From Aqueducts to the International Space Station: Observations From

Why is America and American influence so pervasive? Why is its presence felt all over the world? How do we see our own national interests and destiny as a Filipino people? Is cooperation with America an indispensable ingredient for economic survival? Is there anything morally upright or reprehensible with cooperating with America? How do we arrive at some logical explanation that would provide us an objective perspective as a sovereign nation and a people? What is the right perspective? Is there a right perspective?

If we are to understand America (in our desire to understand what fascinates us about American ideals as a people), we first need to look beyond the veneer of perception and try to piece together an observation (not a conclusion or opinion) based on history.

The Land. Geographically, the continental US has no distinct advantages over other geographies. It has as the same topographical varieties as those seen in different parts of the world.

The People. Based on popular American history, predecessors were Puritan immigrants who fled England, landed on Plymouth Rock, to escape the arm of the Kingdom and its associated duties and taxes. This is popular history. What remains unpopular is the history of the rest of what is now America.

There has been a longstanding debate within historical groups about making the history of native America more prominent. The resistance to make this more prominent is obvious. It creates a viable antithesis that could challenge the value system embedded in the popular history of the American people. For example, little is known about the "death march" President Jackson ordered to relocate native Americans from the East to the West, or the atrocities of early Texas settlers (remember the Alamo?) against Hispanic/Mexican inhabitants of what was then part of Mexico.

Let's keep the discussion around "popular" history to avoid extreme perspectives.

Early continental inhabitants could trace the roots of their value system all the way back to Rome, the seat of modern western civilization. Take note, I am not particular about racial roots for Rome was as racially diverse as most modern countries today. What history implicitly demonstrates is the fact that the value system of a people or nation determines its future.

The most popular ideal system of Rome is the Pax Romana. It offered its citizens and occupied territories with a sense of security, which reinforced the Roman value system. But behind this peace, and beyond its borders or occupied territories, Rome continued to wage war in order to extend its geographical reach. Roman citizens enjoyed luxury and prosperity at the expense of other occupied territories. There was chaos beyond the borders of Rome. The Roman economy was always an economy built on the ashes and chaos of war.

Hitler, for example, went to war in order to extend Germany's borders and territories by forcibly displacing the inhabitants of occupied territories. He initially fixated his attention to what was Czechoslovakia and Poland. In order to benefit directly, Germany had to secure control of the country. Trade was simply not sufficient. In order to build the momentum, he had to fix his attention towards an object of hate. The different reasons we hear about why Hitler murdered all the Jews only clouds the issue. Hitler made the prosperous Jews the object of hate for most Germans who were not faring so well within their own economy. Hitler succeeded. He rallied the support of the German people and began his strategic campaign to expand Germany's territorial borders.

Unlike Asian counterparts such as China and India who invested in explorations for the purpose of expanding friendly trade, Western countries explored for the purpose of forcibly occupying and assimilating sovereign countries. They are like the "Borg" in Gene Rodenberry's Star Trek series--resistance is futile. This is not only true of Rome, but of every predecessor named in the annals of Western History. The exception of course was Japan, who, with its warring culture, was influenced by Europeans. China, closed its doors to the entire world to protect its own interests and limit the influence of western thinking from overpowering its national psyche. Even today, the Chinese seems to opt toward censorship rather then allow Western practices, that have nothing to do with promoting its own from overtaking its own sovereign interests.

Now, let's look and opine on contemporary American history...

The race was on between major world powers during the 1600-1800's. France, Britain, and Germany, heavily invested in explorations bent on colonization (of course, they packaged it as religious). Everyone wanted to stake their claim on the global real estate. Since most European nations (France, Britain, Germany) could not risk occupying neighboring states for fear of mutual destruction, the fixated their attention to the world not yet know to them.

