Posted on 05/24/2014 8:28:31 AM PDT by Kaslin
The United States has only colonized one country in its history, the Philippines, which ceded from Spain, along with Puerto Rico and Guam, for a sum of $20 million during the (Treaty of Paris). The thing is, Spain no longer controlled the Philippines that gained its brief independence in 1898, before America arrived, and claimed its prize. A war broke out, that lasted three years, in Mindanao where Muslim fighters put up a stiff resistance.
Filipino revolutionaries chose to engage in guerilla warfare against the United States. The Philippine- American War involved 126,000 US solider; 4,200 to 7,000 died (from various accounts), while 16,000 Filipino soldiers died, and up to 1,000,000 civilians died mostly from disease and famine. In the meantime, Americans followed the lead of President McKinley's goal to civilize the locals, and brought in scores of teachers.
President Wilson started proceedings for Philippines independence in 1913, but it would take until 1946 before it became official (after 300 years of Spanish rule and nearly 50 years of American colonization). During that time, Americans controlled large plantations of rice, tobacco, pina plants, and abaca. Essentially, the Philippines became a vessel state, where the locals served as laborers and consumers for its major source of raw goods. Our lone experiment of colonization was not a good look. Still, older Filipinos are grateful for American soldiers who liberated the nation from the scourge of Imperial Japan.
Modern Colonization
These days, the best way to colonize another nation is through business, not by weapons or by force. (Outside of Putin, few want to bother with the rigors of feeding a captured people, always plotting for freedom.) You hear all the time how the world is so connected, but the fact is the world has been connected for centuries, and commerce has been the glue. Of course, these days, we are so connected that at times it feels like the world is overlapping.
Reconnecting the World
It feels like the days before the continents were split apart (I still blame the squirrel from Ice Age). The race is on to dominate- via commerce. The great news is America has an amazing head start, and despite the persistence of people, even analysts and television commentators say that global sales do not matter, they do more and more each day. On that note, the ability to generate positive cross- border brand recognition is paramount.
The BrandZ report on the most valuable brands out this week painted a very interesting picture that correlates well with underlying stock performance.
Since 2006, the top 100 brands have seen their stock value increase 81% versus 45%, for the S&P. With that said, Google's surge in value hints at a lot more upside for the stock, while Apple's slide mirrors the mostly indecisiveness of the stock; at one time, everyone on Wall Street said it was a no-brainer to reach $1,000. Apparel brands enjoyed the biggest improvement in value lead by Uniqlo +58%, Nike +44%, and Adidis +47%. Globally, American brands still dominate, but the competition is growing:
|
Top Ten Brands |
|||
|
Value Billions |
Change |
Brand |
% Revenue Outside USA |
|
$158.8 |
+40% |
GOOGL |
55% |
|
$147.9 |
-20% |
AAPL |
66% |
|
$107.5 |
-4% |
IBM |
56% |
|
$90.2 |
+29% |
MSFT |
47% |
|
$88.7 |
-5% |
MCD |
65% |
|
$80.7 |
+3% |
KO |
80% |
|
$79.2 |
+41% |
V |
44% |
|
$77.9 |
+3% |
T |
NA* |
|
$67.3 |
-3% |
MO |
39% |
|
$64.3 |
+41% |
AMZN |
40% |
*AT&T Investor Relations department stated that a small (-undisclosed) percentage of its consolidated revenues comes from outside the US.
This report could not have come out at a better time, considering some of the news this week:
Yes, colonization in the 21st Century will be through commerce, and the weapons will be great products and services, and reputation. The great news is American companies have the lead, and the bad news is that the rest of the world is fighting back. (As a fan of competition, I should say it's not "bad" that rivals are emerging outside of America; it is just a problem, as homegrown businesses are being handcuffed by the government eager to make corporate profits part of the public domain.)
Charles Payne is great. I love him on Fox News programs. But he’s wrong here. Business is not colonization.
“... the Philippines became a vessel state ...”
Spell-check is NOT proofreading. Ugh.
When business is carried out in partnership with the U.S. military, it sure is. You don't think the U.S. has a military presence all over the globe to keep those countries from invading us, do you?
Lots of things wrong with this article.
Some are simple errors of fact, some are taking old rhetorical arguments (such as by Filipino nationalists) as factual ones.
Anyway, a few that stand out.
- the Philippine revolution was crushed by Spain in 1897. The only reason the US was dealing with an independent Philippine government by the time it besieged Manila (and got into a war with the Filipinos) was because Deweys destruction of the Spanish fleet and support for the revolutionaries re-ignited the revolution, and independently caused the collapse of the Spanish political position in the islands. No Spanish fleet, no way for Spain to move troops to keep control of any one place. Native troops all over were left with no support and so went over to the rebels. Local Spanish garrisons had little choice but to surrender. No Commodore Dewey, no revolution.
- US ownership of Philippine agricultural lands was trivial. Only one major US corporate investor was and is Dole in Mindanao, but they developed virgin land in spite of the communist/nationalist complaints. US investment in the Philippines was always very limited. Philippine nationalism and the early US decision to leave, eventually, made investment very risky. Filipino economic policy was and is made by Filipinos, and the country can only blame its own leadership for its problems.
- etc.
Hawaii is another country that the USA took over via colonization.
Real answer - the US has a military all over in order to prevent WWIII.
That was the national strategy agreed on after the Korean war started in 1950. Prior to that the US was disarming as fast as possible and reducing commitments post WWII.
The Korean war showed this was a dangerous thing to do.
The Philippines was a vassal-state right up to about 1914. After that the US government really didn’t want to have anything to do with it, reduced military commitments, stopped building fortifications, and essentially stopped telling the Filipinos what to do. All subsequent U S governors were essentially vetted by Manuel Quezon. The country could have had its independence and US withdrawal at any time, were it not for Filipino politics and Filipino fear of being hung out like unprotected meat in the East Asian shark pool.
Bump to your post.
A little better example vessel of US economic vassalism I would speculate is the banana war era in Latin America.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.