of empire and capital

C. margins

Ballet Philippines, JohnAnson Ford Amphitheater, July1996. Photograph by Abraham Ferrer.

From Confrontations, Crossings, und Convergence: Photogrophs of the Philippines and the UnitedStates, 7898-7998,edited by Enrique B. de la Cruz and Pearlie Rose 5. Baluyut (Los Angeles: UCLA Asian American Studies Center and UCLA Southeast Asia Program, 1998), 85.

An Amerasian Living Outside Subic Naval Base, Olongapo, Zarnbales, Philippines, ca. 1990s. Photograph by Rick Rocamora (courtesy of the artist).

Confrontations, Crossings, and Convergencecan b e ordered from the UCLA Asian American Studies Center for $15.00. See page 272 for ordering information.

Arnerasia Journal

24:3 ( 1 9981:1-26

The Colors of Manifest Destiny:

Filipinos and the American Other(s)
Steffi San Buenaventura
American civilization and American ideals and institutions, with American power to uphold and extend them, have moved on, in the providence of God, to the islands of the Pacific.' What a spectacle it is to see that at the end of the century called enlightened and civilized, a people who know how to love their sovereignty and proud of their sense of justice now would use their accumulated force to wrest from a weak people the very rights which in their case they believe to be inherent in natural law!2

Filipino and American Crossings The discourse on U.S. territorial expansion overseas and American imperialism at the turn of the twentieth century was the subject of a nationwide debate one hundred years ago. Since then, it has been the topic of many studies, particularly in the context of the American doctrine of Manifest Destiny and the controversial conquest of the Philippine Islands over native opposition and uprising. Many voices resonated then about whether or not the United States had the political right and the moral justification to take possession of the Spanish island colony in Pacific Asia with its seven million people, seven thousand miles away from the American West Coast. The loud articulations came from two opposing camps-those who championed territorial acquisition abroad under the flag of promoting American civilization, democratic ideals and Protestant Christianity, and those who condemned the imperialist aggression and denounced the unconstitutionality of U.S. overseas expansionist p01icy.~
STEFFI BUENAVENTURA SAN is assistant professor of ethnic studies at the University of California, Riverside. 1

.0

Y )

Today, a century later, the historical sites of Philippine-U.S. relations are being revisited and reconstructed for a number of reasons outside of mere commemoration of a significant landmark of the past. For one thing,the earlier conversations on this topic have not included the perspectives, much less acknowledged the presence, of the other Americans, e.g., African and Native Americans, whose lives directly and indirectly intersected with native Filipinos at the turn of the twentieth century. For another, there is a need to expand the context and base of analysis of the Filipino encounter with America beyond what has already been presented in Philippine and U.S. historiography and in mainstream literature-by invoking the hidden narratives of the ordinary people who were part of this historical heritage-.g., the early Filipino immigrants who labored in America and their Asian, Chicano, and Native American co-workers in the fields, whose historical significance in U.S. history has been ignored and supplanted until the advent of ethnic studies scholarship. The crossings of Filipino and American experiences, beginning in 1898, provide a solid site for constructing the earlier and little-known ethnic and racial intersections between Filipinos and other Americans. The following body of discussion examines the historical frontiers and continuity of the Filipino encounter with America, not simply from the mainstream account of this twentieth century event. Examining the role of minority and immigrant Americans, especially during the first half of the 1900s-as subordinate groups similarly affected by the forces of Manifest Destiny and commonly resisting white American hegemony, will bring to light an alternative reading of history.
Conquering "The Furthest Frontiers" When the United States took possession of the Philippine Islands in the aftermath of the Spanish American War, the Filipinos were in the middle of an unfinished revolution against more than three centuries of Spanish colonial rule. The Filipino struggle was essentially similar to the struggle of the Cuban people for whom the Americans had gone to war to liberate them from Spanish tyranny and establish their political independen~e.~ It seemed logical, therefore, for the Filipinos to assume that the Americans would assure the sovereign status of the Philippines once the war was overbut, they were wrong. Not having heard or known much of the Philippines before 1898, the Americans quickly realized that the Islands offered a

wealth of accumulated benefits for U.S. expansionist interests that included: opening trade doors to China, establishing a strategic military outpost overseas, extracting Philippine natural resources, promoting American business interests and, of course, advancing the Anglo-Saxon cause. In the words of Republican Senator Albert Beveridge of Indiana, the most popular advocate of American imperialism during his time:
The Philippines are ours forever. . .And just beyond the Philippines are China's illimitable markets. We will not retreat from either. We will not repudiate our duty in the archipelago. We will not renounce our part in the mission of our race, trustee under God, of the civilization of the world.5

Anti-imperialist Americans supported the Filipino revolutionary position and opposed the imposition of U.S. rule in the Philippines, as asserted in this paraphrase of Republican Senator George F. Hoar of Massachusetts, a most prominent voice of the anti-imperialist movement: "To annex foreign territory and govern it without the consent of its population. . .is utterly contrary to the sacred principles of the Declaration of Independence and is unconstitutional. . ."6 To the expansionists, however, the overall compelling drive to keep the Philippines as an American possession was deeply rooted in a national belief in the "God-given right" of the American Anglo-Saxon civilization to flourish and lead in the world, a canon which came with a racial corollary that viewed non-Anglo people as inferior and barbaric (which, in the case of the Philippines, applied not only to the natives but to their Catholic Spanish masters also). Thus, although the Philippine Islands "are so valuable in themselves that we should hold them, " according to Beveridge,
It will be hard for Americans. . .to understand the people. They are a barbarous race, modified by three centuries of contact with a decadent race. The Filipino is a South Sea Malay, put through a process of three hundred years of superstition in religion, dishonesty in dealing, disorder in habits of industry, and cruelty, caprice, and corruption in government. It is barely possible that 1,000 men in all the archipelago are capable of self-government in the Anglo-Saxon sense.7

And, as far as the Declaration of Independence was concerned, it

. . .applies only to people capable of self-government. How dare any man prostitute this expression of the very elect of self-gov-

erning peoples to a race of Malay cluldren of barbarism, schooled in Spanish methods and ideas? And you, who say the Declaration applies to all men, how dare you deny its application to the American Indian? And if you deny it to the Indian at home, how dare you grant it to the Malay abroad? . . .8

It was this critical question of what to do with a native population who were not considered "biologically fit" for the privilege of U.S. citizenship that defined the absolute power which the Americans had over the Filipino people. Not only were the natives dispossessed of their rights to self-sovereignty, now their colonial status was essentially a non-entity until the U.S. decided what it wanted to do. In Frederick Merk's words: "Inoffensively and inconspicuously a principle was thus adopted, new to the Constitution and revolutionary-the principle that peoples not candidates for equal statehood in the Union were annexed and their status as colonial subjects left to Congress. This was irnperiali~m."~

