Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Ancient Map of the Philippines includes Spratly, Reed Bank and Scarbor
Asia Finest Discussion Forum > Asian Culture > Filipino Chat
EhLIAhS
NOT JUST CLOSE PROXIMITY!!

Philippines has all the rights to claim this Territory.








MANILA BULLETIN


MANILA, Philippines -- With rising population and increased food and energy needs, attention is again focused on China Sea resources, claimed principally by China, Taiwan, Vietnam, and us.

In 1947, Tomas Cloma, Filipino fishing magnate, staked out islands 200-250 miles west of Palawan and called these Freedomland. Cloma’s claim was eventually transferred to government and in 1978, President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued PD No. 1599 declaring the area part of Philippine territory and constituting seven islets and a reef into Kalayaan, a Palawan municipality.

Some 150 miles west of Zambales is Scarborough Shoal (also called Bajo de Masinloc and Panatag), shallow waters with reefs and rocks where Filipinos have been since time immemorial. We have raised the flag, built a lighthouse, and studied its marine life and topography.

Old maps support territorial claims, including ours over Reed Bank, Kalayaan and Scarborough Shoal.

Ancient Chinese maps include islands they say are the Spratlys. Similarly, the Vietnamese have maps including one dated 1834 that they maintain includes the Spratlys.

The earliest maps of the Philippines were drawn by European explorers. These became more and more accurate as expeditions reached more places. Pigafetta (chronicler of Magellan’s 1521 voyage) sketched just a few misshapen and misplaced islands. The 1563 Ramusio-Gastaldi map still did not show Luzon but had the name Filipena. Mercator’s Southeast Asia map (1595) included a fairly accurate drawing of the archipelago and a collection of islands in the China Sea labeled Pracel.

Maps entirely of the Philippines began to be drawn in the 1600s. Focus was on the main islands but the Frenchman Sanson de Abbeville included groups of islands west of Palawan in his 1652 Les Isles Philippines.

The earliest most accurate Philippine map was that of Fr. Pedro Murillo Velarde, SJ, Carta hydrographica y chorographica de las Islas Filipinas published 1734. It included three groups of islands in the China Sea off Palawan (called Paragua), collectively called Los Bajos de Paragua where Reed Bank and the Kalayaan are. Island groups west of the Zambales and Pangasinan coast were also identified—Lumbay, Panacot and Galit (Tagalog for sorrow, threat and anger, respectively, doubtless so baptized by weary seafarers). The Manila Galleon’s Cape Bojeador route went past all three and indeed, west of Galit.

Mapa General. Islas Filipinas, Observatorio de Manila, published in 1900 by the US Coast and Geodetic Survey, included Bajo de Masinloc.

The Philippine Baselines Law of 2009 (RA No. 9522) classified both Kalayaan and Bajo de Masinloc under “Regime of Islands,” a lesser category in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Article No. 121).

From his detention cell, Senator Antonio F. Trillanes objected. Columnist Ellen Tordesillas quoted him as insisting that Scarborough Shoal was already part of the Philippine baseline and that classifying it under Regime of Islands meant the loss of 15,000 square nautical miles.

President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo signed the Bill into Law on March 10, 2009, evidently loosening our grip and strengthening a competing foreign claimant’s over our ancestors’ lumbay, panacot and galit.
maharlikangpilipino
tol naunahan mo na naman ako! embarassedlaugh.gif

last month ko pa yan gustong ilagay beerchug.gif
EhLIAhS
QUOTE (maharlikangpilipino @ May 2 2011, 11:09 PM) *
tol naunahan mo na naman ako! embarassedlaugh.gif

last month ko pa yan gustong ilagay beerchug.gif


Haha.. Sayang kasi.. Ngayon lang nga ako nakapagregister uli.. Naban kasi ako nung huli lng.. May masabi lng negative sa mga intsik ban kagad.

Akala kasi ng marami hanggang close Proximity na lang ang panlaban natin. Kahit common sense lng ang pairalin satin tlga dapat ang mga territoryo n yan beerchug.gif
maharlikangpilipino
QUOTE (EhLIAhS @ May 3 2011, 12:13 AM) *
Haha.. Sayang kasi.. Ngayon lang nga ako nakapagregister uli.. Naban kasi ako nung huli lng.. May masabi lng negative sa mga intsik ban kagad.

