Book Description
It has been termed an insurgency, a revolution, a guerrilla war, and a conventional war. As David J. Silbey demonstrates in this taut, compelling history, the 1899 Philippine-American War was in fact all of these. Played out over three distinct conflicts—one fought between the Spanish and the allied United States and Filipino forces; one fought between the United States and the Philippine Army of Liberation; and one fought between occupying American troops and an insurgent alliance of often divided Filipinos—the war marked America’s first steps as a global power and produced a wealth of lessons learned and forgotten.
In A War of Frontier and Empire, Silbey traces the rise and fall of President Emilio Aguinaldo, as Aguinaldo tries to liberate the Philippines from colonial rule only to fail, devastatingly, before a relentless American army. He tracks President McKinley’s decision to commit troops and fulfill a divinely inspired injunction to “uplift and civilize” despite the protests of many Americans. Most important, Silbey provides a clear lens to view the Philippines as, in the crucible of war, it transforms itself from a territory divided by race, ethnicity, and warring clans into a cohesive nation on the path to independence.
Customer Reviews:
Understanding American and Philippine History.......2007-09-10
Historian David Silbey examines the Philippine-American War in his book, A WAR OF FRONTIER AND EMPIRE: THE PHILIPPINE-AMERICAN WAR, 1899-1902. After reading the book, the bottom line is that the event was controversial and misinterpreted in terms of gender roles, racial stereotypes, politics, economics, and imperialistic endeavors. Although historians argue that the war may have been a blunder on America's part, Silbey broadly suggests that in the eyes of the Filipino people, it was a victory that took over 40 years to achieve. Despite Philippine freedom from Spanish colonial rule in 1899, it was the annexation of the territory by the United States in 1902, which deferred that freedom until after World War II.
As a military historian, Silbey engages the reader with core American military and political leaders who were involved in the conflict as well as the background information pertaining to how the conflict originated. There is no doubt that readers will have a better understanding of who the key individuals were, such as President William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, Brig. General Arthur MacArthur, General Elwell Otis, Emilio Aguinaldo, and Gregorio del Pilar. An interesting aspect of the book is how Silbey maintains objectivity and parallels this event with previous historical events and leaders, shadows of the Civil War and President Lincoln and links and origins of the war, such as the sinking of the Maine and US intervention in Cuba, which triggered involvement in the Philippines with the Battle of Manila Bay. Furthermore, it was refreshing to see that Silbey makes an attempt to discuss and introduce the social, cultural, and geography of the Philippines and the Filipino people.
For readers who have studied this particular event, they will not find new findings or the use of undiscovered resource material in this book. Thus Silbey's narrative is derived from scholarly works that have been published during the past 100 years. And due to the size of the book, 218 pages of narrative, excluding the recommended reading list, notes, and index that are included within the concluding pages, the book serves as an introduction to the event rather than an extensive study of the war.
Overall, although WAR OF FRONTIER AND EMPIRE may not be a definitive study, it is recommended reading for anyone who wants to become familiar with this event in history. Unless one takes a history class or visits a museum that exposes or displays the complicated issues of war and history, and in particular, the Philippine-American War, this may be another part of history that may be forgotten. Undoubtedly, for the curious historian who may want to learn more about his topic, there may need to be further research and scholarly work done about this part of American and Philippine history.
A starting point for me.......2007-08-08
I know so little about this era in the Philippines that this book gave me some acquaintance with the issues and events.
Early on I noted two items that caused me to read with skepticism. On p. 27 it says that the Queen (Lili'oukalani) of Hawaii was deposed in 1883, but as of this time she had not yet ascended to the throne. On p.17 it says that the US Civil War "devastated large areas of Pennsylvania, Virginia, Georgia and the Carolinas" and I wonder about the inclusion of Pennsylvania on such a list. I checked other Amazon reviews and saw that one poster documented a number of other problems.
This is a very readable history. I did not come away any memory of facts of dates, places, battles, names, but did get from the interesting presentation a reasonably credible framework for acquiring more knowledge about the Philippines and its history.
For the size of the book, there are a good number of very interesting photographs.
How well does the author know his subject?.......2007-07-10
I saw the author, David Silbey, on C-SPAN and I was stunned by his mispronunciations of basic terms - "TAG-uh-log" and "KAY-vite." How can you spend time researching and writing a book yet still have such gaps of knowledge? These errors made me wonder if Mr. Silbey has ever visited the Philippines or if he's ever even spoken to a Filipino. This important subject, which parallels today's headlines, deserves a more thorough, balanced treatment. For me, "Little Brown Brother" by Leon Wolff remains the best account of the era.
