Talk:Battle of Balangiga

Worst single defeat?

Less than 200 casualties and this can be described as the worst US defeat in all history? Seems a bit hyperbolic to me. Oldkinderhook 13:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The article states quite specifically it was the worst defeat since Little Big Horn.

Response: The comparison with Little Big Horn is drawn in R O Taylor's The Massacre At Balangiga. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobcouttie (talk • contribs) 15:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Why exactly is it a "massacre"? Did the Filipinos kill civilians during the engagement or following it? If not then it would be a straight military engagement; not liking the outcome hardly makes it a massacre. Although massacre certainly would be an apt description for the Americans response. LamontCranston 20:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Response: It was a massacre because it was a preplanned surprise attack perpetrated by seemingly friendly civilians on unarmed soldiers. No prisoners were taken, or attempted to be taken. They slaughtered every person they could, even as they were fleeing. The bodies were later mutilated.

The history of Balangiga is colored by the limited contemporary accounts and its use as a bludgeon for more recent political ends. There likely needs to be some more added about that.

Response: Agree. Modern (and fashionable) Anti-Americanism not surprisingly has caused a case of revisionist history here.

The bells issue also involved some American law changes.

Neutrality

Some of this article, most especially the portion under the heading "The 'Massacre'", smacks of POV to me - I'd clean it up myself, but I know nothing about the topic. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 06:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Important Piece of Information Left Out?

There is some evidence that the attack on the American troops was planned even before the troops arrived. According to American History Illustrated, August 1966,(Richard P. Weinert), Pedro Abayan, the presidente of Balangiga, sent a letter to the leader of the insurrection, General Vincente Lucban, and proposed that the invaders (American troops)be lured into Balangiga where he said the local inhabitants would rise up and destroy them. Then he sent a letter to Manila asking that a contingent of American forces be sent to Balangiga to protect Balangiga against the rebel forces and the Moro pirates. If this piece of unmentioned info is true, then the American troops were walking into a trap. So, the question is, should this piece of information, that at one time was accepted as true, be mentioned in the story with qualifiers, or simply left out.Trucker11 (talk) 13:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Response: At the time the first letter was sent Lucban/Lukban was demanding expressions of loyalty from local mayors, with severe punishment for those who did not do so. The original letter disappeared prior to the microfilming of the Philippine Insurgency Records, what remains is what is alleged to be a 'fair copy'. There is no evidence whatsoever that the town mayor wrote to Manila.

Interesting. Grubbing around a bit, I found this page, which contains some info about the letter under Published archival documents. Unfortunately, the page is self-published by one Prof. Rolando O. Borrinaga who, though a scholar, appears not to be a recognized expert in this field (see here). He mentions that the letter itself was published as Exhibit 1350 in this. Prof. Borringa refers to something called the "Balangiga Research Group" (BRG) and says

Much has been squeezed from this letter by the Americans in terms of prior sinister motives of the part of the Balangigans. But the BRG, after analyzing its content and context, is satisfied with the finding that the intent of the letter was merely to prevent Lukban or his officers from attacking the town in case of American occupation.

Footnote 20 says

20. Balangiga Research Group, “A Summary Interim Report of Inquiry,” Sept. 28, 2001, p. 5. This may be downloaded from http://balangiga.bobcouttie.com. Schott, see Note No. 13, p. 26, noted that “the original letter was written in clear grammatical Spanish.” Because of the clarity in language, the Americans suspected that the actual author of the letter was the local priest, not Abayan. Last Sept. 27, 2001, while viewing the Balangiga museum exhibit at the local parish hall, the BRG members learned that Abayan had in fact been the parish scribe of Balangiga for years. In ornate handwriting, he wrote the texts of the registry items for births and marriages on the parish records on behalf of the priests who affixed their signatures later. The penmanship in an enlarged photo of Abayan’s letter to Lukban looked similar to his handwriting in the parish records.

The subdomain on that URL is defunct, but at least one snapshot of it has been archived (see here). Looking at that, I see a link to "The BRG Online Library", but the Articles and Papers link there is broken. All this is in an archived subdomain of http://bobcouttie.com, which is still active but it's dated 2006 and the the "contact" link doesn't work usefully. The name is a bit unusual, though, and this may be the same Bob Couttie who runs this site.

Response: It is the same Bob Couttie and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Anyhow, the letter itself is apparently available as the previously-mentioned Exhibit 1350. That ought to be copyright-free but, being located on a small island in the Philippines, I have no access to it. Perhaps someone with library access might either quote it in the article or scan it and add it to the article as an image. Perhaps, even, there's a copyright-free translation published along with the letter. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It is Exhibit`350 in RM Taylor's The Philippine Insurgency Against the United States. The manuscript is in US National Archives and it can be found in the microfilm of the Philippine Insurgency Records but you'll have to dig for it. In any case it is a only a hand drawn 'copy'.

