- Jun 9, 2012
- 6,488
- 3,399
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
During a speech given in California tonight (4/28) Donald Trump cited the story of General John 'Black Jack' Pershing's actions against the Moro tribesmen during the Philippine Insurgency prior to World War I. The Moros were practicing Muslims, and the specific story associated with their eventual defeat typically follows the pattern illustrated here, quote:
A True story about General "Black Jack" Pershing
"One important thing to remember is that Muslims detest pork because they believe pigs are filthy animals. Some of them simply refuse to eat it, while others won't even touch pigs at all, nor any of their by-products. To them, eating or touching a pig, its meat, its blood, etc., is to be instantly barred from paradise and doomed to hell.
Just before World War I, there were a number of terrorist attacks against the United States and it's interests by, you guessed it, Muslim extremists.
So General Pershing captured 50 of the terrorists and had them tied to posts execution style. He then had his men bring in two pigs and slaughter them in front of the, now horrified, terrorists.
The soldiers then soaked their bullets in pigs blood, and proceeded to execute 49 of the terrorists by firing squad.
The soldiers then dug a big hole, dumped in the terrorist's bodies and covered them in pig blood, entrails, etc.
They let the 50th man go. And for about the next 42 years, there was not a single attack by a muslim fanatic anywhere in the world."
Another version of the story:
Apparently this isn't the first time Trump has included this tale in a political speech:
Trump cites story of general who dipped bullets in pigs' blood to deter Muslims
Dated February 20th, 2016.
I first heard this story in Ranger School. Followed by the instructor telling us it wasn't true. Researching it years later I found the problem with telling any version of this story is both personally and historically problematic, as it can't be verified and thus should be considered historically false.
Pershing was a true war-fighter. His career and military exploits have been well documented. Pershing understood the nature of warfare but he also understood the nature of diplomacy. By all accounts I have read executing forty-nine prisoners would not only have gone against his character but would have been a violation of his dual strategy to defeat the Moro Insurgents. The story as told, not only by Trump but many others through the years, appears to have spawned from an actual event. As first reported by the Chicago Daily Tribune in 1927 Pershing did order pigs blood to be "sprinkled" on Moro prisoners, his intent to send a message. He therefore ordered those prisoners be released in hope they would tell the tale and instill fear in the tribes.
Pershing was efficient but he wasn't ruthless. The General actually wrote letters to the Moro tribes expressing his regret over the deaths of their soldiers in combat. He desired victory, true, and his forces routinely pounded Moro defenders entrenched in their various forts. But his overall approach included attempts to limit the killing when possible. Slaughtering prisoners would be counter-intuitive and ultimately self defeating. Joachim Peiper would later learn that tragic lesson.
Trump isn't the first to tell this apocryphal story and I doubt he will be the last. But he should know better. Or at least someone on his campaign staff should know better. Trump is often criticized for his hubris, and moments such as this only serve to highlight that failing and provide easy ammunition for his detractors. As lies go this one is minor, as he may genuinely believe the story to be true. But it is incredibly sloppy.
The danger with those who believe they know everything is the inherent and obvious truth they do not. Combine this with egocentric narcissism and the political future of America appears as if it will be business as usual regardless of which of the two front-running clowns are eventually elected. Which I find sad.
It isn't as if this particular event was the final straw, as I was never on the Trump for President bandwagon. The point is when I see a politician, any politician, make such an obvious and easily preventable gaff I can't help but mourn. Ignorance is not a virtue but can often be excused. Willful ignorance can't.
A True story about General "Black Jack" Pershing
"One important thing to remember is that Muslims detest pork because they believe pigs are filthy animals. Some of them simply refuse to eat it, while others won't even touch pigs at all, nor any of their by-products. To them, eating or touching a pig, its meat, its blood, etc., is to be instantly barred from paradise and doomed to hell.
Just before World War I, there were a number of terrorist attacks against the United States and it's interests by, you guessed it, Muslim extremists.
So General Pershing captured 50 of the terrorists and had them tied to posts execution style. He then had his men bring in two pigs and slaughter them in front of the, now horrified, terrorists.
The soldiers then soaked their bullets in pigs blood, and proceeded to execute 49 of the terrorists by firing squad.
The soldiers then dug a big hole, dumped in the terrorist's bodies and covered them in pig blood, entrails, etc.
They let the 50th man go. And for about the next 42 years, there was not a single attack by a muslim fanatic anywhere in the world."
Another version of the story:
Apparently this isn't the first time Trump has included this tale in a political speech:
Trump cites story of general who dipped bullets in pigs' blood to deter Muslims
Dated February 20th, 2016.
I first heard this story in Ranger School. Followed by the instructor telling us it wasn't true. Researching it years later I found the problem with telling any version of this story is both personally and historically problematic, as it can't be verified and thus should be considered historically false.
Pershing was a true war-fighter. His career and military exploits have been well documented. Pershing understood the nature of warfare but he also understood the nature of diplomacy. By all accounts I have read executing forty-nine prisoners would not only have gone against his character but would have been a violation of his dual strategy to defeat the Moro Insurgents. The story as told, not only by Trump but many others through the years, appears to have spawned from an actual event. As first reported by the Chicago Daily Tribune in 1927 Pershing did order pigs blood to be "sprinkled" on Moro prisoners, his intent to send a message. He therefore ordered those prisoners be released in hope they would tell the tale and instill fear in the tribes.
Pershing was efficient but he wasn't ruthless. The General actually wrote letters to the Moro tribes expressing his regret over the deaths of their soldiers in combat. He desired victory, true, and his forces routinely pounded Moro defenders entrenched in their various forts. But his overall approach included attempts to limit the killing when possible. Slaughtering prisoners would be counter-intuitive and ultimately self defeating. Joachim Peiper would later learn that tragic lesson.
Trump isn't the first to tell this apocryphal story and I doubt he will be the last. But he should know better. Or at least someone on his campaign staff should know better. Trump is often criticized for his hubris, and moments such as this only serve to highlight that failing and provide easy ammunition for his detractors. As lies go this one is minor, as he may genuinely believe the story to be true. But it is incredibly sloppy.
The danger with those who believe they know everything is the inherent and obvious truth they do not. Combine this with egocentric narcissism and the political future of America appears as if it will be business as usual regardless of which of the two front-running clowns are eventually elected. Which I find sad.
It isn't as if this particular event was the final straw, as I was never on the Trump for President bandwagon. The point is when I see a politician, any politician, make such an obvious and easily preventable gaff I can't help but mourn. Ignorance is not a virtue but can often be excused. Willful ignorance can't.
Last edited:
