In Our Image: America's Empire in the Philippines

by Stanley Karnow

“A brilliant, coherent social and political overview spanning three turbulent centuries.”—San Francisco Chronicle   Stanley Karnow won the Pulitzer Prize for this account of America’s imperial experience in the Philippines. In a swiftly paced, brilliantly vivid narrative, Karnow focuses on the relationship that has existed between the two nations since the United States acquired the country from Spain in 1898, examining how we have sought to remake the Philippines “in our image,” an experiment marked from the outset by blundering, ignorance, and mutual misunderstanding.   “Stanley Karnow has written the ultimate book—brilliant, panoramic, engrossing—about American behavior overseas in the twentieth century.”—The Boston Sunday Globe   “A page-turning story and authoritative history.”—The New York Times   “Perhaps the best journalist writing on Asian affairs.”—Newsweek

Genres: History, Nonfiction, American History, Asia, Politics, World History, Military History

679 pages, Kindle Edition

First published March 1, 1989

About the author

Stanley Karnow was a well-respected American journalist and historian whose book In Our Image: America's Empire in the Philippines won him the coveted Pulitzer Prize for History. Karnow was a World War II veteran who graduated from Harvard and began his journalism career in the early 1950s. He is probably best known for his coverage of the Vietnam War.

Stanley Karnow died of congestive heart failure at the age of 87.

Reviews

[Bob Newman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Uncle Sam’s sugar satrapy stays the same

Well-written, interesting and informative, I first read Karnow’s book 24 years ago. Recently I re-read it as I was thinking about why Filipinos were desperate or naive enough to vote for a thug like Duterte? Wasn’t it similar in a sad sort of way to how Trump got elected? “In our image” yet again.
The Philippine story from a local point of view is not what you get here. This is the long and detailed story of America’s relationship to its former far-flung colony. Starting with the nearly four centuries of Spanish rule, and taking into account the Chinese influence over the centuries, the book gets going with the Spanish-American War of 1898. Kind of a “second thought” to the main event in Cuba, the US pulverized the Spanish fleet in Manila Harbor and wound up in charge of the islands. President McKinley didn’t have a clue as to where the country was. “Over there” was probably enough for a geographically-challenged politician. But the Filipinos had been organizing and fighting for their own independence. Now, the Americans called their movement an “insurrection” which obviously assumed that American rule was correct. A bloody, vicious war followed, a war nearly forgotten in the US, but which involved the death of some 200,000 Filipinos and which grimly presaged the war in Vietnam some 60-odd years later. After crushing the independence movement, do-gooders, missionaries, and carpet-baggers flocked to the islands as the Americans tried to impose (“offer” was more the word they used) their political, educational, and economic system. The long connection of the MacArthur family (yes, “I shall return” General Douglas MacArthur and his father) to the country is presented. The American penchant for thinking that everyone wants to be like them was never more obvious than in the Philippines in 1900-1941. However, unlike any other colonial power, the Americans promised independence right from the start and after the Japanese occupation of 1941-44, when the economy was destroyed, Manila left a total ruin, and hundreds of thousands died, they came through. The Philippines became “independent” in 1946, but economically made dependent on America.
The Philippines was not Ohio with middle class small towns and farmer-owned properties. A small coterie of rich, usually mixed Spanish, Chinese and Filipino families dominated the mostly agricultural economy. While many of their members were well-educated at home and abroad, they believed in their right to control the peasants and laborers on their lands. As long as they could dominate, they absorbed a lot of American culture. American universities, American music, American styles, American slang….America became the ideal society for them but “Our Image” was one distorted by the paternalistic, tightly-knit family social order at the top ruling over a mass of impoverished and hungry peasants. But---perhaps---as Karnow hints but does not say outright---the Philippine image we read about is only a distorted but recognizable image of ourselves---full of hypocrisy, corrupt, violent, and chaotic. You can read “Dogeaters” by Jessica Hagedorn for a closeup of what I am talking about. This elite cooperated with the Japanese during WW II, escaped punishment afterwards, and continued to dominate up to the time the book closes…1988. Despite two peasant/Communist rebellions largely due to the terrible conditions in the countryside, BECAUSE of American support for the elite, and BECAUSE of the corrupt rule of the Marcos family and other American-style politicos, the Philippines today is still not much better off, but the population is ten times greater than it was in 1900 when American rule began (103 million). For a vast canvas, full of personal sketches by a journalist who knew many of the characters in latter days---if you are interested in the Philippines and in America’s exploits in yet another part of the globe, you must get hold of this book.

[Ian Kemp]

To a Westerner, the Philippines is a mass of contradictions. A country in which the most vocal calls for representative democracy can come from an unelected, unaccountable male leader of the catholic church; a society in which national identity and patriotic culture are expressed through foreign rituals from TV game shows to the school flag-salute; where the elements most identifiable as Filipino are remnants of imperial conquest – from Spanish patronymics to the ubiquitous catholic faith and to the Filipino language itself.