Massacre committed by U.S.

At the bottom of this page it list the category "Massacres committed by the U.S." cleary someone has this mixed up because this was a massacre of U.S. troops, not Filipinos, why would the U.S. army massacre themselves? I am removing the category at the bottom that says this was a crime committed by the U.S. military, when really it was the other way around. Read the article and notice the casualties. --Aj4444 (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, if it was a massacre by U.S. troops, why did the Filipinos win the battle?--Aj4444 (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Whoops... my bad. Sorry for the inadvertent revert. (The finger was quicker than the eye). Cheers! — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• ^Speak! 12:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The tag was added because of the succeeding retaliation by US forces led by Gen. Jacob H. Smith against local indigenous Philippine population of samar. Read the "Retaliation" section. i think the tag "Massacres committed by the U.S" should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.108.218.133 (talk) 09:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The "massacre" here was perpetrated by the Americans. The incident that prompted the massacre was a battle (albeit one in which civilians participated); just because the battle was a one-sided surprise attack that does not make it a massacre. Slaughtering thousands of civilians (women & children included) in response is, however, rightly called a massacre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.60.218 (talk) 13:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Reversion in Retaliation section, 2009-11-27

I've reverted this edit). which modivied previous cite-supported text just prior to the following: <ref name="AmHistCollection">Bulletin of the American Historical Collection, April-June 2004, Volume XXXII, page 65</ref>"

The edit summary said, (→Retaliation: "Great loss of life" is POV... to Filipinos (and many others such as myself), even 2500 is indeed a "great loss of life" and saying; for not much more people, the US started 2 wars.)

Considering the edit summary, I suspect that this change is WP:OR, probably not supported by the cited supporting source.

The reversion restored an assertion saying, "A great loss of life is not supported, especially as refugees fled from Samar to Leyte." which had been inserted in this edit along with the above-mentioned supporting cite. I have not seen the cited source myself and do not know how well it supports that assertion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I changed it because the original wording is offensive. "Great" here can be understood in two senses. First, "great" as in "important or meaningful," which is patently offensive to Filipinos. The losses are still a sore point in the Philippines and to suggest that they were insignificant is borderline racist. On the other hand, "great" could be interpreted as "many or a lot," which is what I suspect the original author had in mind. I think they intended to say that, contrary to some Filipino claims, more neutral sources suggest that deaths of 50k seem very unlikely. I think this is what the cited source is meant to confirm: some historians claim x, but most believe y. However, here again the use of "great" is very subjective and offensive to Filipinos. If the historical consensus is that 2500, not 50000, died, that is still "a great loss of life." My point was that the US started two wars based on the killings of 3000 civilians -- imagine if the Wikipedia entry said, "9/11 was tragic, but there was no great loss of life." Americans would rightly be upset over this wording. Instead, and perhaps I worded it poorly, the sentence needs to summarize the debate: one party says one thing, another party says another, but most "objective" scholars side with party B that fatalities approaching 50,000 are impossible. Wikipedia should not be editorializing those deaths with a modifier, "great," to describe them. Pariah23 (talk) 11:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Offensive; " 'Offensive' is not a valid editorial criteria for a Wikipedia article."

Also see Wikipedia:Assume good faith; "Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia: it is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith." and Wikipedia:Verifiability; "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. " The editor who added that assertion cited a supporting source. The cited source is not available online and I have not verified whether or not it supports the article assertion, but I'm assuming that the source was cited in good faith. A bit of research turned up this, which indicates that the cited source, Bulletin of the American Historical Collection, April-June 2004, Volume XXXII, page 65, is available for viewing at the National Library of Australia. Perhaps someone could look it up and quote the relevant snippet.

The bit at issue contrasts a figure of 2,500 retaliatory killings with a figure of 50,000 (citing this). Either figure is horrendous, but the disparity between the figures is striking. The article goes on to point out that even though the rate of population increase in samar slowed as some fled to Leyte (the cited source for that, it turns out, is available online here (I'll add a link in the citation), and speaks of emigration from Samar to Leyte in the relevant timeframe) and, asserting that Samar's population increased by 21,456 during the war (citing the first-mentioned source) says "A great loss of life is not supported.", relying on that first-mentioned source for both the 21,456 population increase figure and for the observation that this does not support the conclusion that there was a great loss of life (see this edit)".

