User talk:50.51.126.138

Unless the author not only verifies their comments and includes a more accurately complete history, they should have the courtesy to withdraw the article. It presents an extremely poor image of the historical relationship between the United States and The Republic of the Philippines. It sounds as if America invaded the Philippines and made it a colony, that most of the Americans living in the Philippines were military personnel that married club hostess' from Cavite, Olongapo, Angeles, San Miguel and other American military installations.

The United States never had any intention of colonizing the Philippines. Simultaneously, the Philippines was revolting against Spain while the U.S. was at war with Spain. Remember, it was the U.S. that brought Aguinaldo out of exile in Hong Kong and back to the Philippines. Why would you bring the leader of a revolution back if your intention was to colonize. The Phil-Am War was really an accident. Two military units were camped next to each other. Both were fresh from combat and had not settled down. One soldier shot another and there is no true history about the reason for the shooting. The war started when the leaders of each unit could not solve the problem and decided to "fight it out". That was the beginning of the philosophical "slippery slope."

The relationship that followed was rich with friendship. Americans and Filipinos were exceptionally close. Until the mid-70's there was serious talk about the Philippines becoming a State. Prior to the 1987 Constitution, Americans had parity rights except for the right to vote.

The relationship proved beneficial to both. Filipinos had no experience in government and large business'. This had been done by the Spanish for well over 300 years. How do you divide up haciendas and give the land to those who had been working it all those years. There were many such problems. The presence of the United States allowed a nation composed of 5,200 islands, over 50 languages/dialects to unite and grow.

I have read so many sites about the Philippines that are rewriting Filipino history.

Several Americans became very wealthy but so did many Filipinos.

There are things that Filipinos and, in fact, the world do not realize. Let us take a blatant example, Imelda's shoes. Everyone sees so many shoes and concludes extravagance. The irony no one mentions is that the Philippines was the world's 2nd largest producer of shoes. Imelda could have ordered any shoe she could imagine from a town just a few kilometers away. That makes the excessive number of shoes more ridiculous and frivolous.

The declaration of Martial Law was necessary. One needs to research the state of the country at that time. The situation was dire. History should record this. At the beginning of Martial Law a lot of good was done. President Marcos had plans for lifting Martial Law but he became ill after about two years and Imelda ran the country after that. Anger needs to be put aside and objective historical history research conducted.

I get tired of pictures of all the people in front of the Palace in revolt. It is never explained that there are several colleges and universities on the Plaza and it was lunchtime. The crowd was incited and more people arrived out of curiosity. No one has ever found evidence of any organized revolt.

If they are still there, on Mactaan Island there are three markers. The Philippine Historical Societies marker reads, "This is where Magellan invaded the Philippines". The Spanish Historical Society, "This is where Magellan discovered the Philippines." The American Historical Society, "This was where Magellan landed in the Philippines".

Tell the full history of MacArthur and Osmena. Who were the Dugan Brothers? Where did the name "tourist belt" come from. Who was Dr. George Hill Hodel. What is, "Best of Both Worlds"?

Please, do it right. Ltunison (talk) 04:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)