Debunking The Myth: General Pershing, Muslims And Those Pigs
Image source: WikipediaWhen I first started blogging I come across the blog of an American librarian. This chap made it quite clear to the whole world and anyone else who might be listening as to what he thought about Muslim terrorists.
While conversing with him I got the distinct feeling that he could not or would not differentiate between Muslim terrorists and just ordinary Muslims. Anyway as far as I know he closed up his blog and I have never heard of him since but in my conversations with him he brought up a story of American General John J. Pershing in the Philippines.
According to the story the good General had a rather ingenious method of crushing Muslim Filipino terrorists who did not want an American military presence in their land.
I remember asking the librarian for the source of this story but he said he did not have it on him and that being a librarian it would not be too difficult for him to obtain it. To this day I am still waiting for his reply.
Since those early days of blogging life I have oft heard the story of the General and how ordered that dead Muslim terrorists were buried with pig carcasses. This was done so that they would never go to heaven and their by guaranteeing an end to their insurrection.
For the benefit of those who have never heard of the story I shall reproduce an account here:
“…Getting back to Gen. Pershing, as legend has it, he was in the Phillipines and you guessed it, Muslim terrorists were a problem, even back then, in the early 1900′s. He and his troops captured 50 of them, brought pigs out and slaughtered them, soaked bullets in pigs blood while the terrorists were digging a trench, while digging they saw what the Americans were doing.
The pig carcasses were thrown in the trench, and the prisoners were executed with the pig’s blood soaked bullets, and their bodies were thrown in the trench, or mass grave if you will with the pig carcasses, one at a time. The 50th prisoner was set free. After the “Phillipine Incident” there was not one Islamic act of terrorism anywhere in the world for the next 42 years. That’s how s**t get’s done, and done right!” (Source: Lake Minnetonka Liberty)
The legend is an interesting read and for many Islam haters it shows a “no-frills” manner to deal with Muslims. For me the legend might make very good bed-time reading for Islam haters but of greater importance is the viliadity of the legend.
At the urban legends website they have an article debunking the myth:
“I consulted Dr. Frank E. Vandiver, professor of history at Texas A&M University and author of “Black Jack: The Life and Times of John J. Pershing,” to find out if there’s any truth to the above, and he responded via email that in his opinion the story is apocryphal. “I never found any indication that it was true in extensive research on his Moro experiences,” Vandiver responded. “This kind of thing would have run completely against his character.”
Similarly, I been unable to find any evidence corroborating the claim that Muslims believe that “eating or touching a pig, its meat, its blood, etc., is to be instantly barred from paradise and doomed to hell.” It is true that Islamic dietary restrictions, like those of Judaism, forbid the eating or handling of pork because pigs are considered unclean. But according to Raeed Tayeh of the American Muslim Association in North America, the notion that a Muslim would be denied entrance to heaven for touching a pig is “ridiculous.” (Source: About.com)
It seems that as much as some would like to use the Pershing myth to determine American policy towards Muslims as a whole today it may be that General Pershing was never involved in any such incident. No matter how much eulogising is done by the Islam haters of the incident that fact will remain true.
Popularity: 30% [?]
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.




December 14th, 2008 at 04:37
Very interesting read here:
Jewish American Soldier refuses to fight for America
December 14th, 2008 at 15:08
Thanks Anonymous for the link to the Haaretz article
December 14th, 2008 at 23:46
Interesting that the librarian classifies Filipino resistance to the American invasion as terrorism. I observe that when Western forces invade a non-European nation those who resist are labeled terrorist. Or were called savages before the word “terrorist” entered popular usage. A dictionary would probably define terrorism as attacking civilians for ideological or political purposes. US imperialism (except for direct genocides such as their attacks on Indians ) fits such a definition, generally the US military merrily kills civilians until either the victims accept a client regime which puts US multinationals first or the US taxpayer tires of funding the killing. The 9/11 attackers fit the same definition as the US military, therefore either the US is also terrorist-or those defending against or attacking Americans are freedom fighters. You can’t have it both ways. My opinion, anyway.
December 15th, 2008 at 01:27
Oso language is a funny old thing. They say that at times of war the first casualty is always the truth.
From my understanding the term terrorist is normally used for non-state actors who engage in violence or intimidation with the view of changing policy. In this definition the Filipinos mentioned above are terrorists and the U.S. military are not. I am sure that is how most people in the world view the term terrorist.
December 15th, 2008 at 02:20
Salam Kashmiri Nomad,
I probably should have qualified state vs non-state terrorism. In my personal opinion, the two are effectively the same, difference being the amount of destruction. But only my opinion, of course.