Akala kasi ng marami hanggang close Proximity na lang ang panlaban natin. Kahit common sense lng ang pairalin satin tlga dapat ang mga territoryo n yan beerchug.gif


wag ka magulat sa pagban sayo. normal yan, lalo na kung nasa ganitong environment ka

hinihintay ko pa rin yung sa china at vietnam. mas matanda daw claims nila ehh. confused.gif
EhLIAhS
QUOTE (maharlikangpilipino @ May 3 2011, 12:17 AM) *
wag ka magulat sa pagban sayo. normal yan, lalo na kung nasa ganitong environment ka

hinihintay ko pa rin yung sa china at vietnam. mas matanda daw claims nila ehh. confused.gif



Mas matanda nga.. pero wala nmn tlgang nagadminister nyang mga yan kundi ang Pilipinas lang. Matagal ng nagpapabalik-balik ang mga tribo sa Palawan sa Spratly nuon p lng. Ung claims ng China masyadong makasarili at ung iba gawa-gawa n nila. POrket may naligaw lng silang Admiral dun sakanila n daw kagad.

Pati reed bank sakanila din daw.. Eh hindi nmn part ng spratly ang reed bank, ilang kilometro lng layo nun sa Palawan, at walang isla dun, so pano nila sasabihin n matagal ng saknila yun.. puro pagkaganid lng kasi ang alam nila.

Ung Scarborough Shoal matagal n rin sa Pilipinas yun. Nung nasa Subic p ang base ng US hindi sila makaporma dun, kasi napakalapit sa Zambales nun.
maharlikangpilipino
mauna na muna ako 'pre tsaka tayo magdiskusyon

* abangan, nasa alert level 2 na ang nagaalburutong BUTSI. embarassedlaugh.gif
martin_nuke
So Paragua Vada was the name of Spratly during the Spanish Era and it clearly shows that it was part of the Philippines.
maharlikangpilipino
QUOTE (martin_nuke @ May 3 2011, 01:37 AM) *
So Paragua Vada was the name of Spratly during the Spanish Era and it clearly shows that it was part of the Philippines.


The islands were collectively known as Los Bajos de Paragua(I think it's in the article, just check it)

Paragua Vada/Los Bajos de Paragua did include Spratly and Reed Bank.
I also remembered another map showing that Scarborough Shoal is within PHL territory

QUOTE (EhLIAhS @ May 3 2011, 12:25 AM) *
Mas matanda nga.. pero wala nmn tlgang nagadminister nyang mga yan kundi ang Pilipinas lang. Matagal ng nagpapabalik-balik ang mga tribo sa Palawan sa Spratly nuon p lng. Ung claims ng China masyadong makasarili at ung iba gawa-gawa n nila. POrket may naligaw lng silang Admiral dun sakanila n daw kagad.

Pati reed bank sakanila din daw.. Eh hindi nmn part ng spratly ang reed bank, ilang kilometro lng layo nun sa Palawan, at walang isla dun, so pano nila sasabihin n matagal ng saknila yun.. puro pagkaganid lng kasi ang alam nila.

Ung Scarborough Shoal matagal n rin sa Pilipinas yun. Nung nasa Subic p ang base ng US hindi sila makaporma dun, kasi napakalapit sa Zambales nun.


naiintindihan ko kung bakit parang nagmemenopause ngayon ang bansang yan.
kailangan ng resources para sa bilyun-bilyong mamamayan nila. tsaka syempre ang West PHL sea ay napakahalaga sa kalakalan.
juansuing
WOOHOO! No brainer naman kasi talaga dapat 'to e. Masyadong obvious na sa Pilipinas 'to!

@maharlika: OO NGA. Hahaha. Umabot na nga daw ng 1.3billion ang populasyon nila e. Tsk tsk.
batangbaylan
QUOTE (EhLIAhS @ May 3 2011, 12:13 AM) *
Haha.. Sayang kasi.. Ngayon lang nga ako nakapagregister uli.. Naban kasi ako nung huli lng.. May masabi lng negative sa mga intsik ban kagad.

Akala kasi ng marami hanggang close Proximity na lang ang panlaban natin. Kahit common sense lng ang pairalin satin tlga dapat ang mga territoryo n yan beerchug.gif



ako nga rin naban...hays.. bbye datumarco
ocrapdm
Correction:

As you can read clearly in the article, the Philippine claim to the Spratlys started ONLY as late as 1947 under its so-called discovery of Tomas Cloma. This can be refuted by the fact that the Spratlys cannot be classified as terra nullius (by being discovered only 1947) because it was already sighted and even mapped by the Spaniards, Chinese, Vietnamese, French, and Japanese years before! LOL.

It was also declared part of the Chinese and Vietnamese dynasties. with Vietnam having the longest control PROBABLY, as the islands passed to French administration following French occupation of Indochina including Vietnam. The reason why China wasn't able to keep up with its initial claim is because of struggles within the foreign Qing (Manchu) dynasty of China. Anyhow, China protested French (and subsequent Japanese) occupation of the Spratlys to the League of Nations and UN on 1885,1932, 1946.

The Chinese admiral who "discovered" the Spratlys (might even be the first person to ever set foot on the Spratlys) is Zheng He. Contrary to some claims that he got lost, the Spratlys were part of HIS OFFICIAL TRACK, which might even place back the initial discovery to earlier Chinese mariners. He visited Chinese communities in other Southeast Asian trading places (but not the Philippines), India, and Africa.

From 1969 to 1971, the Philippines officially helped the establishment of the United States radar base on one of the Spratly Islands (A SICK MOVE).

Anyway, going back to the topic, the illustration of the said three shaols in the Mallat/Velarde map (WHICH I HAVE, ANYWAY) cannot be said to point to Philippine ownership of the islands because:

1. Even Sabah, chunks of Mindanao, and Central and Southern Palawan were depicted in the Mallat map, which during that time were NOT part of Spanish Philippine territory.
2. The transfer of the islands from Spain to the US via the Treaty of Paris did not include a reference to the Spratlys.
3. The Treaty of Paris even had to be redrawn because it left out Tawi-Tawi and several key islands, but again, the redrawn Treaty still does not include the Spratlys. (Ergo, the Spaniards NEVER claimed sovereignty over Spratlys)
4. There were no clear evidence of prehistoric Philippine incursions or authority over the islands, meanwhile Chinese maps and historical documents attest to the fact that still, China AND Vietnam are the first to these islands.

Scarborough Shaol, however, has had evidence of prehistoric Filipino incursions AND SHOULD rightly belong to the Philippines.

_______________________________

The territory of Paragua during the early and mid Spanish colonization of the Philippines included only the Islas Calamianes up to the mainland town of Tatay (now Taytay, Palawan).

The rest of Palawan (which got its name from Chinese Pa-lao-yu, meaning, the land of beautiful harbors) remained strongly under the control of the Sultan of Brunei (and sometimes under the Sultan of Sulu) and thus, INDEPENDENT FROM SPANISH RULE.

DISCLAIMER: THESE ARE NOT MY OPINION, BUT UNADULTERATED HISTORICAL FACTS. I'm not talking about being pro-China or pro-Philippines or pro-whatever here,
orient

Mga pare, tapos na ba tayo sa Spratlys?

Okay. Next Sabah. embarassedlaugh.gif
Mid-Night_Sun
lmao i love this kind of writing.

"Ancient Chinese maps include islands they say are the Spratlys. Similarly, the Vietnamese have maps including one dated 1834 that they maintain includes the Spratlys."

they "SAY" its spratly. they "MAINTAIN" its spratly. who really knows. embarassedlaugh.gif

well, the thing is we actually drew our own maps. Europeans drawing the earliest maps for you is actually not helpful to your claims...at all :/ in fact its really bad lol.

oh and "ancient"? nothing about Europeans in Asia can be considered ancient. thanks for tricking me....again...



nvm. cool story bro. beerchug.gif
martin_nuke
I found a very ancient map of the Philippines and look at the borders it clearly shows that the Spratly is included in the Philippines.



ocrapdm
QUOTE (martin_nuke @ May 4 2011, 09:18 AM) *
I found a very ancient map of the Philippines and look at the borders it clearly shows that the Spratly is included in the Philippines.



How can it be "very ancient" if it was drawn by Europeans?
juansuing
QUOTE (martin_nuke @ May 3 2011, 08:18 PM) *
I found a very ancient map of the Philippines and look at the borders it clearly shows that the Spratly is included in the Philippines.



Galing. Atin yan icon_smile.gif
ocrapdm
QUOTE (Mid-Night_Sun @ May 4 2011, 08:50 AM) *
lmao i love this kind of writing.

"Ancient Chinese maps include islands they say are the Spratlys. Similarly, the Vietnamese have maps including one dated 1834 that they maintain includes the Spratlys."

they "SAY" its spratly. they "MAINTAIN" its spratly. who really knows. embarassedlaugh.gif

well, the thing is we actually drew our own maps. Europeans drawing the earliest maps for you is actually not helpful to your claims...at all :/ in fact its really bad lol.

oh and "ancient"? nothing about Europeans in Asia can be considered ancient. thanks for tricking me....again...



nvm. cool story bro. beerchug.gif


It's weird that a lot of SE Asian claimants use European-drawn maps as basis for bolstering their disputes and claims. All these are obviously ridiculous.

Philippines really can NOT claim the Spratlys based on history. What it can do rather is to insert geography and the UNCLOS law.

Historically and politically speaking, BOTH China (ONLY EITHER MAINLAND or R.O.C.) and Vietnam are the only ones who have a right to Spratlys. But the amendment of the UNCLOS (which is based geographically) gives the Philippines a right to rule Spratlys as a regime of islands.

Therefore, my take is this: JUST DIVIDE THE DAMN islands into three sectors. Vietnam gets the Western sector, China gets the Northern sector, and the East and South sector (by virtue of geography) goes to the Philippines, all the while giving all three a share in all profits from Spratlys.
silangan
QUOTE (ocrapdm @ May 3 2011, 11:16 PM) *
How can it be "very ancient" if it was drawn by Europeans?


