General Info

[SaltyPete]

In a post on the Makati thread, Breadman said NYC has non-stop flights to Manila. http://www.internationalsexguide.nl/...=1#post2201747. Transferring here as flight discussions didn't really belong there.

I do not believe this is the case. PR126/127 stop over in Vancouver it seems. The SF and LA flights are non-stop (about 13-14 hours). I thought there used to be a Vegas flight which also stopped over in Vancouver but maybe that no longer runs.

Having recently done 4 long haul PR flights, I have to say I was pleasantly surprised. Good food, reasonable IFE, good seats in economy, reasonably on time.

If I recall, the JFK-MNL service starts in December '18. Apparently serviced by a new A-350 (enough range to fly non-stop). It should be a comfortable flight, but I doubt it will be profitable. MNL has very low yields.

[Simmer]

In a post on the Makati thread, Breadman said NYC has non-stop flights to Manila. http://www.internationalsexguide.nl/...=1#post2201747. Transferring here as flight discussions didn't really belong there.

I do not believe this is the case. PR126/127 stop over in Vancouver it seems. The SF and LA flights are non-stop (about 13-14 hours). I thought there used to be a Vegas flight which also stopped over in Vancouver but maybe that no longer runs.

Having recently done 4 long haul PR flights, I have to say I was pleasantly surprised. Good food, reasonable IFE, good seats in economy, reasonably on time.

[Soapy Smith]

Thanks Huts for the detailed account of the American incursion into the Philippines—and the Filipino cultural and class structures that influenced its reception. For me the contrast between Spanish extractive institutions and American attempts to include Filipinos in governmental institutions could not be more striking. From the beginning the Spanish saw a need to control Filipinos. They supported their own ruling institutions by extracting rents (I. E. , taxes) from the governed.

In a piece on "Historical Notes on Graft and Corruption" in the Philippines, Jose Endriga notes that in the Spanish system, "even well into the nineteenth century, there was no tradition of a salaried civil service and no recognized principle in the selection and promotion of officials. Offices were regarded as places of profit rather than posts of responsibilities. " Typically these positions were bought from higher office holders. These conditions encouraged both incompetence and greed. Office holders at the lowest, local level, used the authority attached to their positions to collect a portion of each citizen's harvest, fish catch, and so on. Even some Spanish at the time observed that these taxes were often levied on people living on the brink of starvation. Higher level officials supported themselves by extracting rents from their subordinate office holders. Endriga continues, "In a situation where officeholders received very little or no salary and were expected not only to augment but to raise their own compensation themselves, the distinction between fees and tips, and between perquisites and bribes was difficult to draw. ".

Not only did the 500 odd Thomasite volunteers, whom GE references, create schooling for the Filipino masses whom the Spanish had intentionally kept illiterate, other "missionaries" and American officials created health clinics and hospitals that ministered to the masses. Literacy rates and health outcomes improved dramatically. The Americans also built dams, irrigation systems, markets, mining and timber concessions, railways, roads, and ports. Americans were banned from acquiring large tracts of land. They created professional civil service systems populated largely by Filipinos and a taxation system designed to make government self-supporting. I think it's fair to say that the US invested in its colony, even if some of the missionary zeal was accompanied by ethnocentric ignorance.

None of this excuses the brutality and deaths of the Philippine-American war, but it seems to me that American acquisition of the Philippines must be balanced against the reality that, as Huts points out, various other countries had similar designs on the Philippines. Domestic American politics also played a role, as McKinley's assassination in 1901 gave way to the much more hawkish Vice President, Theodore Roosevelt.

Clearly there were chinks in the armor of the Philippine state, and some American intentions subsequently failed, although it is important to note that for about a decade following its 1946 independence, the Philippines was a shining light of prosperity for the rest of Asia, and Manila was known as the "Pearl of the Orient. " Filipinos today continue to ask themselves, "so what happened to us"? I think Filipinos generally and we in this forum have only partial and qualified answers for this question.

[Soapy Smith]

You conveniently forget that all these inclusive examples you mention were essentially native-free. Maybe we should have eradicated the original population to build a better tomorrow.
How are the former british colonies in africa doing BTW? Are they shining examples of inclusiveness too?

Good questions.