Somewhat Disappointed.......2007-07-08
I recently saw a televised program of David Silbey's lecture at Temple University regarding his book, "A War of Frontier and Empire." As a grandson of a soldier who fought during the Philippine Insurrection (Philippine-American War), I was most anxious to read Mr. Sibley's book. I was also interested in his book since I was a student for two years at a Philippine university where I studied Philippine history and sociology. As I listened to his interpretation of the causes of the war, I was immediately struck with his terrible mispronunciation of common Philippine words such as Tagalog, the name of the main language of the large Philippine island of Luzon, and the name of the naval base, Cavite. If a serious scholar of the Philippines cannot pronounce common names important to the history of the country, then I somewhat doubt his research. This problem is also coupled with the spelling of place names which is not consistent with normal usage.
SERIOUSLY FLAWED.......2007-07-05
Yes, the subject of the Philippine-American War has not been sufficiently treated. Yes (p.xv), "Too much of Philippine history has been ... framed from an outsider's perspective." And yes (p.219), "the literature on the Philippine-American War is not of particularly high quality, with a number of important exceptions." Regrettably, I wouldn't make this book an exception.
An associate professor of history, the author was in position to contribute some insights into the connections between the Philippine-American War and both European history and domestic American politics. If he has actually accomplished that with any skill, it is negated by the numerous errors permeating the book which cast doubt on the credibility of almost every pronouncement. Distractions caused by those errors sometimes made it difficult for me to follow analysis in the text, and I found myself wincing.
Personal and geographic names are often wrong. Sorsogon is almost
unrecognizable as Sargosan, Dagupan is Pagupan, Banaue (or Banawe) is
Banane, Cagayan is Cagayen, Mariquina (or Marikina) is Mariquini, Santo
Tomas is San Tomas, Gen. Henry Lawton is misnamed William, Gen. Mariano
Trias is Antonio, Gen. Vicente Lukban is Vincente Lukhban, Apolinario
Mabini is Apollinaro, Reynaldo (Rey) Ileto is Raymond, etc.
Strangely wrong statements abound. Guam is in the Carolines and
Batangas is a plural which appears as The Batangas. The crucial category of mestizo is overlooked in the analysis of Philippine society. Aguinaldo was said to have been in Europe in the Spring of 1898, and his family owned a plantation. Andres Bonifacio was an ilustrado, which is defined as upper-class or educated in Europe. Rizal's family members were implied to be insulares, meaning Spaniards born in the Philippines. The title of Rizal's novel Noli Me Tangere was said to be an appropriation of an American theme, an echo of the slogan "Don't mess with me" (p.12). The author may have intended a comparison with the early American snake flag Don't tread on me. However, Rizal explained that his title, from the biblical Latin meaning Touch Me Not, meant he was dealing with subjects previously taboo.
The author uncritically swallows the discredited thesis of Glenn May
that Andres Bonifacio was an invented hero, a thesis which he classifies
(p.223) as "On the Philippine side of things." The behavior of Gen. Daniel Tirona in Dec. 1899 is featured as the example of Filipino co-optation by the Americans, but the author fails to mention that Tirona was already notorious in Philippine history for his reported role in the rift of Filipino revolutionary forces, when he slanderously denounced Bonifacio at the Tejeros Conference of 1897. Then, soon after Tejeros, Tirona cravenly surrendered to the Spanish enemy. Might the author have missed that connection because of consistently misspelling Tirona as Tirono?
Two of the photos implied to show fighting in the Philippines were
probably taken in the U.S.: "Death in the ranks of the Kansans" and The
Twentieth Kansas Volunteers commanded by Frederick Funston. A photo
captioned A Spanish fort outside of Manila is actually a view of the walled city of Manila, Intramuros.
A longer review with further commentary on many dubious or debatable
declarations of the author is not merited, although I want to state my disagreement with his opinion (p. 31) that in 1898 there was a "long American tradition of noninterference in foreign affairs." The 1893 (not 1883) American overthrow of the Hawaiian government is indeed described in the book. And in just the Pacific, what about the forced trade treaties with Japan and in Indochina by battleship diplomacy, the demands for extraterritorial rights in China, the grabbing of a piece of Samoa?
4 July 2007.
Customer Reviews:
deja vu, one century on.......2005-11-22
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.
Imperialism Up Close.......2004-10-20
This book is an excellent general history of the American invasion and conquest of The Philippines in 1898-1902. The author immersed himself in private letters, official hearings, and newspaper editorials from the era. The result of this research is a compelling picture of a sleazy and violent episode in American history, when Republican politicians launched a war to boost their prospects in the 1898 midterm elections. The book is timelier than ever after 9/11, since imperialism has come back into vogue in the guise of anti-terrorism -- anyone who has illusions about America's "innocence" today should read Miller's accounts of atrocities and racism circa 1900.
I gave the book four stars instead of five only because the narrative is based almost exclusively on U.S. sources. In particular, Miller's endless rehashing of imperialist and anti-imperialist newspaper editorials gets quite old at times.
Template for imperialism and modern imperial war.......2004-02-10
While many scholars and "military analysts" (Linn) have written up this war, none have done a more exhaustive job than Miller in detailing the rapacious American conquest of the Philippines, at the high and middle policy making levels. Also richly detailed is the political conflict among Americans, between hate-spewing war-mongering politicians and media voices and opponents of the war. As Miller aptly points out, the war served as the very template of later wars in Vietnam, and, frighteningly, today's "war on terrorism". Highest possible recommendation for anyone wanting a better understanding of the world, and human conflict.