This impressive work by Karnow presents the history of the Philippines as the history of underdevelopment. He repeatedly returns to the conclusion that the Philippine economic model is basically feudal, with absolute power wielded by a land-owning class consisting of wealthy dynasties. The social structure at the time of Spanish conquest in many ways resembled Anglo-Saxon Britain. Rather than challenge this ancient society, 300 years of Spanish rule, 50 years of US rule and 50 years of US rule-by-proxy reinforced the plutocracy. The concept of a unified nation governed by a democratic process is an illusion the imperial masters where happy to promote for their own purposes.



Karnow shows how the US relationship has largely made the Philippines what it is today. He shows with great insight and masses of evidential detail how the relationship moved from an initial benign mission to liberate and improve the lives of the Filipinos, eventually to a cynical desire to protect US interests, primarily to maintain the air and naval bases from which the Americans rained death and disaster on Vietnam – the common point being the primacy of US domestic politics.



I read this book at a time when Ninoy Aquino’s son Noynoy is launching a carefully-managed campaign for the presidency, based on appropriating the myths and images surrounding his murdered father and recently-deceased and hugely revered mother Cory. Noynoy’s naive and shallow discussions on policy are unimportant - to win he needs to conflate a sense of dynastic entitlement with a sanctified narrative of good over evil. The Filipino body politic seeks Messianic leaders and almost wants to be deluded. In what other society could Imelda Marcos, having been party to Ferdinand’s plunder of $20Billion return to the country and be touted as a presidential candidate? And when denied, enthusiastically promote her children as suitable members of congress? In what other society can an ex-president (Erap) do jail time for plunder, then return to our TV screens as a sought-after celebrity, and, yes, be touted as a future presendtial candidate?



Karnow’s account of the recent history, and his thesis of a feudal Philippines certainly go a long way to explaining how such things can happen in a society which works hard to give the appearance of a modern democracy. His narrative ends during Cory’s presidency, but his underlying conclusions are still well true today.



In summary the book is impressive in its wealth of detail and its extensive use of highly authoritative sources. If you are interested in the Philippines, get a copy.

[Rosalinda Morgan]

If you like Philippine History, this is one of the best books written about the Philippines. It is well researched. Born and raised in the Philippines, I thought I knew a lot of Philippines history. There were some new information in the book that I did not know - most of the history about the Spanish-American War and the role Teddy Roosevelt played. That was never emphasized in school when I was young. There were some characters that I haven’t heard about and it was interesting to know about them. I thoroughly enjoyed reading the book. It gives me a new perspective on how the nation was formed. Highly recommended.

[Stefania Dzhanamova · Rating 5 out of 5]

“In our Image” is the only book on the Filipino question I have read. As far as I can judge, it is not only well-written, but also a valuable historical work.
In his book, Stanley Karnow has included a profound account of the pre-acquisition island history. Starting with the era of Spanish rule, when priests and brute governors deliberately kept the Filipinos in ignorance and submission, he also observes the period of intense Chinese cultural influence.
Logically, the book can be divided into three parts: before the War of 1898, the War of 1898, and after the conflict.
The author dedicates a considerable amount of pages to the Spanish- American War. Although by the time I took Karnow’s book from my virtual shelf, I had already read a couple of books on the subject (“In the Days of McKinley”, Margaret Leech; “An Unwanted War”, John Offner; “Cuba’s Struggle against Spain”, Fitzhugh Lee; “Intervention In Cuba”, Edward Phelps), due to Karnow, I gained a completely different insight into this historical event. “In our Image” depicts one of the battle scenes where the Americans’ situation doesn’t seem serene. Besides confronting the Spanish Armada, they are competing sternly for the hearts of the locals, who, for their part, don’t fancy the idea of defeating one oppressor just to submit to another at all.
What surprised me the most in Karnow’s work and what I didn’t found in any other book I’ve read, was “the War after the War”. Although the author officially announced the denouement of the conflict in August, 1898, he calmly led the War to the end of the year and into 1899, but now with only two belligerents left – the USA and the Philippines. As it turned out, what Stanley Karnow ironically described as “voluntary acquisition”, was a prolonged, bloody revolution.
After the so called voluntary submission, the book tells a lot about the US government on the islands, and why, as the author implies, it proved more successful than Spain’s, resulting even in Filipino affection towards the Americans.
According to Karnow, the main reason for this interesting phenomenon is the United States’ concern about the local affairs. Although, as he jokingly mentions, the Americans had just discovered that “the Philippines were islands and not canned goods”, they showed great enthusiasm, trying by all possible means to improve the local life standard.
Another reason for the peaceful relations between the mother country and the new colonies was that the islands were never treated as colonies in the common sense of the word. The locals were constantly assured that they are US citizens with the same rights as the burghers of New York or Boston. This way, without actually having a citizenship, the locals were content and well predisposed towards the States till 1946, when, after some resurrections in the previous years, the islands finally received their independence.
Giving an account of their post-American-rule history, Karnow again proves his point that the US administration on the Philippines was the most successful one – since 1946, the author indicates, the country has seen nothing but poverty and corruption.
To conclude, I must say that “In our Image” is a remarkable piece of historical literature worth reading no matter who you are – a historian or a common reader. Whether you search for information about US colonial policy, the Spanish-American conflict, or the Filipino lifestyle, Stanley Karnow’s book has it all.