No natives in Australia, Canada and the US? Try telling that to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait people of Australia, the First Nation and Inuit of Canada, and the various Native American and Native Alaskan groups in the United States. Eradicate natives? Sadly, the US almost did. But check out the economic status of the 13 regional Native Corporations created under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. These were inclusive institutions hammered out between native groups and state and federal government leaders. Some have generated great wealth for their regions; others faltered due to human mismanagement.

I did not do justice to Acemoglu and Robinson's argument. They clearly understand that inclusive institutions also depend on their reception by locals. Thus Botswana, a British colony, adopted inclusive institutions and has thrived economically by comparison to Zimbabwe and Sierra Leone, also British colonies, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, formerly a Belgian colony.

Their broader argument is that human-devised institutions--rather than culture, geography, guns, germs, or steel—determine a nation's success. (More or less) inclusive institutions in South Korea brought a very different result than the oppressive institutions in North Korea—over people with common cultural and linguistic background. Likewise, Nogales, Arizona versus Nogales, Sonora in Mexico. Same original language and culture, but divided by a fence, very different institutions, and very different outcomes. Germany anybody, East versus West under very different institutions prior to reunification—and 28 years later?

[Cons68]

You conveniently forget that all these inclusive examples you mention were essentially native-free. Maybe we should have eradicated the original population to build a better tomorrow.

How are the former british colonies in africa doing BTW? Are they shining examples of inclusiveness too?

Cheers.

"No doubt"? Seems like kind of a historical leap of faith about how things might have turned out 120 years later had the United States not taken the Philippines under the end of a gun barrel. As Hutsori points out, the devil is usually in the details.

Hutsori, your post is a rarity in the forum, where most people want to focus on the old "in-out, in-out. " Lots of background here on the Igorot, and I always appreciate learning this kind of stuff. Could you point me to sources where I could learn more about this history? PM if you prefer. While your report is accurate as to the limited goods valuable enough to ship from the Philippines to Spanish America, the Manila Galleons did transport goods from China through the Philippines to the Americas, including spices and porcelain.



A couple guys named Acemoglu and Robinson, in a book titled **Why Nations Fail**, reinforce what both E and G are suggesting here. They argue that colonizers took two distinctly different approaches to their colonies. Countries such as Britain and some other European colonizers undertook a sort of "inclusive" approach, creating institutions patterned after those in the mother country, with the idea that these colonies could eventually become self-governing. Other countries, notably Spain and Portugal, built institutions intended primarily to support "extraction," institutions that were generally guided by forceful and oppressive control. These guys contend that extractive institutions arose in part because the colonizers feared their captive colonials.

Examples such as the United States, Canada, and Australia speak to the effects of inclusive institutions. Other more recent nation-states could also be cited. Latin American countries and the Philippines provide evidence of the effects of extractive institutions. Hutsori may be correct that the Spanish intent for the Philippines was largely for logistical support rather than extracting resources, but their approach was clearly oppressive and forceful, with little intent to set up the Philippines with self-supporting institutions.

[PedroMorales]

It's interesting to speculate what might have happened had Teddy Roosevelt (a fervid expansionist) not suddenly acceded to the Presidency of the US, as McKinley was far less of an entuhusiastic supporter of expanding the American sphere of influence. McKinley's influence however did not die immediately after him, and international expansion was not enthusiastically endorsed by all of the American people, which might explain why America's "colonial adventurism" began and ended (for the most part) with the Philippines and yes I'm aware of the annexation of Hawaii, and the acquisition of Saipan, Guam, Puerto Rico and other territories.

GE.

To repeat: The USA is a reactionary, malign blight, as evidenced by the Philippines and everywhere else they brought their unwanted and uninvited presence.

[PedroMorales]

[Deleted by Admin]

EDITOR'S NOTE: This report was redacted or deleted to remove sections of the report that were largely argumentative. Please read the Forum FAQ and the Forum's Posting Guidelines for more information. Thank You!

[GoodEnough]

Thank you for the excellent capsule history of the country, to which I would add only that during the period of US colonization, the United States also brought to the country the concept of public schools, many if not most of which were, I think, operated by the Thomisites, thus encouraging the spread of literacy that had been suppressed by the Spanish. The network of public schools established in the early 19th Century was (correctly) perceived as a source of expanding economic and social mobility for classes that had long been denied education which, under the Spanish, had been the exclusive purview of the church.