America's first Vietnam. We won this one........2003-02-18
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.
Suberb history of a forgotten war.......2000-07-28
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.
Book Description
1999 began the centennial of the Philippine War, one of the most controversial and poorly understood events in American history. The war thrust the U.S. into the center of Pacific and Asian politics, with important and sometimes tragic consequences. It kept the Filipinos under colonial overlordship for another five decades and subjected them to American political, cultural, and economic domination.
In the first comprehensive study in over six decades, Linn provides a definitive treatment of military operations in the Philippines. From the pitched battles of the early war to the final campaigns against guerrillas, Linn traces the entire course of the conflict. More than an overview of Filipino resistance and American pacification, this is a detailed study of the fighting in the "boondocks."
In addition to presenting a detailed military history of the war, Linn challenges previous interpretations. Rather than being a clash of armies or societies, the war was a series of regional struggles that differed greatly from island to island. By shifting away from the narrow focus on one or two provinces to encompass the entire archipelago, Linn offers a more thorough understanding of the entire war.
Linn also dispels many of the misunderstandings and historical inaccuracies surrounding the Philippine War. He repudiates the commonly held view of American soldiers "civilizing with a Krag" and clarifies such controversial incidents as the Balangiga Massacre and the Waller Affair.
Exhaustively researched and engagingly written, The Philippine War will become the standard reference on America's forgotten conflict and a major contribution to the study of guerrilla warfare.
This book is part of the Modern War Studies series.
Customer Reviews:
Quetionable citations.......2007-06-02
With as much detail as Linn provides concerning units and their strengths, battle dates, all of which can be taken from most history books, he is 'light' on some of his citations. There is a note of personal vindictiveness in describing some of the historical figures relating to their personal character, yet he does not really back up his 'barbs' or accusations with fact. That said, his 'novelist' approach to what should be strictly a historical document and an objective perspective undermines much of the book's credibility.
Stuart Creighton Miller's 'Benevolent Assimilation' remains the gold standard, Linn's book is simply entertainment.
Philippine War 1899-1902.......2007-01-23
A well balanced study in an oft missrepersented war showing both sides of the war. Note: The Phillipines are who they are today as a direct positive result of this war. This book has many modern applications in what it will take to win an inssurgent war today. You often feel like you are reading todays news complete with an opponent who seeks to effect an American election by American military cuasalties. We didn't fall for it in 1900. This book takes you by island by island, challenges, defeats and victorys. A positive read. Informative. It is not a page turnner which is why only four stars. But if you have a space on your shelf for this time in American military history about a successfull stratergy, this is your book. God Bless America and God Bless you.
Our earliest history of southeast Asian wars.......2006-05-21
Coming on the heels of the recently concluded Spanish War, one could argue that the Philippine war was nearly an extension of that earlier conflict. Indeed, the peace treaties were not even concluded before American forces in the recently occupied Philippines found themselves fighting a confounding insurgency. The obvious differences between the two closely spaced but distinctly different wars are explained in the identity of the enemy, the causes for conflict, and the conduct of war. Brian McAllister Linn's study, The Philippine War stands to give us a clear picture of that footnote of a war that may be otherwise unknown to the alert public.
America's first foray into imperialism ran into trouble from the start. A growing insurgency during the long Spanish rule in the Philippine scarcely slowed down when facing a new occupying power. Also from the start it was clear (more so in hindsight) that this war would not be a true continuation of the last. The insurgency was tough. Later military generations would re-learn the troubles faced in fighting an enemy that looks just like a civilian population and can blend in effortlessly. Likewise, later military leaders would grapple with the thorny issue of how to pacify a semi-popular native guerilla force while displaying the benefits of American rule to a skeptical civilian people. Needless to say it was a difficult task. Linn tackles it well, and shows how the military operations unfolded, often quite poorly and inefficiently, by the various figures. Did America win this war or did the Philippine insurgents lose it? That's a key question for historians, though the basic end effect was the same at the time. American generals first fought an enemy that tried to fight battles in something like the conventional way, and was clobbered by American firepower in each major fight. What began as a somewhat centralized opposition force eventually broke down into a broadly distributed guerilla fight. The lack of coordination proved both a help and a hindrance to both sides.
Then, of course, there is the issue of wartime conduct. To put it plainly, there was limited respect for the rules of warfare on each side. After stumbling in the Spanish War based on American distaste for Spanish anti-insurgent tactics in Cuba, the American effort ended up looking very much the same, with forced civilian relocations used to choke off the enemy's supplies and support. The most obvious difference was that the American Philippine effort produced no mass starvations as in the Spanish Cuban effort, and the American tactics worked. The insurgency dried up. The leaders surrendered. If not in execution, the war's conclusion unfolded with a modicum of civility.