If other sources contradict that last cited source, info from those sources can be added by any editor. Such added info should cite supporting sources, and given due weight in the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Revision: I have extended "Filipino historians believe it to be around 50,000" to add "for which there is no documentary or any other evidence." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobcouttie (talk • contribs) 11:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Response: The 50,000 figure, which has been constantly repeated, comes from a paper in the now-defunct Leyte-Samar Studies, by American historian Kenneth Rey Young. Young had made the error of subtracting an 1896 Spanish census figure for Batangas from an American census figure for Samar in 1906. The figure is, therefore, meaningless. While there is an estimate population shortfall of 2,500, that covers a period from 1896 to 1906 so there is no firm basis for ascribing the shortfall to 'retaliatory killings'. Using population ageing figures the figure of 1,500 can be calculated for the male 18-24 year old age group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobcouttie (talk • contribs) 16:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Linking of two birth certificates

The Sarah Palin section says, in part:

The linking between the question whether Trig is her son to Barack Obama's birth certificate issues has been heavily criticized.[1] Andrew Sullivan, in specific, wrote "Palin has never produced Trig's birth certificate or a single piece of objective medical evidence that proves he is indeed her biological son".[2]

I've converted the refs into inline links there. That presents the Sullivan comment as an example of criticism of the linking. Reading that comment in context, I don't see it as a criticism of the linking. Sullivan characterizes Palin as having "joined or at least mainstreamed the Birther movement", but if he speaks to the linkage between the questions about Obama's and Trig's birth certificates, I missed it. He leads with comments about Palin's birther-ness, but most of the linked article is about Trig's birth circumstances. As I read it, Sullivan's key point relevant to this article in that source is, "The news here is that, to her credit, Palin says that all inquiries into a candidate's veracity, record, associations, and medical history are legitimate forms of inquiry." As I read that, he's saying that questions about Obama's birth certificate go to his natural-born-ness , imply that he may be a liar/perjurer, and are legitimate; questions about Trig's birth certificate imply that Palin may be a liar, and are legitimate. I suggest removing the final sentence and the link to the Sullivan comment, or rewriting the assertions in this section to highlight Sullivan's birther characterizations of Palin and/or the legitimacy of questions about a candidate's veracity, record, associations, and medical history.Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Stricken Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

uhhh... Bill, does this belong here? — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• ^Speak! 02:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Clearly not. I meant it for another talk page. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Strange

Does anyone else find it strange that between 2000-3000 people are killed, and the only part of events that earns the title of massacre is the killing of the first 40? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not a matter of earning the title of "massacre" (strange concept, that). It's a matter of using established terminology. The article says, "The Balangiga massacre, as it is known in the Philippines, or the Balangiga affair, as it is known in the United States, ...", citing Brooke, James (1997-12-01). "U.S.-Philippines History Entwined in War Booty". The New York Times., which says, "The bells are a symbol to both sides in a violent page of history from the turn of the century, known in the United States as the Balangiga Affair and in the Philippines as the Balangiga Massacre."

I took a look at a few other handy sources, which date the massacre of the U.S. garrison on various dates ranging from 26 to 29 September, 1901...