The concept of utang na loob, is complex, and it's a difficult one for a foreigner to fathom, yet it's the key to understanding the socio-political fabric of the Philippines. The "debt of the heart (or soul) exists at virtually every level of the social structure; from the family, outward to the tribe, the larger clan, the generations-old relationships between and among clans, and ever outward. And it never ends, though. I believe I see faint glimmers of its weakening in the larger cities and among the better educated middle class. At the village level though, it remains intact as it was 500 years ago. The web of obligations also doesn't die with individuals but spans the generations and has been instrumental in the perpetuation of a feudal-like structure that has allowed the Illustrados to retain and expand their power over the centuries.

As Huts said far more eloquently than I, the American involvement in the Philippines was much more highly nuanced than suggested by PM, and it was, without doubt far less oppressive than the Spanish occupation had been. It's true that the American Govrenment, on behalf of large agricultural producers in the US cut sweetheart deals for some of those companies, and it's also true that the US, in recognizing a centuries—old governing structure headed by the Illustrados, perpetuated that system which was, after all, a pragmatic approach to governing. Balanced against such exploitation however, is the introduction of public education, the rapid expansion of literacy, the establishment of some democratic rights, removing the opporessive yoke of the friars, and the gradual building up of democratic institutions.

It's interesting to speculate what might have happened had Teddy Roosevelt (a fervid expansionist) not suddenly acceded to the Presidency of the US, as McKinley was far less of an entuhusiastic supporter of expanding the American sphere of influence. McKinley's influence however did not die immediately after him, and international expansion was not enthusiastically endorsed by all of the American people, which might explain why America's "colonial adventurism" began and ended (for the most part) with the Philippines and yes I'm aware of the annexation of Hawaii, and the acquisition of Saipan, Guam, Puerto Rico and other territories.

GE.

[Hutsori]

jibber jabber

Having given up on arguing America robbed the Philippines blind, a point on which you offered nothing to support your assertion, you wisely abandoned it. And shifted the goalposts. I'm more than happy to contest on this new field of play too.

To understand the Philippines one needs to understand utang na loob, the debt of the soul. There exists the obligation to extend a favour or credit and there is a corresponding obligation for one to repay a debt; often because one doesn't have the means or influence to do so, it's repaid in loyalty and submissiveness. Internally the Philippines is a patron-client state. One acquires not only material wealth, one acquires the debt of obligation. Mabini's Constitution talks about this "natural law" of mutual dependence and exchange. One may see much to rejoice about it theoretically, but in practice in the Philippine context it was often abusive.

By the time the Americans arrived there already emerged an elite class of Filipinos who figured about ways to navigate the world between the Spanish colonial administration and the masses, and how to maximise benefits from the circulation of transactions for themselves. They called themselves the Ilustrados, "the enlightened ones", the self-described "oligarchy of intelligence" and "aristocracy of the intellect", and many came from well-to-do families and were educated in Spain and elsewhere in Europe. More on the Ilustrados below.

The Americans weren't of one mind re colonialism. For a variety a reasons, some in conflict, it was deeply unpopular amongst most. There were those who thought it was immoral. There were the racists who didn't want even more dark bodies making their way into the US. Others wanted to hand the Philippines back the Spanish. This was McKinley's initial position. There were those who supported it, again for differing reasons too. Some wanted to strengthen the Philippines so another European power wouldn't take it over, and others were genuine imperialists who saw the Philippines as a way to enhance national esteem or to protect and advance US interests in China, chiefly the Open Door Policy.

And we shouldn't ignore the third-party actors. In July 1898, German officials informed Ambassador White and Secretary of State Hay that Germany expected "a few coaling stations" and "a naval base" in the Philippines, as well as control of the Carolines and greater influence in Samoa. And don't forget American and German warships faced one another during the 1898 Spanish-American War. Germany's decision to send a fleet to Manila Bay resulted from the unsubstantiated report that the Filipinos requested the formation of an independent state under a German prince. We shouldn't ignore the Great Anglo-American Rapprochement of the 1890's, which established the idea that Britain and the United States had a special kind of relationship, and this threatened Germany ambitions. I think the British and the Dutch would have split the country to prevent the Germans from taking it and threatening their interests in SE Asia and the China trade. Having the Germans isolated in the Caroline Islands was one thing, having them berthing a fleet in Manila Bay was something altogether different and threatening. The British had long established good relations with the Sulu Sultanate, a relationship that would later sour relations between the Philippines and Malaysia over the status of Sabah, the once British North Borneo. I think it's likely Japan would have been brought in as the British were keen on nurturing ties. If we think internal divisions, diplomatic relations, and fake news today are a mess, and Trump is bombastic, they pale in contrast to the pre-WWI West and the antics of Kaiser Wilhelm.