"A Most Wonderful Event" "One of the most wonderful events of history is the American occupation of the Philippines," claimed Karl Irving Faust who conceived and carried out a project "compiling an historical account of the operations of the American forces in the Philippine 1slands"beginning with "Dewey's great victory" in the Battle of Manila Bay, "to the return of the volunteers, and in addition, a brief description of the islands." Faust's idea was underwritten, and his account published in 1899, by the Hicks-Judd Publishing Company of San Francisco. Part of the plan was "to publish special editions of the book, for each of the volunteer regiments, which would contain. . .a detailed account of the experience of the regiments from date of mustering into service as volunteers to their return to the United States." Faust's project had the full support and cooperation of the commanding officers of each of the regiments and the campaign account covered until May 1899. Faust arrived in Manila on February 2, two days before the outbreak of hostilities between the Filipinos and the American military occupation in what was to become the Philippine American War of 1899-1902. He and his staff experienced the tense atmosphere before the armed conflict and witnessed the initial skirmishes in the field, the military organizational strategy of the U.S. troops, and the expeditions against a largely untrained army of native fighters "deficient in military discipline."*0 Faust's account was undoubtedly written from a singular per-

spective of U.S. interest, accompanied by what seemed to be a tinge of sympathy for the Filipino position. The theater of war has changed. The West Indies are no more interesting. . .the focus of American history and the cynosure of statesmen is the remote archipelago, lying in the China Sea. . .The change in the attitude of the nation was greater than the distance that separates Havana from Manila. The war began in the sacred name of liberation for a fettered people, dragging their chains in pain and sweat. Today in jungles of Luzon, by the rivers of Panay, and along the shores of Cebu a sullen people dispute us inch by inch, straining every human effort to be free from the governance of liberators. To the Filipinos in their long contest for liberty, we appear as the European oppressor appeared to our forefathers who wrought out human rights at the Valley Forge and Bunker Hill. Flying with their wives and children to the hills, burning their homes with their own hands,; killed by the thousand in the rice-fields and the cane-brakes; driven like wild beasts back to mountain lair-the mightiest nation in the world can not but dread the audacity of their despair. However, These islands lie in fair summer seas. . .rich in furrowed field and forest height; in the river beds that gleam and the hills that are crowded with waiting metals. Yet their history has been and is today a history of blackness and darkness; a hstory of work and want, of ignorance and fear. No star, no hope as yet shines out for them. In the ruthless game of nations where the pawns are men, the Filipinos must play a losing game. The chains of Spain must be exchanged for the strong government which America, however unwillingly, in the evolution of history, must place upon these islands. [italics added]

In Fausts view, The history of how this comes about is one

of the rornunces ofthe nineteenth century [italics added].ll It is not clear if Faust was inferring from this last statement the American romance with imperialism and its seduction by the powerful and alluring forces of the very act of ensnaring foreign fertile lands, but Beveridge was less subtle with what Anders Stephanson calls the near psychosexual[ly] violent imperial rhetoric of Beveridges imagined subjugation of the Philippine Islands:
A hundred wilderness are to be subdued. Unpenetrated regions must be explored. Unviolated valley must be tilled. Unmastered forests must be felled. Unriven mountains must be torn asunder and their riches of gold and iron and ores of price must be delivered to the world.12

<
i! v)

:
0

? Q

White America and Dissimilar Peoples The idea of annexing territory occupied by dissimilar peoples was not unfamiliar to the dominant Euro-Americans whose movement westward in building a continental republic began with the disposition and displacement of the Indian peoples who stood in the way of the white settlers, the land, and progress. Its span included the conquest of Mexican lands in the U.S.-Mexican War of 1846-48, all the way to the U.S. military support of the 1893 overthrow of the Hawaiian kingdom by American businessmen who wanted total control of the resources and governance of the islands and who finally succeeded, in 1898, in achieving their treacherous goal of making Hawaii a territory of the United States. The Filipinos resisted the American occupation of the Islands and the violation of their rights, in spite of obvious U.S. military superiority, in a brief but bloody war which ensued shortly after the transfer of the Spanish colonies in U.S. hands in the Treaty of Paris of December 10. It was not limited to a Tagalog insurrection in Luzon (a rationale given to undermine the seriousness of the revolution), but extended to the provinces of the Visayas and Mindanao regions among other Filipino ethnolinguistic groups of the archipelago. Imbibed with a heightened sense of national consciousness and cognizant of the libertarian ideas of the Enlightenment and the democratic principles on which the American republic was created, Filipino revolutionary leaders who fought the Spaniards, particularly Apolinario Mabini, found it rather incomprehensible to accept American domination even under the guise of President William McKinleys policy of Benevolent Assimilation. Refusing to sign an oath of loyalty to the United States, imprisoned, and banished to Guam, Mabini maintained his protest against the imposition of American hegemony on a people who wanted their own political self-determination. Mabini also believed that continuing the Filipino struggle for independence served as a reminder to the Americans that they, once upon a time, found themselves in a position similar to that of the Filipinos when they were fighting Great Britain for their rights and eventual emancipation. Also, in the same manner that in their struggle against Great Britain, the Americans invoked the help of France, the Filipino[s] had hoped to see these very Americans help them defend their liberties instead of fighting them.13 What Filipino nationalists failed to understand at this time was the permeating philosophy of Manifest Destiny which shaped white American perception of dissimilar natives. In the case of the Indian,

Walter L. Williams provides a direct link between the Native American condition and the US.acquisition of the Philippines. He argues that the annexation of the Islands was not the first American experience with colonial rule because U.S. Indian policy during the nineteenth century showed a clear pattern of colonialism toward Native Americans and that this policy served as a precedent for imperialist domination over the Philippine Islands and other islands occupied during the Spanish-American War.14
United States treatment of Indian groups after the passage of the frontier slowly evolved from the initial status of nation, as represented by the treaty system. This form of international agreement implicitly recognized native sovereignty and nationhood. After white settlement had surrounded a native group, however, their status was seen by whites as something less than independent. In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) [Chief Justice John] Marshall admitted that the treaties did recognize the Cherokees as a state, but he asserted that they were not a foreign state. . .In what was to become the most quoted case relating to Indians in the nineteenth century, Marshall had established a de facto protectorate status for Indian domestic dependent nations.15

2
f

2
<

5
U

z -. 3

Williams also makes a distinction between expansion and colonialism by stating that the Indian tribes of dissimilar civilizations were not merely pushed aside as expansion occurred but were enveloped under United States control without being given citizenship status. If we define colonialism in this way, to distinguish it from land ownership expansion, we might well conclude that Marshalls decision approached a conception of Indian wards as colonial subjects as early as the 1830s.

