|
Student Research submissions 2013 (2013 research options) Research Post 2 |
|
 |
Jacob A. McCleese
24 November 2013
White Stripes Turned Black: American Imperialism in
the Philippines
The term “empire” has developed a negative
connotation over the years. When one thinks of empire, images of a superior
race, or war machine, dispossessing naïve natives comes to mind. For Americans,
this image is problematic because of the accepted national identity of a
gracious melting pot of various peoples and cultures, which this nation has
adopted. Defining America as a traditional empire causes most political
theorists, American citizens, and post-colonial students (at least this one) to
cringe. Although America has made many errors when approaching foreign cultures,
the American empire is decidedly different from its predecessors (obj. 3c). In
order to examine America’s imperial practices, I chose to focus on one of the
earliest attempts to form an American colony, the Philippines.
Traditionally when an imperial power occupied a
native land, the people of that land were displaced, enslaved, or simply wiped
out. Walter L. Williams states, “After white settlement had surrounded a native
group, however, their status was seen by whites as something less that
independent” (811). Americans wanted to integrate the Philippines into the
American culture, and eventually take “political control over the inhabitants”
(Williams 811). Williams also explains that American policy in the Philippines
reflected a ward/guardian relationship. The U.S. did not grant the Philippines
full autonomy or citizenship but proffered a fragmented freedom that gave the
Filipino people a taste of free will under the guidance of U.S. rule. During
this process the goal of the U.S. leadership was to reform and reorganize the
Philippine government in the image of the U.S. government. U.S. leaders at the
time wanted to turn the Filipino government into a version of the United States.
However, the U.S. tried and failed several
different strategies to reform the unbridled Philippine people. David Wurfel
asserts that U.S. social reform in the Philippines was viewed, as a necessary,
inevitable alteration in social practices, if the U.S. did not attempt this
reform, then unrest and upheaval in the Philippines was eminent. One way the U.S.
enacted social reform, in true U.S. fashion, was to throw money at the problem.
In 1950, Under Secretary of the Treasury Daniel Bell proposed a plan to aid
the Filipino people. He suggested the U.S., “extend grants and bonds of $250
million over a five year period” (Wurfel 463) to carry out an economic
development program. The program was marginally successful for a time, but
Bell’s plan was intended for a liberal government.
A liberal government “is based on the primacy of
the individual and the rights thereof over and above any collective claims”
(Centeno 51). The issue with a liberal government, traditionally speaking, is
that individuals are potentially susceptible to malfeasance. A government that
is concerned with anything other than the welfare of it’s individual citizens
cannot be fully liberal. Wurfel relates a Filipino political history marred by
bankruptcy, inefficiency, corruption, and threatened communism. If Under
Secretary Bell spent a little more time with the Filipino people, then perhaps
he could have unearthed some specifics about their history that would have
changed his approach to “helping” their economic progress (obj. 3a). Throwing a
large amount of money at a nation and leaving them to fix their own issues is
not a solution. Poor people, who suddenly find themselves in possession of
inordinate amounts of money, still have the mindset of poor people (see Beverly
Hillbillies). They need guidance and support, and the Filipino people did not
receive this from their self-proclaimed guardians. However, this failed social
reform in the 1950s was preferential to the initial U.S. plan for the
Philippines 50 years earlier.
In the early 1900’s, America was engaged in a war
with the Philippines. Niall Ferguson writes that this was “not a pleasant war
[…] against guerillas indistinguishable from civilians (49). Ferguson does not
list the number of Filipino lives lost during this conflict, but he notes that
Filipino civilian casualties nearly equaled those killed in action. America went
to war with the Philippines because of the nation's desire to fulfill its
manifest destiny, imperial mindset. American leadership at this time wanted full
control of the American continent and all islands in the surrounding area. They
supported this goal with religious appeals. The political rhetoric at the time
was coated with appeals like “there was nothing left for us to do […] but
Christianize them, and by God’s grace do the very best we could by them as our
fellow men for whom Christ also died” (Ferguson 49). These religious appeals
resounded with the American public, causing unprecedented support for the
invasion and submission of the Philippines under the auspices of civilizing the
native population. Regardless of the long-held traditions and beliefs of the
Tagal people, Americans believed it was their Christian duty to disciple and
spread the light of American culture to dark corners of the earth (obj. 8).
America has a history of expanding, often without
the permission or desire of native people, into territory occupied by various
people groups. The Philippines is just one of many examples. Personally this
ignorant attitude of American superiority is disturbing. However as a literary
minded individual, it’s nice to know that major American writers felt the same
way. Regarding U.S. occupation in the Philippines, Mark Twain wrote that
Americans, “fight under a polluted flag […] the white stripes painted black and
the stars replaced by the skull and cross bones” (Ferguson 51). The correlation
here between the American empire and pirates is appropriate. In the Philippines,
American social reform and declaration of war caused the rape and destruction of
an insular population. Pirates rape and pillage indiscriminately and American
foreign policy for native populations is indiscriminate as well. Understanding
the negative impact of U.S. interference in the native life provides a new
perspective on post-colonial studies. America is the last, modern empire. So
instead of thinking of colonialism as something in the past, something that used
to happen, post-colonial students can begin to think of colonial issues as
relevant in today’s culture.
Works Cited
Centeno, Miguel A. “Liberalism and the
Good Society in the Iberian World.”
AAPSS.
610 (2007): 45-71. Print.
Ferguson, Niall.
Colossus: The Rise
and Fall of the American Empire. New York:
Penguin, 2004. Print.
Williams, Walter L. “United States
Policy and the Debate over Philippine Annexation: Implications for the Origins
of American Imperialism.”
The Journal of American History
Wurfel, David. “Foreign Aid and Social
Reform in Political Development: A Philippine Case Study.”
The American
Political Science Review 53.2 (1959): 456-482.
Print.
