|By William Loren Katz
Weapons of mass destruction, a slam-dunk war followed by a no-end-in-sight occupation? We’ve been here before when a century ago the U.S. first sent an army overseas to accomplish regime change and liberate a resource-rich land from tyranny.
Leading the hawks in 1898 was a young, flamboyant Teddy Roosevelt, an assistant secretary of the Navy who claimed war stimulated "spiritual renewal," and the "clear instinct for racial selfishness." Not a man to hide in the National Guard, TR personally led his "Rough Riders" at San Juan Hill, and returned from Cuba with one regret –"there was not enough war to go around."
Now he was riding to the White House.
For two years General Emilio Aguinaldo and his freedom-fighting guerilla army had fought Spain’s cruel occupation fully ready to govern a free Philippines. But before he left for Cuba, TR sent Admiral George Dewey’s U.S. fleet to Manila Bay where it sank the Spanish fleet. Dewey assured Aguinaldo the U.S. "had come to . . . free the Filipinos from the yoke of Spain." But U.S. troops landed on Luzon, prevented Aguinaldo from entering Manila, and Washington appointed a puppet government.
Filipinos first welcomed Americans as liberators. But in June when Aguinaldo issued a declaration of independence, the pro-war U.S. press began to demonize Aguinaldo, and a U.S. general told Congress that Filipinos who wanted freedom had "no more idea of its meaning than a shepherd dog."
President McKinley said he spent many sleepless nights agonizing about the Philippines. The president called his program "benevolent assimilation." The influential San Francisco Argonaut was more candid: "We do not want the Filipinos. We want the Philippines. The islands are enormously rich, but unfortunately, they are infested with Filipinos."
A U.S. army of 70,000 [including 6,000 Black troops] was sent to pacify the islands and, as more than one white soldier said, "just itching to get at the niggers." General William Shafter told a journalist it might be necessary to kill half the population to bring "perfect justice" to the other half.
After General Jack Smith promised to turn the Philippines into a "howling wilderness" most casualties were civilians. Smith defined the foe as any male or female "ten years and up," and told his soldiers: "I want no prisoners. I wish you to kill and burn; the more you kill and burn the better it will please me."
U.S. officers encouraged the use of torture, murder of prisoners, and massacre of villagers, including women and children. A Kansas soldier wrote "The country won’t be pacified until the niggers are killed off like the Indians."
Another white soldier reported brutal "sights you could hardly believe" and he reached this conclusion: "A white man seems to forget that he is human."
The U.S. had entered a quagmire. "The Filipino masses are loyal to Aguinaldo and the government he leads," conceded U.S. General Arthur MacArthur. He thought the foe "needed bayonet treatment for at least a decade." His time assessment proved prophetic. In early 1901 a U.S. journalist concluded "that the Filipino hates U.S. . . permanent guerrilla warfare will continue for years."
He reported endless guerilla attacks that took one or two U.S. lives at a time and created a "spirit of bitterness in the rank and file of the army." A U.S. Red Cross worker reported "American soldiers are determined to kill every Filipino in sight" and said he saw "horribly mutilated Filipino bodies."
In March, 1901 U.S. officers saw victory when Aguinaldo was captured, agreed to swear allegiance to the United States, and to persuade his officers to accept amnesty. But quagmires can sink fond hopes. Six months later guerillas on Samar attacked a U.S. garrison and massacred 45 U.S. officers and enlisted men with bolos and bare hands. The occupation’s most shocking defeat exposed U.S. propaganda about a defeated foe and a easy occupation. The U.S. media compared Samar to General Custer at the Little Big Horn, pro-imperialist editors talked about being "hoodwinked," and The San Francisco Call reminded Americans "a conquered people" do not remain conquered for long. "It is utterly foolish to pretend . . . the end is in sight," admitted General Adna Chaffee.
By 1902 U.S. Senate hearings and scores of Army court martial trials found that U.S. occupying forces were guilty of "war crimes." General Robert Hughes admitted he ordered the burning of villages and murder of women and children. When asked by a Senator if this was "civilized warfare," he answered, "these people are not civilized." The Baltimore American wondered why the U.S. carried out "we went to war to banish."
President Teddy Roosevelt followed McKinley to the White House and continued to justify the occupation, dismiss Filipinos as "Chinese half-breeds," and to insist this was "the most glorious war in our nation's history." Congress spent $170 million on its occupation.