Martin's map clearly shows it. The Philippines became whole under Spain. Look again Ocrap. The map delineates the extent of each country's possessions.



ocrapdm
QUOTE (silangan @ May 6 2011, 08:36 AM) *
Martin's map clearly shows it. The Philippines became whole under Spain. Look again Ocrap. The map delineates the extent of each country's possessions.


Oh yeah, of course it includes the Spratlys. But then, why were the Spratlys NOT included in the Treaty of Paris which Spain signed in 1898-1899? Remember that the TOP was revised to include Tawi Tawi and Mambenauhan Islands. And yet, on the revision, Spratlys was NOT included AGAIN.

Also, look at how it EXCLUDES Batanes and Sabah, and yet INCLUDES the Kepulauan Sangihe + Palau. Mindanao and Southern Palawan were not parts of Spanish Philippines and YET were included. I guess the inclusion was based on archipelago groupings, rather than particular claims.

But then, the greatest take is this: ONCE again, for the UMPTEENTH TIME, (without being biased) why is the Philippine claim BASED ON THIS EUROPEAN MAP?!?! Chinese and Vietnamese claims were based on Chinese and Vietnamese drawn maps.

If the Philippines canNOT present a Philippine drawn map, then how can it BOLSTER its claims over the Spratlys?

Of course the Philippines was already a conglomeration of highly literate Hindu/Muslim city-states (barangays) then, so they should've at least left some mark there. But alas, they didn't.

During the early Spanish period even, there were even no mainstream unat people in Palawan. Only the Batak, Tagbanwa, Palawano, Tau't Bato, and other Australoid peoples were there - and of course, the Moro in Balabac and Southern Palawan. All these WERE FAIRLY INDEPENDENT FROM SPANISH RULE. It's only during the US rule that Whites penetrated the South of Palawan.

Also, the British had MORE influence on Southern Palawan during the Spanish rule that they even set up a lighthouse there, now present-day Brooke's Point, Palawan. If so, then should Malaysia be the owner of Southern Palawan and OF Spratlys (which geographically belongs to Southern Palawan)? Of course not!

So we go by history. And history says that two, AND ONLY TWO, have the most legally weighted evidence regarding sovereignty over the Spratlys - and these are both CHINA and VIETNAM.

So in that case, Spratly is actually Nansha and/or Truong Sa, NOT Kalayaan.

Again, this argument is made on a purely historical and logical basis WITHOUT any bias.
batangbaylan
has any1 seen ocrap.. ? no comment and replies here.... i dont want to waste common sense.. .
EhLIAhS
QUOTE (juansuing @ May 4 2011, 12:28 AM) *
Galing. Atin yan icon_smile.gif



UNCLOS + these maps from 16th-17th century = will surely strengthen our claims

This map just stretched back our claim from 1947 down to 16ht Century! beerchug.gif

With this maps and our strong claim basing from the UNCLOS these islands should rightfully be ours.

Well Philippines was not that greedy unlike the big bully. Philippines was just claiming the eastern part unlike this big bully who was not even contented to her already vast territory and still continues to claim other nations Territory with the basis of imperialistic Historical claims.
maharlikangpilipino
QUOTE (EhLIAhS @ May 9 2011, 10:55 PM) *
UNCLOS + these maps from 16th-17th century = will surely strengthen our claims

This map just stretched back our claim from 1947 down to 16ht Century! beerchug.gif

With this maps and our strong claim basing from the UNCLOS these islands should rightfully be ours.

Well Philippines was not that greedy unlike the big bully. Philippines was just claiming the eastern part unlike this big bully who was not even contented to her already vast territory and still continues to claim other nations Territory with the basis of imperialistic Historical claims.


Just give it away. para party party na ang mga tao. rotflmao.gif

and stop claiming these islands, kasi pag kineclaim nyo yan.. talagang patunay yan na mga sunud-sunuran at mga hunghang na tuta kayo ng mga amerikano pukeface.gif
^kahit sa sarili ko ay alam kong walang kaugnayan, susunod ako diyan, dahil yan ang tama at yan ang patunay na mahal ko ang pilipinas at ang kapakanan ng bansang ito ay aking pinapahalagahan rotflmao.gif

*****

kidding aside.. mukhang wag na natin gamitin ang "history" ... matibay na ang claims natin gamit ang UNCLOS. pati yung meron na tayong komunidad sa Kalayaan(merong munisipalidad ang Palawan doon)<---natalo na rin tayo sa Indonesia noon noong gamitin natin ang history.

ngayon, UNCLOS pa lang, solved na ang problema.. UNLESS, nagpakabalimbing at gago ang UN.