Linn's style is direct and forceful. The very interested reader will find plenty of military tactical detail that the less devout reader may find cumbersome. I can only note that throughout these pages, the high-density details can be read through quickly and with less thorough comprehension without losing the train of thought in the writing. A failure to follow a point will not degrade the overall progression of reading in this book. The end result will still be a much sharper picture of the dramatic history of America's first imperial war.
A Comprehensive Examination.......2006-03-15
Brian McAllister Linn examines the Philippine-American War with meticulous detail. From documents from the National Archives and Philippine secondary literature, Linn has organized a comprehensive and well-researched analysis of the military aspect of the war. He attempts to concentrate on the strategic realm rather than the ideological that have already been discussed and examined in previous scholarship. Linn does not debunk myths or reanalyzes perceptions and interpretations that have existed since the 1960s that involved the atrocities that occurred during the conflict because that is not his intention for this examination of the war.
The book soley concentrates on the military effort or the "American War" and a birds eye view of the Filipino insurgents that have been recorded and documented in the archives. In addition, Linn specifically asserts that the book is a military overview of an event that was accidental and incremental in the acquisition and annexation of Manila during the latter half of the Spanish-American War (5). He discusses the main military actors and participants during the conflict, Maj. Gen. Wesley Merritt, Elwell S. Otis, Brig. Gen. Arthur MacArthur, and Philippine President, Emilio Aguinaldo. He argues that the war was essential in securing trade interests in Asia, but does not support or clarifies speculative claims that involved McKinley and imperialism. As a result of Linn's military study, McKinley is almost absent from this narrative except in the preliminary chapters of the book.
THE PHILIPPINE-AMERICAN WAR, 1899-1902 is divided into two sections. The first half of the book covers the operations in Luzon in 1899 and the second half explores guerilla warfare and pacification campaigns that occurred in 1900-1902. Linn specifically covers different regions of the Archipelago where the conflict occurred in Luzon and the Visayas Islands, which included the overlooked region of Negros. Linn's descriptive narrative and background information in the form of maps are helpful for readers who are not too familiar with the Philippine Islands and their distinct regions, which consists of over 7,000 islands and covers 500,000 square miles (15).
Linn's study respects the military and civilian voices of the past. He credits the military leadership and volunteers in the success of securing the Islands. Linn's play by play historical narrative provides a neutral approach in telling the story of one of American history's most difficult and complex events. For every event in history, each has its own story and circumstance, and cannot be compared to other conflicts that may have happened in the past or in recent times. However, it is yet another chapter in history that needs to be better understood.
Very good but boring.......2005-09-25
I agree with many other reviewers that this is an informative book and that the author has clearly done his homework. However, a combination of style and organization of the material makes it extremely boring to read. This is a book for those who are REALLY interested in the topic not for the casual reader.
Book Description
After defeating the Philippine Republic's conventional forces in 1899, the U.S. Army was broken up into small garrisons to prepare Luzon for colonial rule. The Filipino nationalists transformed their resistance into a guerrilla warfare that varied so greatly from region to region in its organization, strategy, and tactics that early American attempts at centralization and nonmilitary pacification were useless. The study offers new insights for counterinsurgency theory and for the study of America's military experience in Asia.
Customer Reviews:
A fascinating, meticulously documented case study in guerrilla warfare.......2005-09-13
"The U.S. Army and Counterinsurgency in the Philippine War, 1899-1902," by Brian McAllister Linn, is a superb contribution to military history. In the book's opening chapter, Linn vividly sketches out the complex environment faced by the U.S. Army as it began its occupation of the Philippines after Spain's defeat. Linn discusses the different sociopolitical factions in Philippine society, the ethnic divisions, the revolutionary Katipunan society, religious rebel groups, and bandit gangs. He also begins to create his picture of the structure of the guerrilla forces faced by the U.S. troops.
As the book progresses, Linn looks at the shape of both the insurgency and U.S. counterinsurgency activity in different parts of the Philippines. He covers many important topics: the insurgent infrastructure that supported the anti-U.S. guerrillas, the impact of terrain on U.S. operations, how disease affected U.S. troops, the use of terrorism by insurgent forces, the U.S. Army's use of native Filipino auxiliary forces, and American efforts in the areas of civil government and public works. He emphasizes the role of military intelligence in the conflict, and offers intriguing analysis of the leadership on both sides of the war. Along the way he introduces us to some truly remarkable personalities, both Filipino and American.
Linn's book is meticulously documented. The main text (pages 1-170) is followed by extensive endnotes (171-234) and a substantial bibliography (235-47). The bibliography cites a rich diversity of source material, including manuscript collections, letters, diaries, veterans' questionnaires, books, dissertations, and government publications. The text is further enhanced by an index, six illuminating maps, and eight pages of black-and-white photographs depicting people on both sides of the conflict. The book is written in a clear, logical manner; Linn emphasizes facts and incorporates quotes from primary sources into his text. He successfully maintains a tone of scholarly impartiality, even when discussing potentially sensational and controversial material.