On a slightly different subject, I’ve noticed your site encourages the exchange of viewpoints rather than name-calling. And your input is along the line of clarification or expansion, rather than rebuttal. Very refreshing to read at such a civilized site. Especially when my view often clash with those of others !
best regards
December 15th, 2008 at 07:08
Salam and thanks Oso for your kind words.
I have currently having a problem with Haloscan my usual comments platform. If it had been working you would have seen a much more of debate from past posts.
December 17th, 2008 at 20:00
What you said about Vandiver's Pershing comments are true. But Vandiver also said these things:
>> strange Mohammedan folk who decked themselves in turbans, wildly colorful clothes, practiced polygamy, took slaves, and brandished razor-edged krises, campilans, and barongs. About all known of them was their warlike nature, their unending desire to kill Christians, and their resistance to all forms of law and order. <<
>> Moros tended to see weakness in peace talk and most could not forget the Mohammedan duty to rid the world of infidels. <<
And more. Here:
>>http://www.worldwar1.com/dbc/pervandiver.htm<<
So that is a more complete account of Vandiver's opinions.
Read the link. Add comments as you please.
December 17th, 2008 at 20:12
Welcome Zouave and thank you for the link.
I had a cursory look at some of the details on the website.
As for your quote regarding the Moros, imperialism and neo-imperialism always has to justify its actions. Whether it be civilising the untamed local savage from ages past or to helping spread democracy in this age. The economic basis is always the same its just the rhetoric that is used to fool the blind followers that changes.
January 21st, 2010 at 23:51
Why do you have to hate muslims terrorists to think maybe we should be doing this today, if it works.
Terrorrist are evil, Muslims Terrorists want to kill us
I thought we are talking about muslim terrorists not Islam haters. What is an Islam haters anyway?
February 4th, 2010 at 05:49
still, it would have been a good move tactically. If you destroyed their “raison d’etre” (which in this case would have been their will to die thinking they would be rewarded), it would have had a much larger effect than simply executing. In military doctrine, it’s about targeting your enemy’s “centre of gravity” (ie their fanatical devotion to Islam), you remove their will to fight. An actual witness (instead of printed propaganda) would have done a great job.
It is an interesting comment that why is it that when the US invades a country and the resistance movement is called a “terrorist organisation”. Does this mean that the French Resistance in WW2 were terrorists? I have no problem with an “insurgent” targeting military targets of an invading force (ie a column of military transport vehicles), as he is an enemey and should be treated as such. I do however have a huge problem with these supposed followers of Islam who think that blowing up a bus or a group of civilians (usually fellow Muslims too!) they will get into heaven. The Muslim who stands up against an enemy machine gun pit or sacrifices himself in battle could be considered a martyr in some people’s eyes. But the guy who blows up a plane of innocent people is not. He is a coward. The US has a lot to answer for in this world and I can understand the animosity against the US. If the Muslim population as a whole rooted out these fantatics and pointed them out and isolated them, there would be a lot less hatred towards Muslims (ie normal, everyday muslims) by non-muslims, as they would be able to see the difference, hopefully the same way non-whites/non-Christians are (hopefully) able to see the difference between redneck idiots (ie KKK, Aryan Nations, white supremist groups, etc) and us normal whites/christians who want nothing to do with these groups
April 26th, 2010 at 19:51
It is difficult to identify with the average peace loving Muslim, or even be convinced they exist. Not when you see mass demonstrations, celebrating the successful suicide bombing of a busload of civilians.
May 18th, 2010 at 17:24
we need a man like him to bust out the terrorists
May 21st, 2010 at 01:18
Hi there may I quote some of the material found in this blog if I link back to you?
July 31st, 2010 at 06:26
so, lemme get this straight…
they blew the world trade center so jews and muslim haters and MUSLIMS wouldn’t goto heaven?
hehe, let them eat pork! jk
July 31st, 2010 at 06:27
so, lemme get this straight…
they blew the world trade center so jews and muslim haters and MUSLIMS wouldn’t goto heaven?
hehe, let them eat pork! jk
August 19th, 2010 at 22:35
Let’s get this straight, ISLAM is NOT a religion. It’s a form of government under Islamic “laws”. Oh yeah, they’re for peace all right, ONLY WHEN THE REST OF THE WORLD IS MUSLIM! Watch ‘Islam: What the West Needs to Know’. There is a former PLO member who converted to Christianity who breaks down the TRUE MEANING of Islam. He says TRUE MUSLIMS KNOW THIS and that the ones that argue Islam is for peace ARE IGNORANT OF THE TRUTH.
“The face of Islamic fundamentalism in the west has a facade that Islam is a peaceful religion, because they are waiting to have more Islamic immigrants, waiting to increase in number, waiting to increase in political power. And once they do, then look out, you will see the true face of Islamic fundamentalism here in America.”
- Walid Shoebat Former Member PLO Fatah Brigade
(He converted to Christianity)