Indian and Filipino Wards Granting the Filipino natives ward status without citizenship rights was a very convenient solution to the problem of not having to assimilate a barbarous people living in a distant U.S. territory in the Pacific. More importantly, the Indian colonial policy offered a way out of a constitutional conundrum as imperialists argued that American western territories were, in fact, colonies and that the Constitution gave Congress supreme and total power over the territories. . .to rule as they pleased without granting citizenship or constitutional rights to the inhabitants . . .or only to some of the inhabitants without granting rights to them all. Williams points out that Republican Senator Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts, a staunch imperialist, made the comparison explicit be-

0
2

E
7

tween congressional power over Indians and over Filipinos in a statement documented in the Congressional Record of February 1, 1900:
When our great Chief Justice John Marshall. . .declared in the Cherokee case that the United States could have under its control, exercised by treaty or the laws of Congress, a domestic and dependent nation, I think he solved the question of our constitutional relations to the Philippines.16

Unfortunately, the expedient application of this policy and the legal calculations taken to manipulate the colonial status of the Filipinos came with all the beliefs that racist Americans held against Indian peoples and indigenous populations. Not only did imperialists see Indians and island subjects as having a similar legal relations to the United States, but they saw behavioral similarities as well, writes Williams. Like many journalists and observers who visited the Philippines immediately after its occupation to report about the people and island conditions, Phelps Whitmarsh, for example, described the native Filipino as the sleepy, forgetful, servile Indian in an article published in the Outlook in 1900. Theodore Roosevelt, in particular, made the most comparisons and habitually employed words like wild and ignorant, savages, Apaches, and Sioux to Filipin~s.~ The Indian connection to the Philippine situation was also evident in the military occupation of the Islands after Dewey accomplished his naval mission. For one thing, the general who was sent to head the first expedition to the Philippines was Wesley Merritt, a leading Indian Fighter of the 1870s, not to mention a long list of others-generals, officers, and soldiers-who were veterans of the the U.S. warfare against the Indians and who were now face to face with a foreign indigenous people.18 Williams adds:
The impact of imperialist rhetoric on actual events in the Philippines, especially during the 1899-1902 insurrection, influenced the feeling among United States troops that this was merely another Indian war. In the first place, most of the regiments in the islands were from the western states, where memories of Indian wars were strongest. . .Those troops who did not already accept the analogy were taught upon arrival that the Filipinos were savages no better than our Indians.

Imperialism and Negro Citizenry Just as the Indian peoples were the expedient object of continental destruction and colonial control, a major other American
8

population at home played a crucially parallel role in the formation of American imperialism and annexation. Rubin Francis Weston argues that in post-Civil War development, political accommodation between North and South and white racial instincts prevented the nationalization of civil liberties as the nation proceeded forward after slavery was abolished. It was in this atmosphere of national unity that imperialism was born, a unity that had been achieved at the expense of the Negro people, adds Weston.19 Consequently, the state laws that challenged the Fourteenth Amendment and the growth of Jim Crow laws leading to the Plessy v. Ferguson decision of 1896, finally led to the institutionalization of segregation and second-class citizenry to which the American Negro was relegated and which constituted a convenient precedent in the treatment of dissimilar peoples as the U.S. proceeded to claim their native lands:
It is important to note the degree to which the new nationalism extended to encompass the thinking and actions of Americans and the manner in which minority rights were concomitantly compromised by the United States, in the atmosphere of the new nationalism, as it annexed dissimilar peoples.

Although there was great apprehension at the turn of the century about annexing territories of (and with) nonwhite populations because of all the implications for their possible but unwanted entry into American society, the U.S. had constructed a protective policy based on the precedent of the Indian colonial issue discussed earlier whereby the natives of these annexed territories were designated ineligible for citizenship. Consequently, their treatment as second-class citizens-a Negro precedent, in Westons positionbecame the subsequent logical phase in this racial construct of American imperialism and overseas venture.
The actions of the federal government during the imperial period and the relegation of the Negro to a status of second-class citizenship indicated that the Southern point of view would prevail. The racism which caused the relegation of the Negro to a status of inferiority was to be applied to the overseas possessions of the United States.20

Domestically, however, the unequal treatment of Negro Americans had extended to other nonwhite immigrants, especially the colo r e d peoples from Asia who first came to the United States in midnineteenth century. In the case of the Filipinos, their journey to America as nationals at the beginning of the 1900s came as a
9

.0 " 7
Q E

direct result of the American crossing of the Pacific to claim possession of the Philippine Islands. As the U.S.'s "furthest frontiers,"*l the remote but extremely rich Philippine archipelago titillated the economic appetite and imperial designs of the emerging global power of the twentieth century. However, although this acquisitive venture was completely and totally an Anglo-American imperial blueprint vis a vis dissimilar, native populations, it inevitably invoked the national racial thinking on the two American others, the Indians and the Negroes. The Native Americans served as the prototype for American colonial policies and administrative strategy in the governing of the Filipino indios in the archipelago. The African Americans represented the justification and model for extending "second-class citizenry" and Jim Crow segregationist behavior in the Philippines.

Object and Subjects of Conquest The historic events of 1898 that thrilled the imagination of Manifest Destiny crusaders came at great expense to Filipino natives as object of conquest, and to American minority peoples, particularly the Blacks, who were subjects of conquest. William Loren Katz points out that most historians "have assumed. . .and some have claimed that during each and every war black Americans have shown loyalty unmatched by any other minority in the country." What has been ignored in the literature, argues Katz, is the tradition of black opposition to U.S. foreign policy of aggression, starting with Frederick Douglass's "castigation of America's war against Mexico in 1846. . ." to criticism of the Spanish American War. For one thing, Afro-Americans saw the "free Cuba" foreign policy and the entire US. expansionist thrust as hypocritical in the light of the vicious treatment of the Negro people on the domestic front. In Katz's words:
During the last decade of the nineteenth century, as interest in Cuba and overseas expansion rose, black Americans lived under the yoke of a new slavery. Ninety percent lived in the Southlandless and voteless peasants. Beginning in 1890, each state of the old Confederacy wrote into law, often into its constitution, provisions of disfranchisement of its black citizens and their segregation in public schools, conveyances and facilities. . . . In the South, mob action accompanied discriminatory laws and decisions. From 1899 to 1901, when overseas expansion escalated, almost 2,000 black men, women and children were lynched, often with unspeakable brutality.22

10

The black press captured these voices of dissent as illustrated in this piece in the Washington Bee on March 5,1898:
The negro has no reason to fight for Cubas independence. . . . He is as much in need of independence as Cuba is. He is living under a flag that the blood of h s ancestors and forefathers fought for and is powerless to protect him. His own brothers, fathers, mothers and indeed his children are shot down as if they were dogs and cattle. Is he living among the brave or is he in the home of his enemies? There is no inducement for the negro to fight for the independence of Cuba. . ?3

The issue became magnified when the war extended beyond the U.S. Caribbean backyard to unfamiliar and distant Pacific space occupied by millions of colored Philippine natives who were defying American power in the name of freedom. More than just opposing U.S. expansion this time, black support surfaced for the Filipinos whose
spirit of heroism, of patriotism in the interest of independence . .goes to show that all races under favorable or unfavorable conditions will make a desperateeffort for freedom and independence. Moreover, there is some analogy between the struggle which is now going on among the colored people for constitutional liberty and that of a similar race in the orient and hence a bond of sympathy naturally springs upJ4