In his preface, Linn notes that it is the "diversity, both in the Filipino resistance and the American response, that makes the Philippine War so fascinating." As I read this masterful work of history, I was struck, over and over again, by what I saw as parallels between the Philippine War and the contemporary Iraq War. Indeed, I consider this book essential reading for those who wish to learn more about issues in military occupation, insurgency, and guerrilla warfare.
Book Description
"[An] undercurrent of urgency is still true today and it runs through the pages of this anthology, brilliantly organized by Shaw and Francia. It is truly an anthology that "breathes." And I too hope that Vestiges of War will inspire others to engage in similar projects and expand on what the editors have initiated." —American Studies International
"An extraordinary collection of literary, artistic, and historical work which fills the huge gap in what Americans know about their nation's relationship to the Philippines, in war and peace."—Howard Zinn, author of A People's History of the United States
"Through forceful poems, archival phots, art, visual essays, plays and memoirs, three dozen contributors. . .weigh in against the glossed over or repressed history of the war and its aftermath in the Philippines. . . . If more textbooks were written like this, there might be fewer wars."
—The Japan Times
"It is the rich variety of sources, the many ways of expressing the dilemma and duality of the "special relationship," that is the strength in this volume."
—H-Net
"The collection illuminates Filipinos' long and complicated relationship with the United States through the successive tragedies of paleo-, neo-, and postcolonialism."
— The Journal of American History
U.S. intervention in the Philippines began with the little-known 1899 Philippine-American War. Using the war as its departure point in analyzing U.S.-Philippine relations,
Vestiges of War retrieves this willfully forgotten event and places it where it properly belongs—as the catalyst that led to increasing U.S. interventionism and expansionism in the Asia Pacific region. This seminal, multidisciplinary anthology examines the official American nationalist story of "benevolent assimilation" and fraternal tutelage in its half century of colonial occupation of the Philippines.
Integrating critical and visual art essays, archival and contemporary photographs, dramatic plays, and poetry to address the complex Philippine and U.S. perspectives and experiences, the essayists compellingly recount the consequences of American colonialism in the Philippines.
Vestiges of War will force readers to reshape their views on what has been a deliberately obscure but significant phase in the histories of both countries, one which continues to haunt the present.
Contributors include: Genara Banzon, Santiago Bose, Ben Cabrera, Renato Constantino, Doreen Fernandez, Eric Gamalinda, Guillermo Gomez-Pena, Jessica Hagedorn, Reynaldo Ileto, Yong Soon Min, Manuel Ocampo, Paul Pfeiffer, Christina Quisumbing, Vicente Rafael, Daniel Boone Schirmer, Kidlat Tahimik, Mark Twain, and Jim Zwick.
Customer Reviews:
Excellent accounting and entertaining as well.......2006-10-16
David Bain does an excellent job of recounting the journey of Funston to capture Aquinaldo as well as his own recreation of the journey with his brother and friends. I enjoyed his ability to remain objective and balanced, his candor and humor as well. This is a must read for those looking to understand what transpired during 1898 - 1901 in the Philippines as well as what Bain's team experienced during their 1982 expedition. The book ends with the Marcos regime and the asassination of Benigno Aquino.
Funston's and America's Greatest Special Forces Action.......2005-08-13
I must agree with a prior reviewer that this is a great book that detail's Funston's plan to capture the leader of the filipino resistance and end the insurgency that followed America's invasion of the Philippine Islands during the Spanish American War. Funston's action can only be described as audacious and was tactically successful. While it did not end the resistance, it should have gone down as one of the most successful small unit raids ever conducted in Military History. Funston used indigenous forces along with a small contingent of American soldiers to achieve his goal and capture Aguinaldo.
I wonder why there are not more books available on Funston. Be that as it may, this book does justice to Funston and his raid.
Review from the Washington Post.......2005-04-16
The Washington Post, February 24, 1985
IN WHICH WAR was the term "Gook" invented? When did American soldiers conduct their first body count and pioneer the use of the "water cure" to persuade Asian guerrillas to betray their comrades?
After which battle did a young rifleman write home to the folks in Kingston, New York, "I am in my glory when I can sight my gun on some dark skin and pull the trigger"?
Modern as it all sounds, the answer is not Vietnam, or even Korea or World War II. The American conquest of the Philippines barely rates a mention in school history books, usually as a cryptic footnote to the short war which President William McKinley and publisher William Randolph Hearst waged on Spain in 1898 for the independence of Cuba and the circulation of Hearst's newspapers. Yet 126,458 Americans fought in the Philippines between 1898 and 1902, of whom 4,234 died, while 16,000 Filipinos died in battle and another 200,000 in "reconcentration camp." There were in addition massacres of civilians in reprisal for guerrilla attacks and similar sideshows all too familiar in subsequent Asian wars.
The story of how, and why America liberated the Philippines from Spain and then took the islands back from their inhabitants two weeks later is a complicated one, already well told in one of the classics of American historiography, Leon Wolff's Little Brown Brother, published in 1960. But the writing of history is never finished, and David Haward Bain has managed another fine book on the subject, not disagreeing with Wolff's conclusions, but making them fresh and vivid for a generation which has seen yet another Asian war.