*****

ang nakakaGAGO pa rito, paglabas mo ng Look ng Maynila, kailangan mo na ng pasaporte at visa kung ayaw mo maligo sa bala embarassedlaugh.gif
ocrapdm
QUOTE (EhLIAhS @ May 10 2011, 11:55 AM) *
UNCLOS + these maps from 16th-17th century = will surely strengthen our claims

This map just stretched back our claim from 1947 down to 16ht Century! beerchug.gif

With this maps and our strong claim basing from the UNCLOS these islands should rightfully be ours.

Well Philippines was not that greedy unlike the big bully. Philippines was just claiming the eastern part unlike this big bully who was not even contented to her already vast territory and still continues to claim other nations Territory with the basis of imperialistic Historical claims.


The UNCLOS III, which was convened on 1973 in the United Nations was the UNCLOS which gave the Philippines a supposed claim to the Spratlys (as is maintained by the Manila government). Actually, the PH government has been misinterpreting the facts for several decades already. The UNCLOS III gives archipelagic nations like the Philippines territorial waters extending up to 12 nautical miles, and a contiguous zone extending to another 12 nautical miles. The "Exclusive Economic Zone" that is being fought for and by the Philippine government is, by all means, NOT a political entity BUT an economic one - just read the name (duh!). International waters technically begin from the contiguous zone. Likewise, Exclusive Economic Zone is based not ONLY in geography, but also in history. It also does overlap.

And I wonder what makes 16th-century drawn European-drawn maps a "definite document" for Spratlys occupation, since China and Vietnam BOTH already have charted the area since the 13th century (and recorded as early as 23 AD). During this "23 AD" period, there WAS NO unifying political state encompassing the Philippines, with it being divided into several city-kingdoms (barangays) and some into larger state-kingdoms.

Well, don't say "not even contented,,,and still continues to claim... on the basis of historical imperialist claims", BECAUSE IT IS STILL HISTORY which defines the current political structure of a nation. The Philippines became the Philippines because of its history being unified by the Spaniards and Americans.

Source:
Historical Evidence to Support China's Sovereignty over Nansha Islands
http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/topics/3754/t19231.htm

QUOTE (maharlikangpilipino @ May 10 2011, 12:23 PM) *
kidding aside.. mukhang wag na natin gamitin ang "history" ... matibay na ang claims natin gamit ang UNCLOS. pati yung meron na tayong komunidad sa Kalayaan(merong munisipalidad ang Palawan doon)<---natalo na rin tayo sa Indonesia noon noong gamitin natin ang history.

ngayon, UNCLOS pa lang, solved na ang problema.. UNLESS, nagpakabalimbing at gago ang UN.

*****

ang nakakaGAGO pa rito, paglabas mo ng Look ng Maynila, kailangan mo na ng pasaporte at visa kung ayaw mo maligo sa bala embarassedlaugh.gif


Again, read the UNCLOS thingy above so you can correct your misinterpretations. The Philippine government has been misinterpreting it for years. The UNCLOS merely states that AN EXISTING GROUP OF ISLANDS OR STATE shall have the EEZ. And so, what if there's already an existing de facto state there, like Spratlys being part then of Guangdong province of China? Then, the EEZ would belong NOT only to the geographically proximal claimant, but also to the already existing historical de facto claimant as well. In short, claiming the Spratlys because of the EEZ is plain and simple BS.

Using municipality and settlement as basis of occupation is NOT legal and valid. Settlement in the Spratlys was first made by Yueh tribes of Southern China, as documented in Chinese and Vietnamese annals. As you very well know, the successors of the Yueh are the present-day Hokkienese and Cantonese. Beijing by itself does NOT have the right to the Spratlys, but the Southern Chinese DO. And btw, it is also part of Hainan Province (China), Khanh Hoa (Vietnam), Kaohsiung (Taiwan), and Sabah (Malaysia). embarassedlaugh.gif

The Philippines lost Palmas Islands NOT because it used history, but because it used the Spanish occupation of the islands. As I have said above, European maps do NOT justify occupation of any entity. Palmas Island inhabitants are culturally more closer to the inhabitants of North Sulawesi and Manado, rather than to the inhabitants of Mindanao.

Fishermen from Zambales have been shuttling back and forth to the Scarborough Shoal, and they're NOT showered by artillery or whatnot. Shipping lines have been using the area around Spratlys and Scarborough without any threat or coercion from China/Taiwan.