This sympathy was rooted in a fundamental concern for not pitting negro against negro (in reference to their Filipino brown brothers): God forbid the sending of a single negro soldier from this country to kill their own kith and kin for fighting for the cause they believe to be right. It also included the reasoning that: When the battles are over, the victory won, the white men come marching home to be covered with glory-the negro marches home to be the subject of ridicule and fall prey to southern hell hounds and civilized American cannibal^."^^ Nevertheless, not unlike the debate in mainstream society on the good and evil of U.S. imperialism, there was a segment of the Negro population which favored the annexation of the Philippines. To many Afro-Americans, the Spanish American War presented a compelling opportunity for proving their loyalty to the United States and displaying Negro bravery and patriotism. They saw the war as a blessing in disguise, as indicated in this piece in the Indianapolis Freeman on April 23, 1898:

11

As in other cities the Negro is discussinghis attitude toward the government in case of war-shall he go to war and fight for his countrys flag? Yes, Yes, for every reason of true patriotism. It is a blessing in disguise for the Negro. He will if for no other reaf son be possessed of arms, which in the South, in face o threatened mob violence, he is not allowed to have. He will become trained and disciplined.. .He will get honor. He will have an opportunity of proving to the world his real bravery, worth, and manhood. . .26

The Colors of Manifest Destiny

The black soldiers of the Colored Regiments who were sent to fight the Filipino insurrectos overseas did not have to wait to be mustered back to the United States to be confronted again by racism. As discussed by Willard B. Gatewood, Jr., racism came with the blacks tour of duty as the white military they served relegated them to second-class soldiers and subjected them to racial slurs and Jim Crow treatment in restaurants, hotels and barbershops in the Philippines. In a letter to the editor of the Washington Colored American, a bitterly concerned John W. Galloway wrote on January 11, 1902: The whites have begun to establish their diabolical race hatred in all its home rancor. . .even endeavoring to propagate the phobia among the Spaniards and Filipinos so as to be sure of the foundation of their supremacy when the civil rule. . .is e ~ t a b l i s h e d . ~ ~ The disturbing situation involving continued racism against blacks in American overseas territory prompted the prominent Philippine observer, James A. Le Roy, to write in 1902: we have carried into the Philippines a petty race prejudice, the offspring of past provincialism and the inheritance of slavery with its residue of unsettled problems. . . . Le Roy noted the following experience to illustrate the pettiness as well as the seriousness of the situation: . . .an experience to be remembered was hearing some Southern as well as Northern officers rate the Filipino higher than the American negro, greatly to the indignation of a colored chaplain of the army who overheard them. And these officers were rather more tolerant of the presence among the first-class passengers of an army transport of a Filipino mestizo from the Visayan islands than of the same chaplain, who was finally given a seat by himself because some very important young lieutenants would not sit next to him.28 Moreover, the continued and open subjection of the black soldiers to racist slur and treatment was projected to the brown
12

natives. White American soldiers (and civilians, no doubt) referred to the Negro soldiers and Filipino natives as niggers, both-inciting anger in the black community at home. Every soldier in the Philippines who uses the term nigger does so with hell-born contempt for the negro of the United States, and it is our one desire that he be cured of his fiendish malady by a Filipino bullet buried in the heart of such a wretch.29 The American soldiers viewed his Filipino enemies with contempt because of their short stature and color. . .[their] refusal. . .to fight fair-to stand his ground and be shot like a man instead of adopting the strike-and-hide guerrilla tactics. . . and because he was by his very nature half-savage and half-bandit comments Richard E. Welch Jr.30He cites this commentary by H.L. Wells, a newspaper correspondent in Manila who was employed by the anti-imperialist New York Evening Post.
There is no question that our men do shoot niggers somewhat in the sporting spirit, but that is because war and their environments have rubbed off the thin veneer of civilization. . . . Undoubtedly, they do not regard the shooting of Filipinos just as they would the shooting of white troops. This is partly because they are only niggers, and partly because they despise them for their treacherous servility. . . . The soldiers feel that they are fighting with savages, not with soldiers.31

2
(D

;
$ 2.
%

2
?6_.

On the other hand, the black community at home voiced strong opinions about the parallel image of the Filipinos with the Indians. For example, two pieces which appeared in the Indianapolis Recorder on March 4 and 18,1899 commented on the fate of the Filipinos in the hands of Uncle Sam who will doubtless[ly] give them a dose of the same brand that has proven so effective with the North American Indians. And, a reminder that The officers in command of the American forces are old Indian fighters, who owe their success to the close adherence to the theory that a dead Indian is the best Indian. They will employ the same methods in dealing with the F i l i p i n o ~ . ~ ~ In contrast, but not necessarily contrary, to the earlier commentary by Williams regarding the white American image of the Filipino as an Indian savage, Welch says that racial stereotypes learned at home conditioned the reactions of. . .and why white enlisted men, almost without exception, saw the Filipino as nigger. One might expect that the Indian and Indian methods of warfare would have furnished a parallel, but it was the color of the Filipino, not his battle techniques, that fixed the terminology of calumny.
13

E
7

.U _

0 )

P
E

Theodore Roosevelt might allude to the Filipinos as latter-day Apaches, but for the men in the field the Filipinos were merely 'nigg e r ~ . " ' ~ ~ is quite apparent is that the racist views of both What the Negro and Indian were applied to the Filipino indio- thus, adding another hue to the color prejudices of white America.

Depictions of Filipino Natives

One of the earliest accounts of the American impressions of the Philippine Islands and the native Filipinos came from the black soldiers in the Colored Regiments who fought in the Philippines and the Spanish-held territories, and whose voices had been excluded or given little attention in the history books until the recent works, for example, by Gatewood, Welch, Michael Robinson and Frank Schubert, George P. Marks I11 and Marvin Fletcher. 34 A new study by Scot Ngozi-Brown on the social relations between African American soldiers and Filipinos in the context of "racial imperialism" and "imported Jim Crowism" brings out for the first time some of the unexplored intersections between native Filipino men and women and African American soldiers who were stationed in the Philippines at the turn of the twentieth century. In addition, the writings of Anthony L. Powell, via the internet, document in great detail the many aspects of African American military life with a special timely emphasis on the theme of "Black Participation in the Spanish-American War."35 These works-drawn from valuable secondary and very rich but interspersed primary sources in military and historical archives and special collections-have provided a clearer uncerstanding of the significant role of the African American soldiers in the events of 1898. For those who know very little about this unexplored site of American history, the intellectually rich and animated conversations in the African American community on the issues and implications of the War for the black people become immediately apparent as well as the abundant communications that black Americans produced by way of letters from soldiers, the responses from home, books, commentaries, editorials and feature essays which were published in an active black print-media. What received national attention and wide readership in the popular press, however, were the writings of white American observers of the Philippines which were printed by prominent book publishing houses and in famous magazines and journals. At one level, the African American observations of the Islands and their initial impressions of the native population were simi-