The end of this Age of Discovery and colonization (early 1900's) came naturally as colonizers had to focus on restoring losses from their ventures. They had to focus on rebuilding economies. During this period, America was not yet a global super power. Sure, it had won its independence from the British, it had won against Saavedra, it had displaced native settlers, but America had no experience engaging in the most profitable venture of all--global war.

The US economy during the early 1900's was a failing one. Their markets were largely limited to agricultural products since their manufacturing capabilities could not compete against far advanced European counterparts. With WWI raging in Europe, America did not have the means to sustain itself internally. Then in 1929, the first real signs of trouble arose with the crash of the market ushering the period of the Great Depression. They had to find a way to get out of this mess quickly.

An opportunity presented itself in the middle of WW II. That opportunity was the Lusitania. This was a private cruise liner that was supposed to be free from hostile attacks from either side. The problem was in that fateful voyage, somehow the Lusitania carried a shipment of armaments from America to England. Interesting enough, the Germans found out about the cargo and consequently sank the cruise liner. From this point onwards, America was now engaged in an all out war on the European theatre to "protect the interest of US security" (Why the heck would you in good conscience load a cruise liner with military cargo when everyone new that this would certainly be construed as a violation of existing treaties? I don't know.).

From this point, the manufacturing industry in the US began to pickup. The US began supplying the European front with men and munitions from bullets, ships, armored vehicles, guns, gears. You name it, the US produced and shipped it. But there were simply too many hands involved in the European front, too many to share the spoils with. Of course, America had to find a way to engage the Asian front where the Japanese was gaining a stronger foothold controlling most of Asia.

America, Britain, France had virtually abandoned most of their colonies in Asia, and focused their resources on winning the European front since this was much more closer to home. England, for example, used more resources from India to resist Japanese occupations in Asia. America pulled completely out of Asia (hence, the McArthur drama in Philippine History) since they had no official quarrel with Japan.

Interesting enough, America had to find a way to make their stake in Asia now that most of the Western powers had pulled away and left everything to the hands of the Japanese. Here comes Pearl Harbor (the day of infamy). Somehow, zeros managed to penetrate the defenses of the Pacific fleet. You have to remember that America was in a state of war with Europe so it would naturally be expected for its security levels to be close to the highest. How did the zeros penetrate. America had to find a way to join the Asian theatre of war. Pearl Harbor did it.

By this time, America had managed to smuggle the brightest scientists from Europe and around the world into the American fold. Their guns were getting better, the technology of war was becoming more sophisticated. The War department had Carte Blanche spending authority.

America not only benefited during the war, but more so during post-war activities. By the way, those that lost, were financially bound to repay the victors the money spent on every bullet fired, and had first dibs on commanding the post war economic build-up. This means a captured market for US made products and services. The America of the 1950's was very different from the America of the 1920's. Due to the profits of the war effort, a majority of Americans could now afford to have at least one car and fried chicken on the table any time they wanted.

As the American economy started to dip, America had to find another way to sell munitions and men. Roughly 10 years after the close of WW II, America got involved in Korea, ushering the Cold War. Fear of communism as a threat to democracy became the battle cry that was communicated to every American. Of course, the real threat was not on the ideal of democracy, but on the economic interests of the US should communism take hold of their post-war occupied territories. They certainly had to protect their interests.

Then a decade later, America participates in Cambodia and then Vietnam. Since America had to retreat from Vietnam without officially winning while suffering heavy losses, they had to find a means to recover these losses. 10 years later, Afghanistan. Then, 10 years later, Kuwait. 10 years later, Iraq. Perhaps 10 years from now, it would be some other nation. Of course, these are only major instances known to the public. But the extent by which America has infiltrated every single nation in the world as a result of the efforts during the Cold War is now being mobilized, it seems, to protect the interests of American national security and democracy. Beneath this "freedom" and support for democracy is really the motive of protecting American economic interests.