You want European claims, then look at European -drawn borders of the Philippines:
"The People's Republic of China and the Republic of China (Taiwan) basis for claims are that the shoal was first mapped in the Yuan Dynasty as early as 1279 and was historically used by Chinese fishermen. In 1279, Guo Shoujing, a Chinese astronomer, performed surveying of the South China Sea for Kublai Khan, and the surveying point was reported to be the Scarborough Shoal. In 1935, China regarded the shoal as part of the Zhongsha Islands. In 1947, China published a map drawing a U-shaped line of claim across South China Sea; the shoal lies within the claim administered from Hainan province. China further asserted its claim shortly after the departure of the US Navy force from Subic, Zambales, Philippines. China states that the territorial claim by the Philippine government is new. Treaties on the territory of the Philippines and Philippine constitution in 1935 and maritime claims in 1961 state that the westernmost line of the Philippine territory is 118 East longitude, and the shoal is situated on the western side of the line. Furthermore, some maps published before 1990 did not include the shoal as the territory of the Philippines."
mchristopher2010
Wala pong dapat i debate about dyan. Philippines is 451,000 sq. kilometers, so it means that sabah and spratly islands are all part of the Philippines. That is the truth. The problem here is the people that sit within our government, they sell our lands to the foreign people which is illegal. We have the right to sabah, to spratly islands and any other that they claim which is part of the 451,000 sq. kilometer. src - Map of KBC 965 AD.
martin_nuke
QUOTE (mchristopher2010 @ May 11 2011, 10:18 AM) *
Wala pong dapat i debate about dyan. Philippines is 451,000 sq. kilometers, so it means that sabah and spratly islands are all part of the Philippines. That is the truth. The problem here is the people that sit within our government, they sell our lands to the foreign people which is illegal. We have the right to sabah, to spratly islands and any other that they claim which is part of the 451,000 sq. kilometer. src - Map of KBC 965 AD.

I have seen in a documentary that there is an island near Kota Kinabalu where it has many Filipinos living in it but is is part of Malaysia and even the Malaysian authorities do not even dare to step on that island because they will get killed.
chadaka
QUOTE (ocrapdm @ May 6 2011, 08:06 AM) *
Oh yeah, of course it includes the Spratlys. But then, why were the Spratlys NOT included in the Treaty of Paris which Spain signed in 1898-1899? Remember that the TOP was revised to include Tawi Tawi and Mambenauhan Islands. And yet, on the revision, Spratlys was NOT included AGAIN.

Also, look at how it EXCLUDES Batanes and Sabah, and yet INCLUDES the Kepulauan Sangihe + Palau. Mindanao and Southern Palawan were not parts of Spanish Philippines and YET were included. I guess the inclusion was based on archipelago groupings, rather than particular claims.

But then, the greatest take is this: ONCE again, for the UMPTEENTH TIME, (without being biased) why is the Philippine claim BASED ON THIS EUROPEAN MAP?!?! Chinese and Vietnamese claims were based on Chinese and Vietnamese drawn maps.

If the Philippines canNOT present a Philippine drawn map, then how can it BOLSTER its claims over the Spratlys?

Of course the Philippines was already a conglomeration of highly literate Hindu/Muslim city-states (barangays) then, so they should've at least left some mark there. But alas, they didn't.

During the early Spanish period even, there were even no mainstream unat people in Palawan. Only the Batak, Tagbanwa, Palawano, Tau't Bato, and other Australoid peoples were there - and of course, the Moro in Balabac and Southern Palawan. All these WERE FAIRLY INDEPENDENT FROM SPANISH RULE. It's only during the US rule that Whites penetrated the South of Palawan.

Also, the British had MORE influence on Southern Palawan during the Spanish rule that they even set up a lighthouse there, now present-day Brooke's Point, Palawan. If so, then should Malaysia be the owner of Southern Palawan and OF Spratlys (which geographically belongs to Southern Palawan)? Of course not!

So we go by history. And history says that two, AND ONLY TWO, have the most legally weighted evidence regarding sovereignty over the Spratlys - and these are both CHINA and VIETNAM.

So in that case, Spratly is actually Nansha and/or Truong Sa, NOT Kalayaan.

Again, this argument is made on a purely historical and logical basis WITHOUT any bias.


I think the ancient maps drawn by the Europeans which suggest that the Spratlys being part of the Philippines will have greater weight as compared to the maps presented by the Chinese/ Vietnamese. The European (third party) drawn maps simply show that we are not biased. The European cartographer, Fr. Pedro Murillo Velarde, SJ, who has drawn the most accurate Philippine map in 1734 included the Spratly Islands in the Philippine map. Picture this map alongside the ancient map of China dated 1834. Which among the two maps is more credible? (Do your math).

Let us make an analogy to this situation. Let us say, I (the Philippines) would be claiming that I own the pen (Spratly Islands) and I provide my evidence (Philippine map...of course in my favor), while you (China) also claim ownership of the same pen (Spratly Islands...providing your own evidence...your ancient map dated 1834) and then another person (whom I do not know) comes forward and presented evidence (ancient Philippine map drawn by Murrillo Velarde...which is in my favor), which among us would be credible then? Then again, would it be better if we can just thresh this issue in the International court or arena without having to resort to wage war against each other?
ocrapdm
QUOTE (chadaka @ Jun 14 2011, 11:11 AM) *
I think the ancient maps drawn by the Europeans which suggest that the Spratlys being part of the Philippines will have greater weight as compared to the maps presented by the Chinese/ Vietnamese. The European (third party) drawn maps simply show that we are not biased. The European cartographer, Fr. Pedro Murillo Velarde, SJ, who has drawn the most accurate Philippine map in 1734 included the Spratly Islands in the Philippine map. Picture this map alongside the ancient map of China dated 1834. Which among the two maps is more credible? (Do your math).