This is not, however, simply another tale of savagery in the rice paddies. Almost as if he could read tomorrow's newspapers, Bain has brought his account up to the minute, with perceptive entries, for instance, indexed under Aquino Benigno and Ver, General Fabian (the latter currently on trial for complicity in the former's assassination). This energetic young historian has thus pulled off that rarest of publishing coups, a scholarly historical work of bang-on topicality. He has, what's more, found a most original way of bringing his story to life.
From this distance, and even at the time, the American conquest of the Philippines has always been difficult to fathom. But, then and now, two figures jump forth from a cast of thousands: Emilio Aguinaldo, not quite 30, brave and passionately patriotic, the president of the republic of the Philippines proclaimed as the beaten Spaniards departed (and the first republic in Asia) and Colonel Frederick Funston, six years older, who drove the last nail into the republic's coffin by capturing Aguinaldo on March 23, 1901, after a long and daring hunt through the jungles and mountains of northern Luzon.
Aguinaldo, who looked remarkably like his current successor, Ferdinand Marcos, survived his capture and lived a long life, long enough to welcome the arrival of the Japanese in 1942 (understandably, perhaps; the new invaders also promised liberation), to march in the Manila independence parade of 1946, carrying the flag he first raised against Spain in 1896, and to see a new American war just getting under way in Asia in 1964, the year of his death. A largely forgotten figure now, even in the Philippines, Aguinaldo emerges from Bain's book an authentic hero and his republic a tragically missed chance for the United States to have been the protector of Asia's first genuine democracy.
His captor, the adventurous son of a Kansas politician known as "Foghorn Funston, the farmers' friend" was plainly just as archetypal a figure. "I am afraid that some people at home will lie awake nights worrying about the ethics of this war, thinking that our enemy is fighting for the right of self-government" he told a New York Times correspondent. "The word independent, which these people roll over their tongues so glibly, is to them a word, and not much more . . . . they are, as a rule, an illiterate, semisavage people, who are waging war, not against tyranny, but against Anglo-Saxon order and decency." Funston's feat, a mixture of reckless daring and ingenious double-cross, or what used to be known in Vietnam as a "John Wayne stunt," was the stuff of movies, and would have made a splendid vehicle for James Cagney (Funston was 5 feet 4 inches tall and touchy about it) if Hollywood had blossomed before American imperialism went out of fashion.
BUT, LIKE MANY a veteran from the East, Funston could not settle down to life back home, took to the bottle and died at 51 in 1917, when he was being seriously considered for command of the American Expeditionary Force that went to France that year. But for his heart attack, in fact, we would very likely now be debating the merits of the Funston rocket instead of the one named for his deputy, General John Pershing, who got the job instead.
Here, unmistakably, we have the Green Beret, or cowboy turned romantic military stuntman. In fact, Funston's boss, General Arthur MacArthur, father of the even more famous Douglas, was an old Indian fighter, and so were many of his buddies in the 20th Kansas infantry he led to the Philippines. The fact that the Far East is West of the Wild West has profoundly shaped America's wars there, a point made in the insightful and absurd movie The Deer Hunter.
It is hard to quarrel with Bain's conclusion that the years of American rule did little or nothing to solve the basic political problem of the Philippines. After three centuries of Spanish colonial government, the islands had none of the institutions of self-rule and no experience of it. All the new rulers achieved was a superficial Americanization of the illustrades, the Hispanicized native upper class, leaving the masses in pious poverty and the way open for a native-born dictatorship to follow the authoritarian rule of slippery Spaniards and decent Anglo-Saxons. People learn self-government by governing themselves and making their own mistakes, and America put off the Philippines' fateful day for 50 years, failing, in the end, even to supply the military protection that is the only justification for empire.
But Americans are still well thought of in the Philippines, as Bain and a group of friends, including his photographer-brother Christopher, discovered when they repeated Funston's epic trek through the Luzon jungle in 1982, talking to the same locals, fording the same streams, and being bitten by descendants of the same mosquitoes which bit the pint-sized adventurer and his party 80 years earlier. Melding past and present, and interweaving the historical background with present politics brings vividly home the long shadows still cast by America's first adventure in Asia. This is an important story, honestly researched and well told -- a second classic, in fact, on a fascinating subject.
sitting in darkness helped me see the light.......2000-06-26
Truly a wonderful book...more like 2 or 3 books in one. It traces the early life of Funston..worthy of a book on its own but none out there that I can find. if you like the adventurous explorer scholarly type this is the man. Kind of a Richard Burton character...no silly... not the actor.Then it traces the history of the rebel movement at the turn of the century with the focus on Aguinaldo's movements in Northern Luzon. And finally it traces the author and his merry band as they retrace the steps of Funston in his bid to capture Aguinaldo in the early 1980's. So, in short if you are a student of history...READ IT!. If you like adventure or war stories...READIT! if you like drama...READ IT! If you know someone in the philippines...READ IT! I really had no idea of what happened over there or what role the usa had played over there. I don't think it was even mentioned in school. A real eye opener. Uhh, can you tell i liked it?