14

lar to the commentaries made by white Americans. Both black and white views covered a spectrum of opinion-ranging from patriotic excitement, to anthropological curiosity, to fascination for the newly discovered culture of the island archipelago as well as ignorance of the strange dissimilar customs of its heterogenous natives.36 By comparison, however, the black description of the Philippines and Filipino characteristics tended to project a more mature and rather sophisticated understanding of the ways of the natives and contained little of the chauvinistic pronouncements and racial prejudices coming out of white American viewers. For example, most Philippine Island observers were generally impressed with the Filipino institution of the family, one that extended its open acceptance and material support to a long list of kin, immediate and distant. Author Frederick Chamberlin expressed his opinion on this subject with reference to the Tagalog: He was extremely affectionate to his family in certain respects, yet when his house was afire, he paused only to save his fighting cock, leaving his household to look out for its own safety. By contrast, Theophilus G. Steward, a prominent black chaplain in the Colored Regiment, 25* Infantry, commented on the same topic in this way: The family in the Philippines differs considerably from the family in the United States; and little as we may regard it, the Filipinos can furnish us, both by precept and example, many beautiful lessons of domestic affection. Or take the remarks of Rienzi B. Lemus who contributed regular articles to the Colored American Magazine while stationed with the 25th Infantry in the Islands. Instead of condemning tribal marriage customs as uncivilized, for instance, he referred to them as somewhat of a puzzle compared to his familiarity with the real ceremony being solemnized by a priest. He also commented that The Tagalo [sic], like every other tribe or nation, has its good and bad elements. . . [italics added] and proceeded, nonetheless, to describe native characteristics he observed in a genteel and non-judgmental manner.37

2
~

Black and Brown Brothers According to Gatewood, there were 6,000 black regulars and volunteers out of 70,000 total military personnel in December 1900 stationed at dozens of small outposts scattered from Northern Luzon to Samar. Regardless of race and number, white and black soldiers alike fought and participated in the killing of, and in being killed by, their Filipino ~ o u n t e r p a r t . ~ ~
15

There were black voices that echoed the white rationale against granting independence to the Filipinos:
U .u)

E Q

The turbulent citizens, natives, half-breeds and Spaniards will in all probablity always be restless and discontented with any form of government, no matter how modem or enlightened. . . . These people will never be able to understaned the institutions of this country and hence will not appreciate them. They will be as ready to strike a benefactor as they would a foe, causing our country to put into practice methods which to the world would appear inhumane, but which would be necessary for restraint or the suppression of revolting tendencies. . .39

The conservative Indianapolis Freeman, for example, also insisted that the Philippine War is no race war and that it was quite time for the Negroes to quit claiming kindred with every black face from Hannibal down. Hannibal was no Negro, nor was Aguinaldo. We are to share in the glories or defeats of our countrys wars, that is patriotism pure and Just the same, the race issue occupied a salient site of interaction between the African American and Filipino women. As Chaplain Steward observed, . . .there is another element coming into Filipino society, to-wit: the American soldier, and especially the Negro soldier; and true to his history the Negro is a kind husband here as e1sewhe1-e.~~ Race also played a calculated role in the strategies of war between soldiers and natives, such as in the celebrated case of the Afro-American rebel, David Fagen, a soldier of the 24* Infantry who defected from the army in November 1899 to join the Filipino cause, a few months after his regiment landed in the Philippines. He became legendary, both in the Philippines and the U.S., and managed to elude and frustrate Frederick Funston, Aguinaldos captor.42There were other soldiers like Fagen who switched allegiance because of sympathy with the Philippine sovereignty cause and also because the native strategy of having directly confronted the black soldiers with the racial dilemma must have been effective somehow. William Simms, a soldier from Muncie, Indiana, wrote from his station in the Philippines about one such case:
I was struck by a question a little boy asked me, which ran about this way-Why does the American Negro come from America to fight us when we are much friend to him and have not done anything to him? He is all the same as me, and me all the same as you. Why dont you fight those people in America that burn the Negroes, that made a beast of you. . . ?43

16

The Negro Colonization of the Philippines

Black Americans also faced another issue as imperialists counted the fortunes of war and pondered on the benefits of annexing the Philippine Islands as a territory of the United States, one that extended beyond the case of Negro military loyalty and performance but, once more, pitted black Americans against-if not perpetually associated them by race with-the Filipino people. This was a proposition in the imperialist post-insurrecto blueprint of using the Philippine Islands as a Negro colony. A proponent of this idea was John Tyler Morgan, a long-time Senator of thirty-one years from Alabama, a staunch segregationist and a strong advocate of the rights of states, particularly when it came to protecting and advancing the (white) interests of the S o ~ t h . ~ To white America and the southerners especially, what to do with freed slaves was a most troubling Negro problem that needed some kind of a resolution at the national political arena and most wished it would just go away somewhere, or disappear altogether. Senator Morgan saw the annexation of the Philippines as a spatial solution to this problem. The overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy by a powerful white minority American oligarchy clearly presented him with a working model of a successful white American minority rule over a majority colored population. Earlier, he encouraged the exodus of blacks to the Hawaiian Islands; now, the even-more-distant islands of the Philippines became the more attractive place for disposing of the Negros. In April 1900, Morgan urged Secretary of War Elihu Root to authorize black servicemen to remain in the Philippines following their discharge. . . suggest[ing]that bounties in public lands might be extended as an inducement.
By December 1901he had formulated a more elaborate scheme that included American blacks organizing paramilitary colonies and offers of twenty-acre homesteads and transportation on government subsidized steamship lines for black civilians wishing to emigrate to the archipelago. Morgan unrealistically assumed this approach would draw the vast surplus of American blacks to the islands while leaving the best elements o that race in f the United States.45

2
2
3

2 -.
-2

Objecting against Morgans proposal in The Colored American Magazine, Lemus rejected the land offer to the Negroes and reminded Morgan that the bloody record of the archipelago is due to the determination of its people to hold their lands [in reference to the friar lands taken from natives]. Thus, he wrote:
17

To give the ten millions of Negroes twenty acres each of Philippine territory would require three hundred and twelve thousands [sic], five hundred square miles thereof. Add to this the homes of the nine million natives, and the land owned by corporations, and the government which has been set aside in order that the timber, stone and other products thereof may be used in constructing a navy yard and other public improvements, and it can be readily seen that Congress would have to buy some of the land to which the Friars own the titles, but which morally belong to the natives, in order to supply the natives with

Lemus ended his argument with this statement:

A sacred duty devolves upon America in her possessions, and the responsibilities fall proportionately upon the shoulders of all its citizens. If the Negroes wish to go, they will go, but they will never leave in a body, they are at home in America, are here to stay, with the assistance of their friends are making opportunities for their prosperity, and nothing but Divine power can remove them.47

Although many black conservatives did not necessarily embrace the principle of Lemus's position, one of their motivations for supporting the annexation of the Philippines, regardless of the colonization issue, was certainly "making opportunities for their prosperity" (referringto Lemus's phrase above) now that they were "freed men." From the Enterprise in Omaha, Nebraska came this view: "The Philippine Islands will offer an excellent opportunity for Negro colonization, not colonization for the purpose of getting out of this country but for the same purpose that white man colonizes, for the purpose of making money. . ."48 Those who supported the imperialist position, however, saw the archipelago "as a field where the negro can easily carve out a home for himself which will yield him a handsome return for his labors, and in developing the rich agricultural and mineral resources of these islands which last have been practically untouched as yet, he will not only meet unfavorable competition from his white brothers, but on the contrary will find in him [the negro] his greatest helper and support."49

"Thomasites of a Different Color"5o The wealth of the Philippine Islands represented material opportunities to Americans and activated opportunistic energies, but there were those who journeyed to the Philippine frontiers for more ideal18

istic reasons. Among them was a significant but small cohort of teachers from the United States pioneering the foundation of public instruction and native teacher training in the Philippines. On January 21,1901, the U.S. Philippine Commissionpassed Act No. 74 and authorized the general superintendent of Public Instruction to hire one thousand teachers from the United States. In the summer of 1901, the first, smaller group of the original one thousand recruits arrived on the S.S. Sheridan immediately followed by the majority of six hundred teachers on the army transport, S.S. Thomas, from which the name Thomasite was derived and then used generically to refer to any American public school teacher who served in the civil service during the US. colonial regime. Prior to the enactment of Act No. 74 and during the military occupation of the Islands, the responsibility of opening the schools were assigned to selected military personnel, first headed by a Catholic chaplain, W.D. McKinnon. In Manila and outlying districts, "army officers acted as school superintendents and soldiers were detailed as teacher^."^^ One of those who supervised military public instruction in charge of the province of Zambales was Chaplain Steward. In his inspection of the town schools, he observed that the four schools in one town were "well attended and in good condition for this country." He was also very impressed by the disciplined pupils to the credit of the "good order of the scholars [native teachers from the Spanish school system]. . . . In one case the teacher had been absent with me, for nearly two hours, and yet when he returned, all the pupils were found in their places and the order perfect."52 Much has been written about, and by, the Thomasites over the American colonial period and tI1ereafter.5~These writings and the Thomasite images (especially in photographs which appeared in books published in the U.S., and in magazine and newspaper articles that came out of the Philippines) give a very misleading impression, through omission, that the American teachers were all Euro-Americans. What had not been included in these images were the faces of a small group of American teachers who were black. The most prominent among them was Carter G. Woodson, the father of Negro history.54 Woodson was principal of Douglass High School in Huntington, West Virginia, when he responded to the teacher recruitment efforts. On August 31, 1903 David P. Barrows, General Superintendent of the Department of Public Instruction in the Philippines offered Woodson "an appointment as a teacher of English in the Bu-

2
2

2
O,

5 2.

%
3'

19

E 0
7

0 o
0

reau of Education for the Philippine Islands at an annual salary of $1200.00. He arrived in Manila in December when he was twentyeight years old and was first assigned to teach in San Isidro, in the province of Nueva Ecija. Protesting an incident which must have involved a racial insult committed publicly by a Filipino government clerk, Woodson was reassigned (at his request) and made a supervisor of schools in two towns in Pangasinan training native teachers (the clerk was dismissed from his job). After his contract was completed in 1905, he renewed it for another two years after which he decided to terminate his civil service position effective February 5, 1907.55 During his brief duty, Woodson became critical of highly trained Americans teachers (a number were trained at Harvard, Yale, Columbia, and Chicago)who entered upon their task by teaching the Filipinos just as they had taught American children. He was also disturbed by the irrelevant curricular materials that directed Filipino children to sing Come shake the Apple-Tree when they had never seen such an object.56He indicated that his teaching experience in the Philippines had a lasting influence in the way he would later approach the education of the Negro population and his thinking on Jim Crow laws. In 1945, a year before the Philippines was to become finally independent, Woodson wrote the obituary of John Henry Manning Butler, a Negro teacher who served in the Philippines with Woodson but who stayed behind until he retired and died there in 1944.57 Woodson began his introduction this way: The Filipinos owe a debt of gratitude to the Negro soldiers who helped to free their country from the stranglehold of Spain and made possible their recent development toward independence status. They owe a similar debt to the Negro teachers who volunteered to go to that crude country immediately after pacification to give the people a modern language and develop their minds unto modern stature. . . Although Woodsons use of the word crude is puzzling and subject to various possible interpretation, it does not negate the historical link between two peoples of color and the historical role that African Americans played in the U.S. colonial presence in the

phi lip pine^.^^

Journeyto the American Frontiers The U. S. expansion across the Pacific brought America to the Philippines and marked the beginning of the association of dissimilar peoples from two different continents. Very little attention has been given to this important historical connection because America

20

has always been equated with the dominant white other.59 However, the America that appeared in the Phlippine landscape at the turn of the twentieth century included the images of American Indians and the faces of black soldiers, teachers and civil servants. The black community, like the white population, differed in their views on the issues of imperialism and Philippine annexation and a few black soldiers chose the radical road by joining the native armed struggle for independence. There is also one little known example of Native American presence in the Islands in the person of anthropologist, William Jones, a part-white Oklahoman Fox who was raised on the reservations and educated in Hampton, Harvard and Columbia. Jones was part of the anthropological team from the Chicago Field Museum studying Philippine mountain tribes until his untimely death in the hands of a tribal group in 1909.60 This American crossing to the Philippines immediately took on a Filipino counter-flow in the beginning of the 1900s, as government-supported (pensionado) and self-supporting students and recruited plantation laborers made their voyage to America and Hawaii, respectively-simultaneous with the movement of colonial officials, Thornasites, American civil servants and businessmen. The Americans voyage to Philippine territory was a voyage of conquest and a right-of-passage to their expanded possessions overseas while the Filipinos journey to the United States was a movement of subjugated nationals who were highly motivated to pursue their expanded colonial boundaries abroad. In the social and economic frontiers of America, the Filipinos would come into contact once again with the Americans they encountered in the Philippines and where it was allowed, some would marry white women as they would Native American women. They would also meet groups new and relevant to many of them-Asian immigrants, Mexican field laborers and white immigrant workers. With the closing of the U.S. boundaries in 1934 through the Tydings-McDuffie Act, Filipinos in America could no longer be U.S. wards, much less be natives-in-training-for-self-government.The expatriate-immigrants would now assume a Filipino American identity and part of this transformation would be the pattern of their linkage with the colors and textures of Asian immigration. Depicting the continuity of the Filipino American experience from the Philippine landscape to U.S. space is an important and a necessary step to advance to the next level of discourse. What needs to surface also is the wealth of the underside narrative of the Fili21

&
3

8 4

E U E

E
U .-

pino American experience in the context of its interconnectedness with the American ethnic others.