Let us make an analogy to this situation. Let us say, I (the Philippines) would be claiming that I own the pen (Spratly Islands) and I provide my evidence (Philippine map...of course in my favor), while you (China) also claim ownership of the same pen (Spratly Islands...providing your own evidence...your ancient map dated 1834) and then another person (whom I do not know) comes forward and presented evidence (ancient Philippine map drawn by Murrillo Velarde...which is in my favor), which among us would be credible then? Then again, would it be better if we can just thresh this issue in the International court or arena without having to resort to wage war against each other?


Actually, no - because it's the Europeans who declared Spratlys to be part of their claim in the Philippines. Get what I mean? Way before the Spaniards came, the Philippines was divided into several barangays. No barangay ever claimed the Spratlys, but Chinese maps did claim that area about 1000 years ago.

There are more ancient maps of China that includes the Spratlys way before 1734!!

The analogy does not make sense. The first Chinese documents and maps (around 100-200 BC) support Spratlys being part of China, while the first Philippine document showing Spratlys a part of the Philippines only appeared on 1992 in a Phil. DOT map. Heck, it wasn't even included in the TREATY OF PARIS between Spain and the United States.

The first people in the Nanshas were Chinese monks, who went there in search for peace and nirvana on ~200 AD.
InsTg8er
QUOTE (ocrapdm @ Jun 16 2011, 04:17 AM) *
The first people in the Nanshas were Chinese monks, who went there in search for peace and nirvana on ~200 AD.

They didn't claim nothing. They came there for peace and nirvana.

What part of their actions tell you that they came to take over?
ocrapdm
QUOTE (InsTg8er @ Jun 17 2011, 10:34 AM) *
They didn't claim nothing. They came there for peace and nirvana.

What part of their actions tell you that they came to take over?


You were asking for the FIRST TIME people went there.

Now, I'm answering you then - the first humans there were Chinese, NOT Filipinos. Happy? NOT....
Dongzhimen
China discovered the islands more than 2 thousand years ago.
InsTg8er
QUOTE (ocrapdm @ Jun 19 2011, 09:13 AM) *
You were asking for the FIRST TIME people went there.

Now, I'm answering you then - the first humans there were Chinese, NOT Filipinos. Happy? NOT....

Still, the Monks didn't claim it.

The Aetas were the first to settle present day Pinas, but they didn't claim it.

Present day Pinoys settled AND claim property all over Pinas.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE?

I know you won't admit when you're wrong. So i'll just tell you-SAD BUT TRUE, YOU'RE WRONG! kiss.gif
InsTg8er
QUOTE (Dongzhimen @ Jun 19 2011, 03:06 PM) *
China discovered the islands more than 2 thousand years ago.

So why is it news now?
Sounds like they didn't want it then.
Anyway, Brunei, Malaysia, Vietnam and the islands of today's Philippines had people who were also there 2 thousand years ago. Fishing in peace and respecting each other's existence.

Two Thousand years later, China wants to kill that peace.
ocrapdm
QUOTE (InsTg8er @ Jun 20 2011, 11:03 PM) *
Still, the Monks didn't claim it.

The Aetas were the first to settle present day Pinas, but they didn't claim it.
Present day Pinoys settled AND claim property all over Pinas.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE?

I know you won't admit when you're wrong. So i'll just tell you-SAD BUT TRUE, YOU'RE WRONG! kiss.gif


Still, who has the MOST rights over the Philippines? It's NOT the Austronesians/Malays but the Negritos because they came here first.

Austronesians/Malays like you are just migrants who borrow land from the Negritos. icon_wink.gif

Yep, the monks didn't claim it because in the first place it was already claimed by China when they went there. LOL

QUOTE (InsTg8er @ Jun 20 2011, 11:07 PM) *
So why is it news now?
Sounds like they didn't want it then.
Anyway, Brunei, Malaysia, Vietnam and the islands of today's Philippines had people who were also there 2 thousand years ago. Fishing in peace and respecting each other's existence.

Two Thousand years later, China wants to kill that peace.


No, the only people who were there are the Chinese and Vietnamese.
Mid-Night_Sun
QUOTE (InsTg8er @ Jun 20 2011, 01:07 PM) *
So why is it news now?
Sounds like they didn't want it then.
Anyway, Brunei, Malaysia, Vietnam and the islands of today's Philippines had people who were also there 2 thousand years ago. Fishing in peace and respecting each other's existence.