Mark Twain, two former presidents and other prominent citizens formed an Anti-Imperialist League that had tens of thousands attending protest meetings and signing petitions that denounced U.S. atrocities and imperial designs. One prominent African American bravely declared:"We shall neither fight for such a country nor with such an army," and many others spoke out as well. The African American press stood united against a U.S. government that exported its racist "deviltry" overseas, and some labor unions began to connect the dots between overseas imperialism and government suppression of strikes at home.
Nearly three thousand military actions continued until 1911, took 200,000 Filipino lives, and the U.S. suffered 4,234 combat deaths. More than a dozen US servicemen defected to Aguinaldo, and half of these were African Americans although soldiers of color comprised less than ten percent of the US army of occupation.
Filipino independence came in 1945 but bitterness continued with Washington support for brutal dictators such as Ferdinand Marcos who looted his country for twenty years. Vice President George Walker Bush arrived in Manila to praise Marcos "adherence to democratic principles" and the next year a massive, nonviolent uprising forced Marcos to flee.
On October 18, 2003 President George W. Bush came to Manila to promote his war on terrorism. For the Philippine Congress, he rewrote history when he said: "Together our soldiers liberated the Philippines."
Our first overseas venture a hundred years ago offers insights into our occupation of Iraq. People always prefer self rule to a foreign master. Resisting self-determination was unpleasant long ago, and it has not and will not be pleasant now. Presidential lies come around to bite again.
William Loren Katz has been affiliated with New York University for more than twenty years and is the author of forty books on US history.This piece was first published by The Black Word Today.
Weathering the Storm
Inside Winslow Homer's Gulf Stream
by Peter H. Wood
University of Georgia Press, 2004.
In this brilliant work of art history and analysis, Peter H. Wood takes an in-depth look at theWinslow Homer masterpiece, The Gulf Stream, and places it in the context of its time.
Unveiled to the public in 1899, the disturbing image of a black man adrift on a damaged boat surrounded by sharks in a turbulent sea has provoked praise and controversy for more than a century.
Wood considers the many interpretations that scholars have put forward for the painting. Is this an anecdotal depiction of a coastal storm? Or a parable on the human condition? Does the haunting image of a fragile life hanging in the balance reflect the artist's own inner turmoil, or is it a representation of America's unresolved social issues.
Homer adroitly dodged questions about its meaning, which Wood interprets as the artist's keen awareness that his painting dealt with issues that Americans were unable or unwilling to confront.
"Americans may now be ready to accept that the canvas deals in subtle and extended ways with slavery, U.S. imperialism in the Caribbean, southern race wars, and Jim Crow segregation," Wood explains.
"He challenged us to ask ourselves
about thye ongoing interconnections between black and white Americans --
past, present and future. But because we as a nation have for generations
denied this aspect of our heritage, it has taken almost a century to realize
Regime Change Begins at Home
by Charles Derber
Berrett Koehler Publishers, 2004
The rationale and requirements for a regime change in the government of the United States are clearly presented and convincingly argued in this citizens' guide to regaining control of our country.
Author Charles Derber, a professor of sociology at Boston College, scrutinizes the marriage of corporate globalization with American imperialism in the Bush Administration and concludes that the offspring is the antithesis not only of what America's founding fathers had in mind, but also much of the nation's political and social mainstream.
"Here is my premise," Derner explains. "Americans are good people with strong democratic traditions. The problem lies in today's regime -- a system of rule based on underlying, and now deeply worrisome, imbalances of power in society between money and people."
Arguing that regime change at home is the highest form of American democracy, protected by the Constitution and honored by historians, Derner shows where the current corporate-government aristocracy is exhibtiing stresses that could lead to sudden and dramatic shifts in values and direction.
Citing the struggle for independence in the 18th century, abolitionism in the 19th century, the rise of populism in the early 1900s and the subsequent suffragist, union and civil rights movements of the 20th century, Derber demonstrates that regime changes in America are not uncommon.
"Most political books attack a problem but offer no solutions, leaving the reader feeling helpless and ready to reach for some Prozac," Derber complains. "To avoid that, I have written an extended final section to show that there is hope for regime change, and to explain how we might achieve it."
Derber's formula involves joining like-minded or like-angered folks in grassroots organizations, networking both nationally and globally, reforming the Democratic Party, rewriting corporate charters to ensure that companies serve the public rather than vice versa, and stripping corporations of Constitional rights that should belong only to flesh-and-blood humans. By their nature, corporations are soulless money-making machines with loyalty only to profits.
"Home," of course, is the United States of America, defender of liberty and guardian of hope for people all over the world; but also, lately, a domineering bully with the planet's largest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction, a defiant violator of U.N. resolutions, and a threat to its own citizens' civil liberties. This book offers instructive advice for restoring true democracy to that homeland.