Why is there such a bullish outlook for the American economy, simply because the war efforts has allowed it to capture and command markets for at least 50 years from the cessation of hostilities. This means American manufacturers will always have a destination and market for their products. This is also why America has resisted open market efforts sponsored by the UN. All the UN can do is make noise. American economic interests revolves around the destination of American products, but it will not open its market to foreign products and companies that are not at least partially American owned.

There seems to be a vivid parallel with the way America conducts itself today and the way Rome once conducted itself. And if history is any indication, it may suffer the same fate. Of course, the Roman empire ultimately collapsed from within. Given the internal, albeit largely unknown fact, America is going through an internal crisis behind this facade built around "spins" and "non-answers" and the high talk of freedom and democracy. Obviously, those that subscribe to its moral position will naturally gravitate to support American interests and value system.

The strength of the American value system is a benefit/consequence of the spoils of war. The Pax Americana (American ideals of democracy) was built on the foundation of war, and was funded by the spoils of war. What we are now seeing, despite all the sophisticated and "moral" reasons given for it, is just history repeating itself. While Americans enjoy a relative level of security, that security is built at the cost of hundreds of thousands of non-American lives and at the cost of the freedom and sovereignty of other non-American nations. The rationale, like the driving force behind Pax Romana, is protecting the interest of US national security. America is now suffering the consequences of her past actions. Again, a repeat of history. The relationship between war and a progressive economy from a Western context is tightly coupled and intertwined. This is Malthus and Machiavellian constructs at work wrapped in a neat package of the moral high ground.

There is a new war raging--the battle for the minds of people. This is more powerful than any implement of war. The difficult part is for countries and peoples to determine which mindset ultimately benefits their own interests. We live in a world that naturally polarizes in extremes, and those that remain in the middle get shot by both sides even from within.

Much like what the Oracle, in the Matrix Revolutions film had to say, "everything that has a beginning, will have an end" But interesting enough, the events following this prophecy, is a state of peace between the humans and the machines won by destroying the virus that seeks to destroy them by getting the machines and humans to destroy each other. By destroying the virus, Neo (French for new) sealed a state of peace, but not before giving his own life completely to gain this peace. The sacrifice he gave was not contending with a superpower (the machines), but by dealing with the aberration which was the virus. And since he was the only character with requisite variety (able to exist in both digital and physical form), the only way he could continue to sustain this peace is by becoming an integral part of both worlds. Neo became the embodiment of synthesis.

We need to find this synthesis. We need to define an alternative and the means to sustain that alternative. What that is, I do not yet know. But I am seeking. But my ignorance does not in any way negate the importance of an alternative.

Those that want to attain immediate progress (or at least the perception of progress) are those willing to compromise and accede to the powers that be. Those that refuse and stand their ground are considered radicals. Those that are willing to put teeth to their views are considered terrorists. And deep within each of us, we know that things must change. We must evolve. From Feudalism to Democracy. What is that next stage in our national evolution? What is that "synthesis"? We also know that an integration between Feudalism and Democracy is dangerous. Just look at the Philippines today.

The reason why Bin La Din and Hezbollah are considered terrorists is that they oppose American ideals and everything America supports. They have put teeth to their views and conduct attacks that does not distinguish between military or civilian. The reason they don't distinguish is that their concept of a war is one that is against everything and everyone who upholds American or Western ideal since this poses the greatest threat to their own ideals. They are basically against everything and everyone that holds ideals different from the own. Truly a clash of civilizations.

What is the alternative? What is our Neo? What is our Filipino version of Neo?

From aqueducts to the international space station...these are all infrastructures built on the spoils of war. Is worldwide peace truly achievable? From the actions of most world powers, it may seem that the only achievable peace is one that they define and one that will ultimately benefit their own coffers.

Time to re-think--the blue pill or the red pill? Once you choose, you can never come back. Filipinos need to make the choice that looks at an alternative. An alternative that will usher in a more civilized generation--a synthesized generation.

Who is our Filipino "Neo"?