Book Description
A remarkable study of an age that incorporated the spirit of the nineteenth-century with the technology of modern aggression One hundred years ago American colonial ambition found expression in the seizure and occupation of Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines, and intervention in the Boxer Rebellion in China. These military enterprises cast the American Army in a dramatic new role; the G.I.s had to suddenly adapt from policing the American interior to sustaining an international power in far-flung corners of the world.
Customer Reviews:
Completely Unstructured; Captioned Pictures Only.......2006-01-16
This little (but not very inexpensive) book consists of a four-page summary of the America's turn-of-the-century colonial wars and a considerable, though very hit-or-miss, collection of captioned illustrations.
During my second read-through I started organizing the random facts into a coherent (though highly conjectural) system of understanding and I noted the few contradictory (at least by implication) captions. During my third and fourth read-throughs, I tweaked my assumptions and formed somewhat informed opinions regarding which captions were more likely to be entirely accurate. Hopefully I have constructed a passing understanding of the subject, but clearly this is an unnecessarily frustrating way to learn. Also, the editing is probably even worse than that of the average book I read.
There are many hints that the author has more than sufficient knowledge to answer my questions; he just seems to have assumed that his audience has no desire for a remotely systematic knowledge of the subject. However, if you are only interested in members of the "big three" branches of the U. S. Army and do not mind doing some deduction, then you may find it satisfactory.
Clear and Interesting Study.......1999-07-20
The author has produced a slew of photo studies with incisive text on the life and times of the U.S. soldier, and his Spanish and Mexican californio predecessors also. His specialty is in gathering together contemporary source material for the illustrations. This method has the great virtue of showing what was what and when. But if no photos are available, then something may be omitted. All of these books are vertical studies covering a period of years. Though sometimes the illustrations serve to identify individual items of equipment, these works are not intended for that purpose. They are not catalogs intended for materiel collectors. They are of such a length and of such a level of detail that they will serve the purposes of the general reader with a curiousity about what grandaddy did in WW II or great great great grandaddy in the Civil War and what he looked like and how he lived. This is not to say that the specialist such as myself cannot find useful nuggets herein. I can. I use these for general surveys of periods I do not study in detail, such as the Civil War, and the War With Mexico, etc. And to look up the odd facts. I have yet to be disappointed with any of them.
Average customer rating:
- New York Times Book Review
- Excellent study of the Massachusetts-based opposition.
|
Republic or Empire: American Resistance to the Philippine War
Daniel B. Schirmer
Manufacturer: Schenkman Books
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback
 Philippines
| Asia
| History
| Subjects
| Books
Relations
| International
| Politics
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Reference
| Subjects
| Books
ASIN: 087073105X |
Customer Reviews:
New York Times Book Review.......2005-04-16
New York, N.Y.: Jul 23, 1972.
Republic Or Empire; American Resistance to the Philippine War. By Daniel B. Schirmer. Preface by Howard Zinn. 298 pp
The anti-imperialists of 1898 to 1904, long ignored, have been honored as prophets within the past several years by protesters seeking withdrawal from Vietnam. The anti-imperialist's' protests against military coercion of far-off dark-skinned peoples and their warnings against the perils and iniquities of empire have acquired a new cogency. Schirmer's is one of several full scale studies to appear since Americans became involved in Vietnam-and, although his New Left interpretations (fro the most part) follow a familiar outline, his is one of the most thoughtful and interesting of the accounts. The main thrust is an economic determinism that is by no means an innovation of the New Left, since it represents pretty much the ideology of the anti-imperialists themselves-and of American protestors against involvement in war an overseas interventions throughout the 1920's and 1930's.
Schirmer sees a line of aggressive development in American history that runs from the early settlers wrestling land from the Indians to the present venture in Southeast Asia, and a second line of opposition. But he confines himself to events from the 1880's into the early 1900's, focusing on the Philippine insurrection. In these events there are parallels to the Vietnam war and also striking differences; Schirmer's book should be read as a historical interpretation of the anti-imperialist movement, not as a parable of present-day troubles.
Yet the theme of Americans' revulsion to wars is as persistent as that of their involvement in them. To this Schirmer adds the debatable postulate that involvement was primarily for economic gain. Illustrative of his views and the contents of the book is a speech that Morfield Storey, who was to be the prime mover in the anti-imperialist movement, delivered before the Massachusetts Reform Club on the ever of the Spanish-American War:
"Some represented in high Federal office think that war will improve business and increase the gains of the rich. I can't refrain from quoting the reply which was made to one of these last week by a Middlesex Yankee of pure blood. He was a manufacturer of woolen goods, and a dealer in wool said to him, `We want war. Just think of how it will raise the price of wool, and how it will sever to send your good up.' `Yes,' was the answer, `but think how much more the dye stuff will cost. I can't afford to dye my goods in American blood. It comes to high.'"