In 1905 the first meeting between US legislators and the Ilustrados occurred. Vicente Ilustre of the influential Comite' de Intereses Filipino testified before the visitors, demanding more autonomy: "If the Philippine archipelago has a governable popular mass called upon to obey and a directing class charged with the duty of governing, it is in condition to govern itself. These factors. Are the only two by which to determine the political capacity of a country; an entity that knows how to govern, the directing class, and an entity that knows how to obey, the popular masses.".

Precisely because there was such a disparity between two classes, the Americans had been withholding immediate self government. They wanted to baby step it. Ilustre's comment was taken as evidence of a small group of the enlightened ones who viewed everyone else as peons to be ruled. Peonage, what we nowadays call debt slavery though today's is no match, made most turn-of-the-century Filipinos serfs. We still see the results of this today, though a middle class is finally emerging. The Americans' rationale for colonial rule was that if Philippine independence were to be granted, the islands would, in the words of Governor-General William Taft, "retrogress" into "tyranny". The "aristocratic" elites would take the reins of power and subject the "ignorant, credulous, and child-like" masses to their "despotic" designs. Does this worry not strike you as reasonable? This is the lived experience for millions of Filipinos presently. What do you think it was like 113 years ago?

Let's move back to 1899. Amongst the Ilustrados there were three main factions. There were the revolutionaries, such as Mabini and Aguinaldo; there were those who wanted statehood for the Philippines, such as Legarda and Pardo de Tavera; and there were those who took a wait-and-see approach. (This triad is very similar to colonial America during its Revolutionary War.) So, Aguinaldo promptly decided to lead an army and fight battles adhering to the tactical conventions of European powers. He was trounced. The Filipinos were better suited to insurgent tactics and this proved a more effective strategy. About 4,000 American and 20,000 Filipino soldiers died. Civilian casualties were much higher mostly due to the attendant woes of war such as disease, displacement, and malnourishment.

It may be controversial to acknowledge this, but the Americans fought an effective war for the hearts and minds. It was more than just guns that defeated the insurrectos. Though the concept of psy-ops likely hadn't been invented then, the Americans did three things well enough. For the most part prisoners of war were well treated - judged by the standards of the time, which is what they knew. The military wanted to use them to sway others to lay down their arms. Contrast this to the treatment by the Spanish military this aided the Filipinos adjusting their view of the new colonial power. Remember, Rizal had been executed in 1896. Secondly, the US put Filipinos at all levels of government. From provincial barangays to the Supreme Court, Filipinos occupied almost all the seats of power. In each town captured by the military, authorities laid down the foundations for tutelary rule by holding local elections. Lastly, the US propaganda was effective. Released prisoners did convert their comrades. To our jaded eyes these words may seem corny, but to many in 1899 the proclamation of the Philippine Commission was persuasive:

To the People of the Philippine Islands: The United States striving earnestly for the welfare and advancement of the inhabitants of the Philippine Islands . .. is ... solicitous to spread peace and happiness among the Philippine people; to guarantee them a rightful freedom; to protect them in their just privileges and immunities; to accustom them to free self government in an ever-increasing measure; and to encourage them in those democratic aspirations, sentiments, and ideals which are the promise and potency of a fruitful national development.

.

In its 1900 report to the president, the US Philippine Commission stated the proclamation was received by Filipinos with interest, attracting "large attention" throughout the Islands. Posters of the proclamation had been printed and hanged in public areas. In Manila, Filipinos "gathered about the posters in groups while one of their number would read and explain. " Copies of the proclamation "passed from hand to hand among the natives" and stretched out into the interior. In fact, many Filipino insurgents were compelled by it. Soon after it was issued, some Filipino insurgents associated with the Malolos revolutionary government temporarily dropped their arms to meet with American administrators. In the meetings, the Filipinos went over the proclamation "sentence by sentence" and asked the Americans "to explain what was meant by certain phrases. " The Americans in turn "fully explained" each one, and the insurgent emissaries returned to the interior bases to inform their comrades of what they had learnt.

