Customer Reviews

Benevolent Assimilation: The American Conquest of the Philippines, 1899-1903

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

An excellent telling of a period that most Americans and Filipinos know little or nothing about. With America's new ownership of the Philippines, we were drawn into a second conflict once the Spanish were routed. The insurrectionist movement against America brought about a bloody and savage war that cost tens of thousands of lives. The third phase was the attempt to subdue the Moros, some of the toughest and most fearless warriors on the planet. The troops involved thought they would only be fighting Spanish regulars and then sent home. Rather, many spent years fighting in jungles and swamps against a clever and determined foe, and many were then shipped off to fight the Boxer's in China in 1900, only to be returned to battle the often fiendish inhabitants of places like Sibago Island, Jolo and Samar. A classic account and ranks with "Muddy Glory" and "Little Brown Brother" to name but a couple. There isn't much written about this conflict, but the information is out there. These lessons should have taught America about getting involved in smaller nations affairs.

Though well known to professional historians, the US fight against the Filipino "insurrectionists" at the turn of the century remains a blank spot to most Americans. There are some very good reasons for this. Most people don't like to be reminded that the US was an openly racist major power more interested in trade than in freeing the natives of the Philippines. It is disturbing to read about American heros like Teddy Roosevelt denigrating the "niggers" who inhabited the island, and soft-pedalling widespread torture by the US military (most notably the rather nasty 'water cure'). It is also interesting to read how many people did not value the islands that much themselves, but felt that they were needed to be our springboard to the China trade -- which was going to make everyone rich, of course! It took the Japanese empire at its worst to make the US look like a friend to many Filipinos, and this book tells why.

Stuart Miller's book is an excellent study in the political turmoil and subterfuges involved in the transition of America into an imperialist power. The book is not really a military history; the military aspects are secondary to Miller's coverage of how Americans justified, reacted to, and lied about our subjugation of the Philippines. It is a very sobering history of the river of lies poured out by the military, especially General Otis, and the administration of William McKinley. This is also a study in racism; how allegedly "superior" Anglo-Saxons needed to "civilize" and "Christianize" the Filipinos, many of whom were Catholic. Overall, this book is a good primer about a shocking and somewhat vile episode in American history. High School history teachers in particular should read this book and include it in their lessons about the outcome of our "splendid little war" with Spain. It is a sad truth that as a result of this conflict, America did not seem to learn anything about the nature of guerilla warfare with a people fighting to be free of foreign control. Our failure to profit from this episode helped propel us into another such quagmire in Vietnam, a nation not too far from the site of our earlier fiasco in the Philippines.

This book was originally from 1982, written in a time of post-Vietnam regret. However, this book may have picked up on themes, very much in the U.S. press in the period of the Philippines war of a century ago, that are suddenly current in fall 2005: systematic use of torture by American forces (particularly the "water cure"); carelessness with the lives of civilians in the battle zones; denunciation of Americans with doubts about the war as unpatriotic or traitorous; the denial of normal legal due process to an enemy deemed too savage and inferior to be worthy of it; considerable confusion on the events where U.S. forces transpose one war (i.e., Spain 1898 or War on Terror 2001) into a new one (the Philippines in 1899 or Iraq today) more by act of U.S. will than enemy action. The author does stretch some comparisons between the Philippines war and Tonkin Gulf and My Lai, but given the events of Operation Iraqi Freedom the book seems eerily more relevant now.

Another reviewer has noted that Mr. Miller's research was almost entirely from U.S. sources. That does take it down from five stars but we should remember that this book, as with the Iraq war, is more about the U.S. mind-set than about the other side. Thus the book's tone is a bit as lurid as the press of that day but it is startling how the U.S. public read this news coverage year after year and then -- as Mr. Miller notes -- forgot. We might wind up putting Iraq out of mind as well, its veterans and victims as forgotten and neglected as those of 1902, a point Mr. Miller does us a favor by raising. Scary.

A very interesting story about the American armies attempt to end the Phillipine insurgency that broke out in the wake of the Spanish-American war. Originally allied with the Americans the Phillipinoes were angry that the U.S had promised indpedendence and from their point of view, reneged on the promise. An insurgency broke out and the American army used classic anti-insurgency methods to break it, including creating institutions and providing incentives for the people not to back it, as well as combatting it. Famous figures such as Roosevelt, Taft, Pershing and Macarthur's father were involved. This is an important part of American history that is often forgotten.

Seth J. Frantzman

I cannot recommend this book enough to those who wish to understand the roots of American imperialism and what motivated it. The author presents an honest look at both sides of what was then a burning political question. He quotes not only from media sources but also letters and interviews of soldiers who fought on both sides, court documents, diaries, memoirs and legal papers. He spares no uncomfortable fact and provides a vivid account of both the atrocities and the brutality of guerrila warfare. He also delves into the arguments of congress, the press and the White House for how and why decisions were made (which were mostly due to the political winds of the prevailing election cycle).

It's a great eye-opener for those that have never been confronted with the fact that the United States often acted with both greed and callousness. And yet the book is not a condemnation of the United States, rather a look back to what really transpired from 1899-1903 under Presidents McKinley and Roosevelt and America's ill-conceived attempt to enter what it thought was an elite club of nations that practiced third world colonialism.