Two Thousand years later, China wants to kill that peace.

when talking about 2000 years ago or w/e past, Chinese say Han or Tang or Yuan or w/e Dynasty backed with historical records. these entity correspond with the time the historical records refer to.

when you claim 2000 years ago, you say Brunei, Malaysia, Vietnam (which btw didnt even have southern part 2000 years ago).

there is a very big and clear difference. if you want to compare, you need an actual entity and historical records to match Chinese claims. otherwise dont bother. this whole 'we had ancient fishermen' is hardly a rebuttal.
trismegistos
QUOTE (ocrapdm @ Jun 22 2011, 05:41 AM) *
Still, who has the MOST rights over the Philippines? It's NOT the Austronesians/Malays but the Negritos because they came here first.

Austronesians/Malays like you are just migrants who borrow land from the Negritos. icon_wink.gif

Yep, the monks didn't claim it because in the first place it was already claimed by China when they went there. LOL



No, the only people who were there are the Chinese and Vietnamese.

It's like saying the Han Chinese are migrants too who borrow land from the Australoid negritos who were the original inhabitants of China 10,000 yrs ago. embarassedlaugh.gif

The O1 Austronesians and the HmongMiens were the original inhabitants of Southern China 5,000 years ago. So, we have a right to claim Southern China. embarassedlaugh.gif

So, your comrades are claiming Nansha as they are claiming the whole Nanyang(Southern Sea). Might as well claim Fusang(Peru? Borneo?) and Sanfotsi(Borneo? Sumatra?) as those monks went their in pilgrimages to achieve Nirvana or Samadhi. As these were also obviously claimed by China when they went there. lol embarassedlaugh.gif
Mid-Night_Sun
i dont know whether you people are not intelligent enough to recognize that Chinese claims isnt just about someone being somewhere. its about historical records of administration. or that you guys are just pretending you cant tell the difference. successive dynastys since Qin, culminating in the ROC being the official successor of the Qing and hence inheriting its claims and land. whether or not you acknowledge the PRC has successfully inherited the ROC is something else. regardless, continuously trying to imply Chinese claims is simply based on someone being there is a poor attempt to drag Chinese credibility to the low level that is your claims. aka. the so called ancient fishermen. which is frankly no different than everyone claiming africa land.

successive dynastys and historical records is what separates Chinese claims on south china sea, vs everyone's claim to africa. until you can provide the same, dont bother trying to talk about Chinese claims.
trismegistos
Don't they get it. icon_smile.gif
In short, all these years, those southern isles called Nansha in Nanyang(Southern seas), which were completely detached and so many leagues away from the mainland and its imaginary inhabitants had been administered by the unbroken succeeding line of Emperors, dynasties, and gov'ts as mentioned in the historical records from the earliest then to the time when the monks went there to those southern isles of Fusang and Sanfotsi in order to receive enlightenment from those Hindu-Buddhist Malay gurus up until the present.
ocrapdm
QUOTE (trismegistos @ Jun 22 2011, 09:54 PM) *
It's like saying the Han Chinese are migrants too who borrow land from the Australoid negritos who were the original inhabitants of China 10,000 yrs ago. embarassedlaugh.gif

The O1 Austronesians and the HmongMiens were the original inhabitants of Southern China 5,000 years ago. So, we have a right to claim Southern China. embarassedlaugh.gif

So, your comrades are claiming Nansha as they are claiming the whole Nanyang(Southern Sea). Might as well claim Fusang(Peru? Borneo?) and Sanfotsi(Borneo? Sumatra?) as those monks went their in pilgrimages to achieve Nirvana or Samadhi. As these were also obviously claimed by China when they went there. lol embarassedlaugh.gif




QUOTE (trismegistos @ Jun 22 2011, 10:35 PM) *
Don't they get it. icon_smile.gif
In short, all these years, those southern isles called Nansha in Nanyang(Southern seas), which were completely detached and so many leagues away from the mainland and its imaginary inhabitants had been administered by the unbroken succeeding line of Emperors, dynasties, and gov'ts as mentioned in the historical records from the earliest then to the time when the monks went there to those southern isles of Fusang and Sanfotsi in order to receive enlightenment from those Hindu-Buddhist Malay gurus up until the present.


Australoid Negritos came to Southeast Asia via Indochina and Malay Peninsula, NOT China.

Austronesians are descendants rather of archaic Asians who mated with Australoids. embarassedlaugh.gif

Oh just read the historical documents, OK? ONLY CHINA HAS THE RIGHT TO NANSHA. PERIOD. Useless debating with people who are blinded by their own biases.

Monks went to Nanshas to isolate themselves, not to seek enlightenment from Malay peoples. Buddhism wasn't even deeply rooted among Malays and was quickly displaced by Islam.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.