Some may scoff, others may say the Philippine Commission over-egged the report, yet the insurgents were surrendering, signing pledges, and being released to speak to others. This included many revolutionary leaders. Was it entirely due to the proclamation? Unlikely. But the aggregate of military setbacks plus evidence the US was living up to its pledge to allow Filipinos to run their own affairs (mostly) is greater than its parts. And, what is also is very important, is that the relationship of dependence the Ilustrados had already established with those below them allowed them to keep their place and privileges. Remember those elections happening in the towns? Most often it was a provincial Ilustrado who won.

The US set out with the goal to tutor the Philippines on democracy, decent governance, and grant it independence. It certainly lived up to latter promise, doing so through a series of steps such as several gubernatorial elections, the establishment of the national legislature in 1907 (70% elected were Ilustrados who had been insurrectos), the 1916 Jones Act, and the establishment of the Philippine Commonwealth in 1935, so its departure wasn't a cut and run. It attempted to implement the first two goals by mentoring Ilustrados and educating the masses, but the cultural norm of utang na loob, which is much of the cause of the nation's corruption and ill-governance, proved resilient and resistant to change.

Tutelage rule established the institutions (legislative, judicial, educational, etc.) the Americans thought necessary for good governance, but it was American navet to think it could duplicate its own experience elsewhere. The US even attempted land reform by purchasing about 170,000 hectares (410,000 acres), 90% of the land owned by the Catholic Church's Spanish Monastic Orders, for a sum of $7,000,000. The Spanish friars were also required to leave. Resentment against the friars was so strong that Felipe Calderon, the grandson of a Franciscan friar, stated: "All the friars have to do is to go back to their parishes and sleep one night, and the chances are that they would never awaken. " Much of this hatred was due to land usurpation and polo y servicio, a system of forced annual labour imposed on each Filipino male aged 16 to 60 where they worked 40 days for the Crown and the friars. Those with money were able to evade this by paying a falla. The land was then to be resold to tenant farmers on an installment basis, but the Ilustrados proved adept at securing most for themselves. (Note: it should be understood the Philippines at the turn of the century was less densely populated than Indiana at the same time and much of the country's land that had been in the Crown's hand was undeveloped entirely. The friars had imposed a society where everyone was to live within earshot of church bells. It may astonish some to read, but a lot of the Philippines then was frontier country, and many took the opportunity to leave their barangays to settle these empty lands. But, if one was bound by debt, which many peons were, one's freedom to do so was constrained.).

The Filipinos adapted these institutions to suit their needs, for good or bad. The Ilustrados didn't even do this by stealth. The Americans recognised what was happening but short of rounding up the Ilustrados, executing them, and distributing their land to the masses, actions which were never in the cards, there was little the US could do. It took the West hundreds of years, a lot of spilt blood, and toppling both the aristocracy and the Church to create the imperfect democracies they have today. To think it would happen in the Philippines in a few decades was wildly over optimistic. Of course the fields of sociology, psychology, anthropology and other relevant ones, which may have aided the decisions made, were in their infancy in 1900, so to hold administrators to the standards of today is misguided.

"The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there. " - L. P. Hartley.

I appreciate you have such passionate views. Have you considered directing some of this passion to reading books? It's not simply a dichotomy of them versus us, good versus bad, etc. To quote Crazy Ex-Girlfriend: "It's nuanced. " It's multidimensional with countless intersections of merging and diverging interests, goals, and plans, some viable and many others not.

[Simmer]

If you noticed, when you went through the second security (first is at the door coming into the building before you even check in) they didn't care about any of that shit.

Ah, so it wasn't a mistake that I inadvertently took half a bottle of water through that second checkpoint (500 ML bottle) and nobody batted an eyelid. At the 3rd checkpoint they had unopened bottles on the table and opened ones into recycle boxes. One would like to think they give the unopened ones to charity but then this is PI.

