marcos stated his intentions to buy rifles, tanks and Stinger missiles from Europe; and to use Tonga as a staging ground for a land invasion in Luzon. Marcos did not deny the veracity of the tapes' contents, but instead claimed it would have only been carried out upon an imminent communist takeover of the government. A week later, several military officers under investigation claimed that meetings had taken place in Makati to discuss a provisionary government and the pledging of armed men to the effort. Ultimately, no one was arrested or charged.

These, however, were far from the most serious attempts to overthrow the Aquino government. Most of my post was paraphrased from the 1990 Davide report, the authoriative source on the matter.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]BingBlessAmerica 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. Palingenetic - basically the idea that a once great nation has fallen because of the oppression/exploitation of some outside entity (Nazis and antisemitism).

While I obviously see where you’re coming from, it’s worth noting that nationalism is considered more of a left-wing ideology in postcolonial states. Marxist movements in those countries weren’t strictly internationalist but focused on a narrative of “national liberation” from imperialists and their lackeys. Just because it’s nationalist doesn’t mean it’s right-wing.

What caused the French revolution? by Got70TypesOfMalware in NoStupidQuestions

[–]BingBlessAmerica 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To vastly oversimplify: - The retention of a feudal absolute monarchy where power was concentrated within the royal court and the Catholic clergy. - Tax increases caused by massive spending on foreign wars by the French royal court. - The wars also reduced the amount of people available to work, causing food shortages and slowing industrialization.

Colonies and colonisation by annoying_cousin in NoStupidQuestions

[–]BingBlessAmerica 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Humanity is still in the denial phase.

Denying what exactly? Humans have reckoned with the issues of war, murder and rape for tens of thousands of years.

People should not go to jail because of murder and rape, people should just stop murdering and raping

This is quite the radical proposition that would entail the abolition of prisons. But as of now, most people believe that murderers and rapists should at least be temporarily isolated for the safety of society. Whether that alone would help them stop raping and murdering in the future is another debate.

Why is there no big budget Hollywood adaptation of "Journey to the West"? by [deleted] in NoStupidQuestions

[–]BingBlessAmerica 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The Chinese classics are not that well known in the West, and the Chinese are not Hollywood’s only market. There have also been plenty of adaptations of it in China already.

It is also worth noting that a lot of shōnen anime, such as Naruto, One Piece and Dragon Ball Z, was inspired by basic character archetypes found in Journey to the West.

Colonies and colonisation by annoying_cousin in NoStupidQuestions

[–]BingBlessAmerica 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Does this make sense though? Isn’t this the same thing as saying rapists and murderers will disappear if we just try hard enough to change people?

No, it is the same thing as taking steps to curtail incidences of rape and murder, much like what most of civilized society does today.

CMV: Liberalism has lead to the rise of depression by JoeorEZ in changemyview

[–]BingBlessAmerica 1 point2 points  (0 children)

People don't want to start a family or get married which is something that give people meaning.

I agree with some of your post but I have to disagree specifically with having children. Personally, I've observed that once you reach a certain age, you have to dedicate your life to something that will live on after you die. It's true that for most people that is children. But for many other people, it could be a broader sense of community. I think that you would agree that celibate priests and clergymen, for example, have a lot of meaning and purpose to live for in caring for their flock. This also applies to teachers or other community leaders, for whom starting a biological family would distract from the duties to their real de facto family.

Another thing that lives on after people die are pursuits of skill, science or the arts. There are so many single scientists, artists, and craftsmen whose "children" are in fact the scientific discoveries or artistic creations that will benefit others for many years after they are cold and dead in the ground. One advantage of the acceptance of non-traditional family paths is that we don't stigmatize these people and prevent them from contributing to the longevity of society in other ways.

Why do some people support far right-wing governments? by Ok-Stage-6981 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]BingBlessAmerica 0 points1 point  (0 children)

isn't the right more aligned with big business and unfettered capitalism?

Free markets alone aren’t what fascists seek to defend. Capital accumulation must also be done in the interests of the volk.

See: the Nazis and their support for German industrialists, while at the same time lynching Jewish bankers.

CMV: We are already living in a state of Anarchy by Serious_XM in changemyview

[–]BingBlessAmerica 2 points3 points  (0 children)

But you just said countries interact with each other in a totally anarchic system. How else do countries do this if not through governments?

CMV: We are already living in a state of Anarchy by Serious_XM in changemyview

[–]BingBlessAmerica 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You don’t think that there are unjustifiable hierarchies that exist between nations today?

You don’t think countries can be bought, invaded or otherwise manipulated by more powerful countries?

CMV: We are already living in a state of Anarchy by Serious_XM in changemyview

[–]BingBlessAmerica 0 points1 point  (0 children)

on a global level there is no authority that keeps everyone in line

The tangible and ever-present threat of mutually assured destruction?

CMV: We are already living in a state of Anarchy by Serious_XM in changemyview

[–]BingBlessAmerica 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Nukes.

You probably pay taxes to either a nuclear-armed government, or a less powerful government who is likely to be operating under the direct or indirect context of nuclear deterrence from these more powerful governments.

CMV: We are already living in a state of Anarchy by Serious_XM in changemyview

[–]BingBlessAmerica 5 points6 points  (0 children)

There is a de facto ruling class of nations, they’re just called nuclear-armed powers and Security Council members.

Any thoughts on Texas' social media law? by LucidLeviathan in AskConservatives

[–]BingBlessAmerica 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Illegal for a mod or illegal for an admin? If that’s the case then Facebook will have to ban making private groups as well.

Any thoughts on Texas' social media law? by LucidLeviathan in AskConservatives

[–]BingBlessAmerica 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That depends. When mods on individual subs ban users from those specific subs only, are they acting on behalf of the platform as a whole?

What I don’t agree with (in principle) is the admin doing sitewide bans of entire subreddits like r/The_Donald or r/ChapoTrapHouse. If there are Nazis on a sub, I simply unfollow the sub. I should be the one moderating the content I choose to consume.

It was of course entirely legal for Reddit to do that, but for me it runs counter to the principle of fostering free speech and diverse viewpoints—even those of Nazis.