• Agoncillo, Teodoro C. (1990) [1960], History of the Filipino People (8th ed.), Quezon City: Garotech Publishing, ISBN 971-8711-06-6 doesn't mention Balalinga Massacre in the Index. It mentions Balaling, with one sub-entry saying "Incident, 228-229" The text there is in a subsection headed "Barbarous Acts" which begins on P. 227. At the bottom of P. 228, Agoncillo writes, "In their desperation, the American soldiers turned arsonists buring whole towns in order to force guerillas to the open. One such case of extreme barbarity occurred in the town of Balangigi, Samar, in 1901-1902. Balangiga was a peaceful little port off the southern tip of Samar, but it was garrisoned by Americans who could not pinpoint the nerve-center of guerrilla activities in the town. Many American soldiers who garrisoned the town were veterans of the Boxer Rebellion and had participated in the capture of Peking. The American soldiers were busy one morning taking their breakfast when suddenly they were attacked by Filipinos in their employ. The church bells rang, and soon about 180 Filipinos fell upon the Americans many of whom were killed instantly. The other Americans who tried to escape were boloed to death, while others were hacked from nose to throat. The news of the guerilla attack attack gave rise to pained cries throughout the United States and so president Roosevelt gave orders to Pacify Samar." The account goes on to descripe General Smith's orders, says, "... in six months, Balangiga became 'a howling wilderness.' ", and reports General Smaith's subsequent court-martial and retirement from service.
• Stanley Karnow (1990), In our image: America's empire in the Philippines, Ballantine Books, ISBN 9780345328168 lists "Balangiga massacre, 189-91" in the index. The text describes the occvupation, Captain Connel, the garrison commander arranging for a Sunday Mass after learning of the assassination of U.S. President McKinley, the Massacre of the Americans that Sunday morning, the re-occupation of the town by a reacti9on force of 53 volunteers, what was found upon reoccupying the town ("Their dead comrades had been mutilated beyond belief—as if an arcane rite had driven the townsfolk into a barbaric frenzy. Disemboweled bodies had been stuffed with molasses or jam to attract ants. The sergeant killed while washing his mess kit was still upended in the water barrel, his feet chopped off. A bag of flouer had been poured into the slit stomach of an unidentified corpse. Even the company dog had been slain, his eyes gouged out and replaced with stones. Captain Connel's head was found in a fire, far from his torso, his West Point ring missing along with the finger"), and goes on to describe reaction in the U.S., describes General Smith's orders, and launches into a description of the Samar campaign.
• Miller, Stuart Creighton (1984), Benevolent Assimilation: The American Conquest of the Philippines, 1899-1903 (4th edition, reprint ed.), Yale University Press, ISBN 9780300030815, in the index, lists "Balangiga; occupation of, 200-201, masssacre at, 202-04; effect of massacre on tactics, 206-07, 201; Marines occupy, 219-220, 221, 222, 225, 230". Miller breaks the description up into several segments; the occupation of the town, the massacre of the American occupying troops, the commitment of a batallion of 300 Marines to the Samar campaign,and the campaign itself. Miller begins a new chapter, The Last Campaign: Samar Challenges American Innocence on page 219.
• Wolff, Leon (1960), Little Brown Brother: How the United States Purchased and Pacified the Philippine Islands at the Century's Turn, Doubleday & Company, Inc, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 61-6528 lists "Balangiga massacre, 354ff." in the index. Page 354 starts a chapter titled End and Beginning which starts on p.354 with the arrival of U.S. troops in the town, describes the massacre of the U.S. troops in the town on pp. 355-357, mentions General Lukban's congratulating th Balangigans, his urging othrs to immitate them, and the subsequent killing of ten Americans and wounding of six in a similar uprising several days later at Gandara, on p. 357, and goes on to describe the Samar campaign on pp. 357-359.
• Zaide, Sonia M. (1994), The Philippines: A Unique Nation, All-Nations Publishing Co., ISBN 971-642-071-4 has "Balangiga, 272" in the index. A paragraph on p.272 reads,

The worst military disaster of the U.S. Military forces in the Visayas was the annihilation of the American garrison at Balangiga, Samar, on September 28, 1901, by General Vincente Lukban's bolomen. On the 74 American officers and soldiers composing the garrison, 50 were slaughtered (including the commander Captain Thomas O'Connell) and only 24 survived the Filipino bolos by running away during the bloody fight. The victorious patriots captured a rich booty of war—100 Krag rifles and 25,000 rounds of ammunitions. American writers called the U.S. military debacle the "Massacre of Balangiga".

Those are the sources which I happen to have handy. It seems clear to me that these sources tend to separate the massacre of U.S. troops in the town of Balangiga from the description of the Samar campaign which followed, and that the massacre in the town of Balangiga is generally called the "Balangiga Massacre". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

New Data

Most of the data related to the BRG mentioned above can be found in

• Couttie, Bob (2004), Hang The Dogs: The True Tragic History Of The Balangiga Massacre, New Day., ISBN 9711011247

It deals with a number of myths, including the involvement of Vicente Lukban - who had nothing to do with it. Most accounts depend heavily on Schott's very flawed Ordeal of Samar. Others could not even get the day right "the Massacre of the Americans that Sunday morning" It was a Saturday. Much of what happened after Balangiga had already been going on before it happened.

bobcouttie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.25.9.234 (talk) 05:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I have remove "the Balangiga Affair as it is known in the US" because it is demonstrably untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobcouttie (talk • contribs) 11:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I have removed "the majority of whom were civilians". The intent of the original wording was to imply that these were non-combatants, for which there is little, if any, evidence. The claim is not supported in any way shape or form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobcouttie (talk • contribs) 11:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Revison 11 December 2011

Deleted: American historians continue to deny that the deaths could have been as numerous at 50,000.

It is self-evidentially untrue since the original figure came from an American historian. The reference is to an article which is not by a a historian. The statement is therefore unsupported in any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobcouttie (talk • contribs) 14:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Changed "Filipino historians believe it to be around 50,000," to "Some Filipino historians believe it to be around 50,000," The figure is largely accepted as false but some might still not do their homework. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobcouttie (talk • contribs) 15:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)