[Soapy Smith]

I'm not sure what drives this. They check for liquids in the gate area in Manila (to Japan), Bangkok (to US) and Hong Kong (to US), but not in Narita to US.

Mr. E and Dg explained this. The foreign airline and / or destination country does not trust the inspection standards at the two security checkpoints in NAIA. The first checkpoint at the outside door is a total joke.

I have never flown Bangkok to US but have flown Hong Kong to Taiwan and Hong Kong to US. I don't recall a gate security checkpoint. But then I'm old enough that my memory plays tricks on me sometimes.

[Firebird]

From a variety of dating sites I have refined my list of pinays to call when in country to about 25 in or very close to manila, makati, and Cebu. I have frankly been overwhelmed by responses of cute willing girls ages 19 to 38. I am north of 60 yo so all the more surprising to me accustomed to western women. At first, in my excited haste, I made some commitments to meet less than stellar candidates which I would now have promptly discarded. Now I have a rather impressive lineup to work through when I get there in two weeks. BTW, I'll be there for 3 weeks. Another shock to me are the number of lovely pinays on the north coast of Mindanao island who will jump in the sack at the drop of a hat. Most are asking for some understanding of single moms situation which I am guessing means 1200 php or so. Question I have is, is visiting Mindanao a viable option to attempt this time in country or ever for that matter. I am still reeling from the interest, its a heady feeling.

ForkTruck, I have been frequenting Philippines now over 10 year. I too am way north of 60 - still trim and active. There are many, many beautiful girls there that are willing to spend ST and LT with you as long as you have some peso for them. And please don't be a cheap Charlie. When taking a taxi I normally give 3 x the meter fare which by western standard is very cheap. The girls do not look at your age. If you treat them nice you will get along.

Concerning going to Northern Mindanao. I have been traveling there periodically through the year for the past 3 years. Cagayan de Oro and Iligan city. I do have a driver I use that picks me up from the airport and my long time FG stays with me. During my last trip to Iligan City this past April, I was very surprised how many westerners with families I saw in Gaisano Mall and the newly opened Robinson Mall. The only time I staid away was during the horrible event that happened last year in Marawi. Now there is a lot of military everywhere and actually there still is a curfew.

Do not dare to go to the Southern portion of Mindanao in the areas of General Santos and Zambuanga. That is definitely a "no no".

In you fly into Laquindigan, little over 1 hour from Manila, and have someone waiting for you, it is quite safe IMHO.

I also stay quite often in Makati which I call my second "home".

So enjoy and be safe.

[SaltyPete]

While it's on my mind, why does the Philippines have this rule that you cannot buy drinks *airside* and take them on the plane with you. For the US and Australia flights at least? You have to go through a 3rd security check where they relieve you of your liquids. PITA, especially when the airline only offers you an occasional drink unless you ask for more. In most airports the drinks in airside shops have already been inspected so they're "safe", as it were. Security requirement of the destination country?

I'm not sure what drives this. They check for liquids in the gate area in Manila (to Japan), Bangkok (to US) and Hong Kong (to US), but not in Narita to US.

[Dg8787]

The reason for the 3rd security checkpoint is quite simple. Checkpoints #1 and #2 aren't quite adequate.

I personally are glad they have it. Wouldn't want to leave Manila without it.

I believe at some gates after the checkpoint #3 you can water up your container.

[WestCoast1]

They don't need to ask. The airline asks. If immigration happens to ask and you don't have one, then it is a big fine for the airline. I think they do have to type the reservation of your onward flight into the system before it will let them check you in.

The interesting thing is that I have never been asked at customs / immigration for an onward ticket anywhere. Other than airline staff has anyone been asked by a government official?

Have been asked for onward ticket at the Phils inbound Immigration queue almost every single entrance into the country. A few years ago, the outbound carriers (Korean Air, China Air, Cathay Pac, etc) started asking for it at SFO / LAX at checkin. However on my most recent flight to Phils they did not ask, when in fact my outbound flight out of Phils was more than 30 days. However, once landed in Phils and at the Immigration booth, the officer asked. In the past I've gotten 59-day visas ahead of time in the US thru the Phils Embassy. Not this time. He asked: "How many days this time? I don't see visa in your passport". 40. "Just you extend. You go Intramuros office". Stamp. "Next!" And that was it.