Why did the Philippines stay together while many Hispanic republics fell apart?

I wonder how the Philippines stayed as one country despite many ethnic and cultural differences. Look at Mexico (Nueva Espana), Gran Colombia, Virreinato de Peru, and the Virreinato de Rio de la Plata. What kept them together instead of pulling them apart? What made the Philippines a country not divided by tribe, region, and ethnicity? For a country that speaks 100 different languages that is shocking.
 
I wonder how the Philippines stayed as one country despite many ethnic and cultural differences. Look at Mexico (Nueva Espana), Gran Colombia, Virreinato de Peru, and the Virreinato de Rio de la Plata. What kept them together instead of pulling them apart? What made the Philippines a country not divided by tribe, region, and ethnicity? For a country that speaks 100 different languages that is shocking.
They didn't become independent until 1945, while all those other places became independent more than a century earlier.
 
My blanket answer to why Latin American nations went the way they did in any regard is economics. I remember my high school history book went with the theory that the United States of America was just so great and democratic a country, and we became so wonderful because we were pure snowflakes of republicanism all united together, unlike Latin America. Which is one way to look at it, but the bottom line is that the basis of everything is economic strength.
 

Rubicon

Banned
My blanket answer to why Latin American nations went the way they did in any regard is economics. I remember my high school history book went with the theory that the United States of America was just so great and democratic a country, and we became so wonderful because we were pure snowflakes of republicanism all united together, unlike Latin America. Which is one way to look at it, but the bottom line is that the basis of everything is economic strength.
I think the likelier answer is that the different ruling upper classes had very divergant goals and objectives. The same kind of split happend for instance with the Kalmarunion and we saw the same kind of split in the USA, so no the USA isn't a special snowflake it's just that the USA managed to reconqour the rebellious areas.
 
I have read smatterings from Filipiniana books. That means, I am not that well-verses into the topic. However, as I ponder upon what I remember, I came to this conclusion:

The colonizers and then the elite want a united government.

I can understand why America & Spain want only one government in the island. They wanted simpler governance, anyways, from the mess that was the Negros Republic (is it? I forgot, it's somewhere in Visayas), revolution, Sulu, & the ecomienda system, respectively. That simpler set-up presented by the Americans allowed the elite to have easier time setting up for their own purposes, that is by building up their own machineries, & patronages, sending representatives to the legislature, getting favours from the politicians that was, easier business, etc.

After all, seperate states on both sides of Pasig River, let alone between Bulacan and Pampanga, had been a political insanity since the Spaniards consolidated their rule here.

Now, for the popular side, aside from not having much bad blood between most of the ethnic groups (except maybe with the Moro & Christian groups, or Tagalog-Pampanga gap), having quite easy transport by sea, and by land (easier in the gay days with PNR, we're just patient with bises nowadays). So, you could say, "Proud Bicolano", or "Bisaya ka?" without causing much ruckus. The numerous Muslims here in the barangay are not offended that much when an evangelical suddenly starts to preach in the street. Of course, stereotypes about each other (Manila snob is the most obnoxious) are a thing, but we tend to laugh it off. We don't like to escalate things.
 
I sometimes ask why there wasn't inter-tribal warfare between ethnic groups after independence such as what happened between ethnic groups in Africa and the Balkans?
 
I sometimes ask why there wasn't inter-tribal warfare between ethnic groups after independence such as what happened between ethnic groups in Africa and the Balkans?
1) The first 8 revolting provinces makes up much of Luzon, so thus no heavy "We want to remain Spanish" sentiment. (Forget about Macabebe scouts. :p)
2) The tensions between the elites had been more of political, practical, or ideological, rather than ethnic.
3) The Visayans were unconnected with other ethnic groups to cause ethnic tensions. Cebuano officials, while sometimes refusing to use the "Tagalog" Lupang Hinirang, are tolerated.
4) Outside Manila and Tagalog areas, if you're a native of the area, there's a high chance you're polyglotic: your native language, Tagalog-based Filipino, and English. Heck, there's so many visible minorities at Bacoor!
4) You're wrong with your statement. The demographic situation at Mindanao can be compared to Ireland: tensions between Muslim Moros & Christian Bisaya-Cebuanos due to the extremists on both sides. However, attitude of the moderates just want peace and security.

EDIT: I redact statement no. 1. According to Wikipedia, there's 25,000 Filipino combatants on the side of Spain. Also, the revolution's mostly localized at the Greater Manila Area, from Camarines to Tarlac.

DOUBLE EDIT: PADJ IT! I'm mixin' up things!

Anyways, here's a helpful link:

http://mlq3.tumblr.com/post/24939544176/mapping-the-revolution

TRIPLE EDIT: Here's what the government can say about it:

http://malacanang.gov.ph/7824-evolution-of-the-revolution/
 
Last edited:
Top