Talk:Hukbalahap

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of Tambayan Philippines, the WikiProject and notice board for topics related to the Philippines. To participate, visit the Tambayan for more information.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

I call this posting's neutral political standings into question. It is written in a very PRO-communist matter . . . and as a redirect from Philippine Resistance during World War II, it leaves out contributions of other groups, as if it were the only group within the Philippine Islands to resist the Imperial Japanese Army's occupation of the Commonwealth of the Philippines.

I concurr with the previous posting. The PRO-Communist postion is evident throughout; "In fact, The Hukhbalahap's goals were far more understandable..." is an example of such.

Low-level terrorism? Ferdinand Marcos was the real terrorist. As an example: The Mendiola Massacre. The NPA is not a terrorist organization. The government is the true terrorist. Learn your history.

wonderful sources are: "Born of the People" written by the man himself, Luis Taruc. Another would be "History of the Filipino People, by the late Prof. Teodoro Agoncillo, others who know of other sources please let us create a decent article about the HUKBALAHAP. I call on the History Department of the University of the Philippines Diliman to please do something about this. Narodniki 10:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)narodniki

I deleted this whole paragraph(I think the reason should be evident..):

A lot of things go on during wars that no body wants to talk about and people would be happier if they didn't every surface. This is similar to the Abu Ghraib prison scandal that hurt the U.S. But It didn't hurt the U.S. that much because the U.S. has the greatest military power in the world, and it will over come the pictures that were taken there, because a lot of good things are going on too, like roads and schools are being built and no one ever reports the good news and it was probably the same back during the Philippines and there were most likely good things going on, but only the bad things got reported so it is hard to make any real conclusion about what went on during the revolution and who was really to blame, who were the good guys and who were the bad guys, its all relative sometimes.

->I deleted the remainder of the poorly worded rape allegations with no supporting evidence that appeared in the last few days. Does rape occur during military occupations? Yes. Is it wrong? Yes. Does complaining about whether someone would be half-Japanese help? No. Further, I have to concur with the extremely pro-communist slant to the entire article mentioned above. Both the insurgency itself and its communist ties are heavily glorified. Whether you call them insurgents, freedom-fighters, or terrorists is immaterial; they all seek political action through para-military tactics and most would stop once they achieved their primary goal. Pointing out that one group had their 'demands' met does not make them morally right, it just makes them the winner of the conflict. Mystyk 05:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Mystyk

Contents

[edit] Still POV

I see that debate about the article's apparent pro-Communist stance has gone on for a while. I don't know anything about this subject, but some of you do; please, could someone try to rewrite it in something approaching a neutral, encyclopedic voice? atakdoug (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] additions

No mentioning of Edward Lansdale's role. Little more is needed to be added. His role in the Magsaysay government is pertinent given the fact that he tried the same with Ngo Dinh Diem in Viet-Nam. Also, there is no inclusion of Luis Taruc's works which is exigent for an unbiased dissemination of the facts leading toward a more truthful interpetation. Especially when Taruc gives his own reasons for the Huk downfall which at least needs to be refuted in order to sustain American claims of successful counterinsurgency. If the U.S. WAS successful because of successful counterinsurgency by Lansdale and Magsaysay, what happened in Viet-Nam, Nicaragua, and now in Iraq. As Acknowledged by the military now including Patraeus in Iraq, the success of Iraq is that we are actually taking counterinsurgency seriously, which we didnt do before. This gives more credit to claims by Taruc for the determinants of the downfall of the Huk. The Phillippines example under the rubric of successful U.S. counterinsurgency sounds more like "we won because we are the best" and we will "never admit defeat" just like the "honorable retreat" in the media when the Chinese forced us from the Yalu back across the parallel in korea during the Korean War. What is an honorable retreat? What was so successful about U.S. counterinsurgency efforts in the Phillippines which failed in Viet-Nam?

07:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)~~Collective Conscious

[edit] more additions

I wouldnt mind helping you. I have many declassified U.S. documents and other secondary sources. There are problems with this article given that there is no mention of the fact that the Phillippines military under Magsaysay and previous adminstrations committed atrcoties outnumbering those of the Huks. Luis Taruc was elected in office, refused to be seated, his friend was assassinated, then he took to the hills to fight. Moreover, no mention of the fact that the U.S. put in power pro-Japanese collaboraters after the war which upset many of the people. These are serious issues neglkected in this article that need investigating to uphold the quality of Wikipedia.

I also would like to see the sources about the agreements about the Huks getting benefits because this is interesting :)

07:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)~~Collective Conscious

[edit] Pro-communist

I dont see anything pro-communist in this article. I am not an amateur historian, but a professional one within academia. I haven't seen anything scarcely relating to Marx, Engels, or LEnin in this article. Be careful of the Pro-Communist word, it carries the same inherit discriminatory meaning as racial slurs. It is meant at times to disregard the argument all together without examination because it has been labeled "pro-communist" as racial slurs were used to disregard the humanity of an individual rather than observe the content of the former and latter. As long as INTERPETATION is supported by facts and logic, then all other complaints dally around the realm of biased pre-disposition. Like a mirror topoi, writing history is a reflection of who you are, if people think you are ugly, do they expect you to kill yourself or hide from everyone? Moreover, how about popularizing the charge the article is pro-capitalist :)


Nationalism has taught discrimination and falsehoods. Moreover it has altered reality into a realm of fantasy which others are willing to die for :( How absurd we have become as human beings capable of THINKING!! 07:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)collective conscious