Title: The Two-faced Benevolent Assimilation

Members: Austria, Patricia Y.

Ladringan, Hannah Lee

The American colonial rule in the Philippines lasted for 48 years and during those

years, we have learned and adapt lots of things that they wanted us to have and

definitely the most important was education and running a government. However,

looking at the story of the Filipino-American war in a Filipino perspective in the

Knowledge and Pacification as written by Reynaldo Ileto, gave us a deeper

understanding of our history. President William McKinley justified their takeover of the

islands as a benevolent and liberating act. But, we do not agree that it was really as

“benevolent” as he said it because there were acts of suppression, deception,

and manipulation.

Americans claimed that the main reason why they went to the Philippines year

1898 was a “benevolent assimilation” or “to help and prepare the Filipinos for

democracy and responsible government.” And when the signing of the Treaty of Paris

happened on December 10, 1898, Spain conceded the Philippines to the United States.

They were considered as our liberators. However, was this really the case? Did the

Philippines become a totally independent and colonizer-free country with the help of its

so-called liberators?
 We should not forget that the Filipino-American war transpired after the signing,

which was what the American tried to bury with the Filipinos who died along with their

sacrifices and goals of independence. Have you ever thought why? Why the war

happened and why did they have to cover it up? If their intentions and purposes were

really that “pure” as what they insist it to be, why does it seem like they were never that

true and transparent to us with their aims? We presume that they had other hidden

agendas behind the facade of the friendship they are offering, and this “benevolent

assimilation.” Part of this “benevolent assimilation” was a promise “to lift up and educate

the Filipinos” but the education they taught the later generations was different from what

Filipinos experienced during the said war. Later in this paper it will be further discussed

how this filtered education, in favor of the Americans, affected and damaged the

relationship between Filipinos of different generations as elucidated by the author,

Reynaldo Ileto.

“The liberators of 1898 had other ideas about what to do with the Filipinos.” We

agree with how the historian Ileto interpreted the inconsistency between United States’

words and their actions. In his book Knowledge and Pacification, he stated that “the

Pacific was its [United States’] zone of expansion, and the Philippine islands were to be

its stepping stone to the establishment of trade and influence in the Asiatic mainland,

with China as the ultimate prize. The United States therefore, to wrest control of the

Philippines from the “tyrannical” Spain in order to keep it from economic and strategic

reasons.” While they claimed to be a friend to us, it was like they have an ulterior motive

behind those friendly promises and gestures.

 There were various incidents where the Americans’ actions were put into

question and were really questionable, despite the outcome, we need to look into how

they get there first. The first thing that they did was not recognizing the republican

government of the Philippines saying that we were not ready for democracy and self-

rule. They even portrayed Aguinaldo in their writings as a “despotic president” to justify

their claim and so that they should stay here to prepare us to run an independent

government. However, what was their basis for saying that we weren’t ready yet? The

first Philippine government may not be as efficient as they perceive it to be but we sure

have capable leaders fit to be educated more on running a government. Second, they

ordered in 1902 that anyone who will continue to oppose and resist their authority would

be arrested for sedition and the ones who will attack the government will be treated as

bandit gangs or former members of the defeated guerrilla armies. But why was there

resistance in the first place?

In the investigation of Captain Johnston with the alleged abuses, it was revealed

how the Americans used torture to force men to confess what they wanted to hear.

There were also incidents of women being molested and raped by officers and soldiers

alike, they were also threatened to be imprisoned if they ever resisted the American

ascendancy. The question here is why were there such events? If they are really

helping us, there shouldn’t be any constant terror to the people. There was also an

incident where the Americans, because of anger, in the Balangiga massacre avenged

their fallen soldiers which resulted for the death of thousands of inhabitants of Samar.

However, this in turn, was never called a massacre but was merely a “punishment for

their crime”.
 After the Americans declared their victory on the 4 of July year 1902, their next
th

step was to reshape the collective memory of the 6-year war with the Philippines. Their

goal was to make the Filipinos remember them as the country’s liberators from the

Spanish colonial rule and not just another foreign invader. They were able to

accomplish this through censoring the press, conducting civic rituals, and the most

strategic, we think, was the kind of education that the colonial administration dictated in

which through public schools, retelling of the history of the war was easier. The first

historical textbook written for American public school system, A History of the

Philippines by David Barrow has been particularly for re-forming the knowledge of the

post-war generations about the war. We, as Filipinos, have a right to know what our

story was because if they really had good intentions, they shouldn’t have anything to

hide.

The way how the Americans also deceived us into believing to their good

intentions and friendship made us able to turn against each other. Was it really

friendship or just deception? If we’re going to look at it, this is another strategy for them

to stabilize the people who were not yet under their authority so they had to move them

into “protected zones” and it was mentioned in the book that this was supposed to

protect them from external threats, more specifically, the “bad” insurgents. Why did we

have to protect ourselves from our fellow Filipinos? We believe that this friendship only

benefits the Filipinos by not being hurt by the Americans. They used our own nature

against us, which is being friendly and welcoming to other people.

In this section, we are now proceeding with the different interpretations from

different historians about the “benevolent assimilation” during the American occupation,
starting off with Barrows saying that the war [Filipino-American] is a result of a

“misunderstanding” between the two peoples. The Americans did not entrust to the

Filipinos during that time the responsibility of governing the Philippines independently

because first, we were not capable enough to carry out that kind of duty, and second,

because of the “Filipino behavior in the recent insurrection,” as concluded by Barrows.

In addition, he delineated that the 1896 Revolution is, in Ileto’s words, “a manifestation

of the untamed violence of the “uneducated classes,” who are governed by passions

more than reasons.” Those are snippets of what Barrows wrote in his book entitled A

History of the Philippines, which was used in American public schools as a tool in

“shaping the historical perceptions of the post-war generation of students.” We believe

that this book was certainly used to be a pillar to the history that was made up and

filtered for the benefit of the Americans and therefore, it is an American-biased work.

How can you conclude a history of a certain place if you will look at it using a different or

foreign lens [American] alone and without consideration of the perspective of its original

subject [inhabitant Filipinos]? Barrow even included in the textbooks that “their

occupation was for the good of the Filipino people.” When in fact it had cost way too

numerous lives in the sides of both the Philippines and the United States. The sufferings

of the colonized country and its natives inflicted by its invaders were vivid in Ricarte’s

memory and through his speech, which we wanted to give an emphasis on some of its

parts, he said (translated in English by Ileto) “when this country, Filipinas, was occupied

at that time, they burned our houses; they destroyed our towns; and they behaved

towards us with such cruelty that had never before been seen in the history of

Mankind.” We affirm that our heroes are not and should not be considered as the
villains of their own land. For their freedom and the countries were robbed off, they just

fought to get it back─ not only for their own sake but for the following generations of this

mother land.

Americans did not set foot in the islands of the Philippines for “benevolent

assimilation” alone nor it was as pure as it sounds. It was just part of their scheme in

able to befriend us, and to be the righteous one. In contrast to what the colonizers had

thought, there were Filipinos who were not fooled. And when the circumstances came

out of hand, their true colors surfaced; their acts of invasion became apparent. But not

giving up their self-set “good guys” image, they veiled it using their sweet-scented

words─ where they were really good at playing. Hence, we should no longer be

deceived nor we should forget and misidentify the acts of bravery and patriotism of

those who fought during the war. It has been 73 years since the Philippines became

independent from the United States, may we finally free ourselves from the blindfolds of

the Americans.
Reference

Ileto, Reynaldo C. (2017). Knowledge and Pacification: On the U.S. Conquest and the Writing of Philippine

History. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.