Storey warned that the war would be a turning point in American development-for, with victory, "we should be fairly launched upon a policy of military aggression, of territorial expansion, of standing armies and growing navies...inconsistent with the continuance of our institutions." When the war did turn into a quick rout of Spain and offer opportunities for the United States to acquire colonies, Storey and likeminded leaders organized the American Anti-Imperialist League. First, it fought against the treaty of acquisition with Spain. Then, in the election of 1900, it allied itself with William Jennings Bryan and workingmen to try and defeat the McKinley Administration. Nut McKinley secured ratification of the treaty-and in 1900, with the slogan of the "full dinner pail" routed Bryan and the anti-imperialists.
The final stand of the anti-imperialists was against the cruel subjugation of the insurgents and unfriendly villages during the drawn-out Philippine insurrection-a far bloodier and more costly struggle than the Spanish-American War. In this instance their publicizing of atrocities did much to bring reform within the military establishment, but not the relinquishment, until a generation later, of the Philippines. They also succeeded in turning American feelings against further territorial acquisitions. Secretary of State John Hay told a friend in the spring of 1900 that public opinion would not stand for annexation of territory in China. Schirmer says the shift was only one "from outright colonialism to indirect forms of political domination, accompanied by economic penetration, and, on occasion, by military intervention."
What distinguishes Schirmer's interpretation is the emphasis he places upon the role of racism in the imperialist thrust, and the interrelationship between the maintenance of white supremacy in the South and the domination of dark-skinned people in the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippines. Anti-imperialists were striking at their racism as much as at military and economic exploitations. He points out, as have others, that the anti-imperialist leaders-predominantly Bostonians-were elderly survivors of the abolitionist movement; Storey had been secretary to the abolitionist Senator Charles Sumner. He might have added that after the waning of anti-imperialism, Storey helped mount the N.A.A.C.P. fight in the courts to win bit-by-bit equality under the law for black people.
The imperialist ventures coincided with a new wave of state legislation and mob action throughout the South to block Negroes from the polls. In the election of 1898, more than a score of North Carolina blacks were killed, and four more lynched. The ant-imperialists Boston Advertiser declared, "The white man's government of the North Carolina pattern is precisely the government which so-called expansionists hope to put in operation... in the Philippines." And the imperialist Memphis Commercial Appeal Agreed: "How are we going to govern the Philippines, Hawaii, and other new possessions? Peaceably if we can; or like the white men are doing in the Carolinas, if we must, but govern them we will."
Negro leaders, protesting against both lynchings and imperialism charged that McKinley was seeking Southern support for his acquisitions by dropping the traditional Republican gestures toward Negro rights. Archibald H. Grimke joined other prominent Boston lawyers in urging Negroes to vote against the party of Lincoln: "Scratch the skin of Republican leaders like Hanna, Lodge, Roosevelt and McKinley and you will find race prejudice underneath, and invincible belief on their part in the divine right to the Anglo-Saxon to govern the republic and subject darker races." Further, the plutocracy unless checked, "would ultimately convert the republic into an empire...into a government of by and for vast syndicates of wealth."
Despite the rather simplistic overall interpretation resulting from Schirmer's preoccupation with economic factors, this is an important book. It would have been even better if he had broken out of the confining mold of New Left history and ranged more widely in his examination of motivations and actions-particularly of the imperialist and their large following.
Excellent study of the Massachusetts-based opposition........1995-10-16
Based on thorough research in manuscript collections and the
contemporary press, this is the most informed study of the
Massachusetts-based opposition to the
Philippine-American War (1899-1902) and turn-of-the-century
U.S. imperialism.
Books:
- America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It
- America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It
- America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It
- Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army
- Blind Man's Bluff: The Untold Story of American Submarine Espionage
- Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking
- Bound for Oregon
- Calculated Risk: The Extraordinary Life of Jimmy Doolittle-Aviation Pioneer and World War II Hero
- Chief of Station, Congo: Fighting the Cold War in a Hot Zone
- Civil Rights Chronicle (The African-American Struggle for Freedom)
Books Index
Books Home
Recommended Books
- The Destruction of the European Jews
- In a Strange City
- Art Deco Ornamental Ironwork
- Concise Oxford Textbook of Medicine
- Dust and Chemistry in Astronomy
- History: Fiction or Science
- Jane and His Lordship's Legacy
- American Farmhouses: Country Style and Design
- Basic Perspective Drawing: A Visual Approach
- Palyno-Taxonomy of Selected Indian Liverworts
The Spanish-American War and Philippine Insurrection: 1898-1902 (Men-at-Arms)
Three Empires on the Nile: The Victorian Jihad, 1869-1899
A Glorious Defeat: Mexico and Its War with the United States
Invading Mexico: America's Continental Dream and the Mexican War, 1846-1848
Benevolent Assimilation: The American Conquest of the Philippines, 1899-1903
