tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post2437425587825862202..comments2023-10-20T21:46:49.945+08:00Comments on Philippine Commentary: Spratlys Issue: Now Nationalists Defend the Treaty of Paris of 1898Deany Bocobohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01443168826029321831noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post-62262569164967944822008-03-21T23:09:00.000+08:002008-03-21T23:09:00.000+08:00Why can't we just enforce the delineation as set o...Why can't we just enforce the delineation as set out in UNCLOS?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post-50812251966288912832008-03-21T06:09:00.000+08:002008-03-21T06:09:00.000+08:00MB (Anon):You make two suggestions: DON'T accept t...MB (Anon):<BR/><BR/>You make two suggestions: DON'T accept the Treaty of Paris and DON'T accept English. <BR/><BR/>You're not even doing the last suggestion yourself (obvious ba?) and I can't believe you are serious about the first!<BR/><BR/>This is not a criticism of "nationalism" but of "nationalists"--like you who still don't get it...Come back when you can write these same arguments in Pfilipino...and mean it!Deany Bocobohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01443168826029321831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post-43607232502026461392008-03-21T02:48:00.000+08:002008-03-21T02:48:00.000+08:00"Rabid" nationalists don't need the Treaty of Pari..."Rabid" nationalists don't need the Treaty of Paris, just the UN law.<BR/><BR/>Your argument about accepting territorial rights designated by foreigners and English as "our language now" is illogical.<BR/><BR/>It is as if you are implying that nationalists believe that all of their arguments should not come from foreign sources. That criticism of nationalism does not make sense to me, especially given the fact that nationalism was also very strong in countries of foreigners that colonized the country!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post-19811276424467817232008-03-19T19:28:00.000+08:002008-03-19T19:28:00.000+08:00I meant: unfortunately we HAVE national artists......I meant: unfortunately we HAVE national artists... who can't see...Deany Bocobohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01443168826029321831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post-90561677079907749212008-03-19T19:27:00.000+08:002008-03-19T19:27:00.000+08:00MLQ3,We shan't ever look at the Treaty of Paris th...MLQ3,<BR/>We shan't ever look at the Treaty of Paris the same way again. And if the new perspective on the ORIGIN of the national territory is anything to go by, this will mean a reassessment of the rest of the "firsts" that colonialism gave...like our "true" identity as Asiatics made over into Westerners. Inexorably, because like human beings, a nation's "childhood education" sets its cultural context for a very very long time, maybe forever.<BR/><BR/>So if we can accept that our territory was creation of foreigners and we have made it our home, why can we not accept for example English as our language now. Once the territory was foreign now it is native. So too with the language that empowered the Filams. <BR/><BR/>Unfortunately we National Artists and nationalist thinkers who can't see beyond...well, the Spratley's!Deany Bocobohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01443168826029321831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post-90041544364835147442008-03-19T17:48:00.000+08:002008-03-19T17:48:00.000+08:00the 1935 concon deliberations pointed out a proble...the 1935 concon deliberations pointed out a problem, though, see nicolas buendia's report on the inaccuracies concerning our border with formosa, now taiwan. the committee on territorial delimitation wanted a readjustment, which did not take place.<BR/><BR/>see:<BR/><BR/>http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2004/09/23/2003204030<BR/><BR/>and the treaty of paris was followed up with a treaty between the usa and the uk on the turtle islands.<BR/><BR/>it's not a question of defending the treaty of paris but rather, that the treaty of paris ended up the internationally-accepted deliniation of our territory, as was the case with all ex-colonies. you have to start somewhere. <BR/><BR/>what's interesting is that you ask the spaniards the philippines extended to guam and included the carolines, though filipino revolutionaries themselves didn't conceive of those areas as part of the philippines. an additional interesting point is that according to a spanish historian i talked to, as late as the commonwealth, efforts were still made to claim guam for the philippines but obviously uncle sam disagreed.mlq3https://www.blogger.com/profile/07311749590012410086noreply@blogger.com