Y)

0,

Notes
My long-time interest in the subject of Manifest Destiny as it affected the Philippines and touched Filipino lives at the turn of the twentieth century has been broadened and enriched since my affiliationwith the Department of Ethnic Studies at the University of California, Riverside. My scholarship in this area has benefitted greatly from my interactions with Clifford E. Trafzer, mentor, colleague and friend, and Native American scholar. We worked on a preliminary project, which received initial funding from the UC Pacific Rim Research Program. Nikki Chang, graduate student in history, provided excellent and invaluable research support under h s grant. I also received a small assistance from the UCR College of Humanities and Social Sciences, Dean's Faculty Research Incentive Grant. I am thankful to my African American colleague, Ralph L. Crowder, who "introduced me to Carter G. Woodson; and to the Tomas Rivera Library, especially the wonderful staff of the InterLibrary Loan unit. A major portion of the research findings discussed in this article was included in the lecture I delivered in May in the Ohio State University's 1998 Distinguished Lecture on Asian American History. 1. From a report of a Protestant Board of Missions in the Church Standard 65 (October 29,1898), 792, cited by Julius W. Pratt, Expansionists of 1898: The Acquisition of Hawaii and the Spanish Islands (Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1936),281. 2. Apolinario Mabini, "The Struggle for Freedom" (1899),translated from the original Tagalog text by Teodoro A. Agoncillo, in Agoncillo, ed., Filipino Nationalism, 1872-1970 (Quezon City, Philippines: R.P. Garcia Publishing Co., 1974), 231. The literature on Manifest Destiny and the debate on the U.S. ac3. quisition of Spanish-held colonies after the Spanish American War, such as the Philippines, is extensive. Only a few selected and relevant sources will be cited here: Frederick Merk, Manifest Destiny and Mission (New York Vintage Books, 1963); Albert K. Weinberg, Manifest Destiny: A Study of Nationalist Expansionism in American History (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1935; reprinted by Chicago: Quadrangle Paperbacks, 1963);Anders Ste-phanson,Manifest Destiny: American Expansionism and the Empire of Right (New York Hill and Wang, 1995);and Pratt, Expansionists of 1898. Stephanson's monograph provides a detailed bibliography and Pratt cites very rich primary source materials. See also, Stuart Creighton Miller, "Benevolent Assimilation": the American Conquest of the Philippines, 18992903 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982); Leon Wolf, Litfie Brown Brother (Garden City, New York Doubleday, 1961);Daniel B. Shirmer and Stephen Rosskamm Shalom, eds., The Philippines Reader: a History of Colonialism, Neocolonialism, Dictatorship and Resistance (Boston: South End Press, 1987), 1-55.

22

4.

5. 6. 7.

For a brief background of the Cuban war in connection with the Philippine annexation issue, see Karl Irving Faust, Campaigning in the Philippines (San Francisco: Hicks-Judd Publishing Company, 1899); and Moorefield Storey and Marcia1P. Lichauco, The Conquest o f the Philippines by the United States (Freeport, New York Books for Libraries Press, 1926; reprinted, 1971), 3-87. Congressional Record, U.S. Senate, January 9, 1900, 704-711; reprinted in Schirmer and Shalom, The Philippines Reader, 23. Pratt, Expansionists of 1898, 347. In Shirmer and Shalom, The Philippines Reader, 25. lbid., 26. Manifest Destiny and Mission in American History, 254. In fairness to Faust, his account contains some excellent detailed description of the preparation and activities of the U.S. military and little derogatory remarks against the native "insurrectos" especially when compared to other accounts by military and American observers. Conversely, William Thaddeus Saxton underscores the unpreparedness and lack of military discipline of the American armed forces in their occupation of the Islands; Soldiers in the Sun: A n Adventure in lmperiulism (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: The Military Service Publishing Company, 1939). Ibid., 1-2. Stephanson, Manifest Destiny, 99. Cesar Adib Majul, Apolinario Mabini, Revolutionay (Manila: National Heroes Commission, 1970), 185; Teodoro M. Kalaw, The Philippine Revolution (Mandaluyong, Rizal: Jorge B. Vargas Filipinas Foundation, 1969). Also, Romeo Cruz, "The Impact of the American Revolution on the Philippines," in Cedric B. Cowing, ed., The American Revolution, Its Meaning to Asians and Americans (Honolulu: The East West Center, 1977), 241-54. "United States Indian Policy and the Debate over Philippine Annexation: Implications for the Origins of American Imperialism," Journal of American History 66:4 (March 1980), 810-31. Ibid., 811. Ibid., 818. Ibid., 825. See also, Sexton, Soldiers in the Sun, 20 . Racism in U S . lmperialism (Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press, 1972), 4-55. lbid., 15. The term comes from Pratt, The Expansionists. William Loren Katz, "Preface," in George P. Marks 1 1 compiler, The 1, Black Press ViewsAmerican Imperialism (1898-1900)(New York Am0 Press, 1971). Katz states unequivocally that mainstream literature

2
$

z
3

0 ,
-. +

% U % _.

8. 9. 10.

11. 12. 13.

14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

23

U .m

23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34.

35.

on the subject of US. Anti-Imperialism (e.g., August Meiers Negro Thought in America, 2880-2925 and E. Berkeley Tompkinss AntiImperialism in the United States: The Great Debate, 2890-1920) omits black criticism and position regarding this issue. Marks, The Black Press ViewsAmerican Imperialism, 13. Ibid., 116-17, Ibid., 124-5. Ibid., 29. Black Americans and the WhiteMans Burden (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1975 ), 282-83. Race Prejudice in the Philippines, Atlantic Monthly 990 (1902), 100, 102. Note the class implication in this incident. From the Progress (Omaha, Nebraska) in The Black Press ViewsAmerican Imperialism, 128. American Atrocities in the Philippines: The Indictment and the Response Pacific Historical Review 43:2 (May 1974), 240. Cited by Welch, as quoted in The Watchman (Boston) July 27,1900. Marks, The Black Press ViewsAmerican Imperialism, 115, 116. Welch, 242. Gatewood, Black Americans and the WhiteMans Burden and Smoked Yankees:Lettersfrom Negro Soldiers, 1898-1920 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1971); Richard E.Welch, Jr., Response to Imperialism: the United States and the Philippine American War (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1979) and American Atrocities in the Philippines; Robinson and Schubert, David Fagen: An Afro-American Rebel in the Philippines, 1899-1901, Pacific Historical Review 44 (1975); and Marvin Fletcher, The Black Soldier and Officer in the United States Army, 1892-2927 (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1974) and h s Ph.D. dissertation, The Negro Soldier and the United States Army, 1891-1917, University of Wisconsin (1968); George P. Marks, 1 1 Opposition of Negro Newspapers to American Philippinne 1, Policy, 1899-1900, The Midwest Journal 4 (1951-1952), 1-25. See also, Edward A. Johnson, History of Negro Soldiers in the Spanish-American War (Raleigh, North Carolina: Capital Printing Company, 1899; reprinted ed., The Basic Afro-American Reprint Library, 1970). I am thankful to Ralph Crowder for directing my attention to the article by Ngozi-Brown, African-American Soldiers and Filipinos: Racial Imperialism, Jim Crow and Social Relations, The Journal of Negro History 532, 1 (Winter 1997), 42-53. See, in particular, Powells Through My Grandfathers Eyes: Ties that Bind: The African American Soldier in the Filipino War for Liberation, 18991902(1998), in Jim Zwicks Sentenaryo/Centennial site: wysiwyg: / / 11/http: / /home.ican.net/ -fjzwick/sctexts/powell98a.html. Powells paper is excerpted in the Filipino American publication, Heritage 22: 1 (Spring 1998), 24-28.