This book reviews the politics and media surrounding the actions by the US in the Philippines following the Spanish-American war. It gives great insight into the propaganda used to sell the war to the American pubic and to obfuscate the atrocities that American soldiers committed there. Miller paints a fascinating picture of egocentric American political and military commands steeped in duplicity and self-delusion; these patterns will be interesting and familiar to any student of the wars in Vietnam and Iraq.

The material is sourced mainly from newspaper editorials, political speeches, congressional inquiries and the letters of politicians and high ranking military figures.
This book will not tell you anything about what the war was like for the soldiers on the ground, American or Philippino. It won't tell you much about tactics. It won't teach you anything about Philippine culture of the time, either.

Where can one begin to review this book? It was a real eye opener to say the least! This is just one of many parts of History that I was never taught, and only learned of it in my adult years.

Although the very essence of war is cruel and inhumane, but to read this book and the indiscriminate killing done by the United States Army, the pure racial hatred borne by those soldiers can make even the most jaded person ill.

As an Afro-American, I can relate to those stories of killing a person and/or people because they are of a different race, or being treated differently.

This book is very riveting and is hard to put down. It places you there in the middle of the war, from Manila down to the slaughter of Moro tribe members, where both women and children were slaughtered! If you are interested in US-Philippines relations, or history of it, this book is a must. One of the most darkest moments in our history, and to think after this, the Philippines has been a staunch ally.

I disagree with the previous reviewers simply because it appears quite clearly that "Benevolent Assimilation" is their only source of information regarding The Philippine War.

To be fair, my overlook of the reviews was cursory and if I have offended reviewers who made more cogent statements, I apologize.

There are two books which stand out from all the rest when it comes to a discussion of the Philippine War: Brian McAllister Linn's two books: "The Philippine War" and The US Army and Counterinsurgency in the Philippine War 1899-1902. Admittedly both are not easy reads, but if you wish to know what really happened on the ground, I suggest you read both.

I would also like to note that a great deal of information concerning the Philippine War is available at JSTOR and primarily from "The Pacific Historical Review" and "Philippine Studies".

Stuart Creighton Miller's account of the Philippine War is at best superficial and at worst agenda oriented.

Just a few points and then judge for yourself:

1) Republicans did not bribe Democrats to vote yes on The Treaty of Paris. See Leon Wolff "Little Brown Brother"

2) The "Friars" were hated by everyone not just the revolutionaries.

3) Philippine Government formed on 21 January 1899: 80 of 136 delegates were trained professionals and 43 of 80 were lawyers. This is not the "Ignorant Government" claimed by General Otis and not mentioned in either Linn or Wolff.

4) Insurgents are governing Iloilo, the major city on Panay.

5) Miller's claim that General Otis wants war is an oversimplification. The area and unit commanders e.g. the 1st Nebraska are the aggressors.

6) The conspiracy among Otis and his officers designed to provoke the war is difficult to substantiate. For one thing the brain power required was clearly not present.

7) General Otis required "Unconditional Surrender" from the Filipinos is once again an oversimplification. Otis is trying desperately to hold onto his job and the last thing he wants is a continuing insurrection. The problem is that Otis keeps the US Government in the dark concerning not only his intentions but the "on the ground facts"

8) The Imperialists are "Paternal Racists" and the Anti- Imperialists were "Race Haters".
In point of fact the common thread which runs through all the literature of the time shows that Americans as a society were bigots.
Do not forget the "Jim Crow Laws" in effect at this time.

9) Balangiga on Samar is interesting because, yes it happened, and its aftermath was a fairy tale.
The survivors of Co.C of the 9th IR did not summarily execute prisoners.

10)Back to Balangiga: Jake Smith according to a paper in "Military Affairs" was a ner-do- well for many years. He was more than likely psychotic. Waller the Marine who carried out Jake's orders was acquitted and Waller was convicted.
Neither officer suffered anything other than temporary discomfiture.
The interesting part of all the above is that if Jake had simply agreed that Waller was acting under his orders no one would have ever known what "Howlin Jake's" orders were.

11) As to the other claims that American soldiers committed atrocities, I refer you to the papers of May and Gates in the Pacific Historical Review. That is not to say such acts did not happen, but rather to separate the truth from the fiction of such events.

12)Last but not least is that Mr. Miller mistakes the "Mountain Meadows Massacre" as an Indian atrocity rather than the Mormon atrocity it was.

In closing allow me to remind you that the Philippine War was far more complicated than Mr. Miller purports.
The Philippines at the time comprised some 8 million people in a land area of 300 million square kilometers Today the population is over 100 million.

The story of the Philippine War is very complicated and is ill served by a volume such as Mr. Miller's, which lacks the depth of an informed study.

Best regards,
James Good

Benevolent Assimilation is McKinley's phrase for the civilizing mission of America in the Philippines. Miller makes a good case that the Filipinos neither needed civilizing or Christianizing since they had both. What America really wanted was a colonial empire to establish itself as a great power. McKinley did not know what he wanted, but people made him believe in the civilizing mission of the U.S. government.
What Miller demonstrates in this book is that the Philippines wanted independence and not American government. The revolt which followed the Spanish American War was long and devastated the islands. Thousands lost their lives, and American troops showed no mercy in putting down the revolt. The revolt lasted for over three years, and cost the U.S. much in men and treasure.
America won, but lost seventy years later in Vietnam.