24

36. 37.

See, also, Ngozi-Brown, African-American Soldiers and Filipinos, 47.

T --I
(D

38.

39. 40. 41. 42.

43. 44.

45. 46. 47. 48. 49.

Chamberlin, The Philippine Problem, 1898-1913 (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1913), 39. Steward, Two Years in Luzon, I. Filipino Characteristics,The Colored AmericanMagazine 4 (November1901), 6. Lemus, ThePhilippine Islands:Opportunitiesfor Colorrd Americans in the Far East, The Colored Ameriurn Magazine 4 (March 1902), 262-63. There is little direct discussion in the literature about the participation of the black soldiers in the war crimes against the native population. See, Black Americans and the WhiteMans Burden, 263. The war atrocities committed against the native population are discussed in JamesH. Blount, The American Occupation ofthe Philippines, 2898-1912 (New York Putnam, 1912). Sextons historical account of the military experience in the Philippines, Soldiers in the Sun, is one of the few earlier works in which the presence of black soldiersin the different regiments is mentioned throughout the book. Indianapolis Freeman (July 30, 1898), Marks, The Black Press Views American Imperialism, 104. Ibid., (October 7, 1899), 150. Steward, Two Years in Luzon, 9. Ngozi-Brown refers to T. Thomas Fortunes observations between the way white soldiers treated the women compared to black soldiers. Refer to Robinson and Schubert, David Fagen: An Afro-American Rebel in the Philippines. See also Frederick Funston, Memories of TwoWars: Cuban and Philippine Experiences (New York Charles Scribners Sons, 1911), 376,380,431,434,435. Gatewood and Ngozi-Brown have also looked at the files on Fagen from the National Archives and other sources. From the Indianapolis Freeman (May 11,1900), in Marks, The Black Press ViewsAmerican Imperialism, 169. Another example is cited in Gatewood, Smoked Yankees, 258-59. The following discussion on this issue is drawn from: Joseph0.Baylen and John Hammond Moore, Senator John Tyler Morgan and Negro Colonization in the Philippines, 1901 to 1902: Phylon 29:l (Spring 1968), 65-75; Joseph 0. Baylen, Senator John Tyler Morgan, E.D. Morel, and The Congo Reform Association, The Alabama Review 15 (April 1962), 117-32;Joseph A. Fry, John Tyler Morgan and the Searchfor Southern Autonomy(Knoxville:The University of Tennessee Press, 1962); and R.B. Lemus, The Negro and the Philippines, The Colored American Magazine 6 (February 1903), 314-18. Fry, John Tyler Morgan, 184-85. Lemus, The Negro and the Philippines, 316. Ibid., 318. Reprinted in Coffeyville American (May 28,1898), in Marks, The Black Press ViewsAmerican Imperialism, 102. Wisconsin WeeklyAdvocate (May 21, 1898), 101.

2 4
0

3
2.

z
2

E _.
~

ASIAN A M F R I P A L I CTI

~m~~~

--..___

25

E
0

50. 51.
52.

U .u )

2 Q

53.

54.

55.

56.

57. 58. 59.

60.

The title of a work in progress. Daniel R. Williams, The Odyssey of the Philippine Commission (Chicago: A.C. McClurg & Company, 1913), 111. "Two Years in Luzon, 11. Examining Schools, Etc.; 111. Preparations for Civil Government," The Colored American Magazine (January-February; August 1902), 164-170; 244-49. Some of the earlier and more popular works about the Thomasite experience are: William B. Freer, The Philippine Experience of an American Teacher (New York Charles Scribner's Sons, 1906);Mary H. Fee, A Woman's Impressions of the Philippines (Chicago:A.C. McClurg and Company, 1910); Ralph Kent Buckland, In the Land ofthe Filipino (New York Everywhere Publishing Co., 1912); Geronima T. Pecson and Maria Racelis, eds., Tales of the American Teachers in the Philippines (Manila: Carmelo & Bauermann, Inc., 1959); Mary Bonzo Suzuki, "American Education in the Philippines, the Early Years: American Pioneer Teachers and the Filipino Response, 1900-1935," Ed.D. d' issertation, University of California, Berkeley (1990). Ralph Crowder reminds me that Woodson was rather a special, "self-made" man who was much older when he received his Ph.D. from Harvard University in his late thirties and the second Negro to do so after W.E.B. Du Bois. Sister Anthony Scally, "The Philippine Challenge," Negro History Bulletin 441 (January, February, March 1981), 16-18. Sister Scally draws her information from archival materials which 1 have not had the opportunity to look at. She is quite vague about whether or not the incident was racial but seems to imply so. See, Carter Goodwin Woodson, The Miseducation o the Negro (Washf ington, D.C.: the Associated Publishers, 1969), 152-53; and also, Jacqueline Goggin, Carter G. Woodson: A Life in Black History (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1993). Due to space limitation, it is not possible to discuss Butler in this article. Ralph Crowder believes that Woodson used the word "crude" in reference to the state of "technology" rather than the state of "civilization'' of the Philippines. In connection with American colonial rule, see the interesting article by Vicente L. Rafael, "White Love: Surveillance and National Resistance in the U.S. Colonization o the Philippines," in Amy Kaplan f and Donald E. Pease, eds., Cultures o United States Imperialism (Durf ham: Duke University Press, 1991),185-219. Part of the unfortunate legacy of colonization has been the transference of the colonial master's attitudes and perceptions to the colonized subject. Not only does unconscious self-denigration develop but colonial racial attitudes are applied by the colonial subject to other subjects of color. The fascinating film project of Collis H. Davis, Jr., "Head-Hunting William Jones" (Okawa Productions 1998)will undoubtedly contribute to the little-known knowledge in this area.

26