[Brian · Rating 5 out of 5]

I grew up in the Philippines, but I feel like I learned more about Philippine history reading this book than I picked up in 12 years in the country. That said, it is definitely not just a book for people interested in Philippine history.

While using the Philippines as its focus, the book walks the reader through turn of the 20th century US foreign politics, which could perhaps best be described as fumbling towards a semi-benevolent American empire. The lives and careers of Taft, Teddy Roosevelt, and other important US figures are examined, often in a less than flattering light.

Fascinating book. It's long, but I'll probably read it again.

[James Steele · Rating 3 out of 5]

In 1898, certain people came to power in America who believed the time had come for America to become a global power. They noticed Spain was losing control of its empire and saw an opportunity to take the territory for the United States.

The Spanish-American war barely lasted a month, and all the USA did was punch Spain as it was already falling, declaring glorious victory and asserting the United States as a global power.

Spain had ruled Cuba and the Philippines for centuries through the Catholic Church, setting it up as a series of fiefdoms controlled by the local friars. The crown allowed Spanish citizens to purchase land and set up plantations, but not the natives. Spanish colonists often intermarried with the local peoples, and their land became handed down over the centuries and formed a landowning gentry that controlled everything while the peasants worked for subsistence on land they could never hope to possess.

The idea of equality with their Spanish rulers began to take root in the landowning class, some of whom were tired of being treated as inferiors when they had education and wealth (and light-colored skin). Independence movements began to take root among these classes as early as the 1840s.

When Cuba revolted against Spanish exploitation, some in the Philippines took up arms as well, and they might have overwhelmed the ailing Spanish forces had the United States not pounced on the opportunity. Long after Spain was defeated, rebels continued to fight for self-determination, and the US fought a brutal campaign to assert their authority over the islands.

The rebel forces were eventually forced to surrender, and now the US had finally become a global power. Motivations varied, and the issue divided the nation. Some wanted the territory as a gateway to trade with China and India. Others desired to convert the people into Americans, spreading civilization and reason to people who, in their eyes, desperately needed saving. Some businessmen saw opportunity to establish overseas operations for cheap. Different people in favor of America becoming an imperial power had different ways to justify it. Anti-imperialists still held enormous sway in the government.

From the beginning, the US coddled the landowning class, who switched loyalties whenever it suited them, doing anything to preserve their status and influence while the rest of the people lived in abject poverty. Since the upper class was more likely to be educated in European ways (and have lighter-colored skin), Americans saw them as “their” kind of people, so they dealt with them rather than the landless laborers. So while the US established schools and tried to educate the people in Western ways, built roads, hospitals, some industry, military bases and ports, the US did nothing to address the needs of the nation’s impoverished masses, choosing instead to allow the rich landowning class to maintain their position. Because of this, and a culture the Americans could not understand, little changed.

In Philippine culture, family connections are more important than duty to one’s state or even profession. Family is the modern continuation of tribal identity, which was how society functioned in precolonial times: the village chief had absolute authority, and his family was exempt from menial labor. Catholicism helped extend these ties to both blood and ritual associations. Family functions take precedence over school and work, leaving many teachers frustrated the children did not attend school regularly, and leaving US governors frustrated their Filipino officers regularly used their stations to enrich themselves and their friends and families. Government, the police, and industry became crony institutions existing to elevate the social and financial status of the people in them and punish their enemies. From the American point of view, this is corruption, but in Philippine culture it is a code of honor, taking care of one’s family and repaying debts to those who helped one rise to power by giving them government jobs or prominent positions in business.

Under the US control, the Philippines was not permitted to begin business ventures that might compete with US businesses. They had to accept goods imported from the US without any price discrimination, effectively making the Philippine market captive to large US corporations, eliminating any chance the islands might have had to build up their own industry and commerce. They were economically dependent on the USA, and the only people who benefited from this arrangement was the landowning class—some sixty families who owned all of the land, government, and industry, and the rest of the people remained indentured to this nobility.

The United States government couldn’t agree on the best way to run a foreign colony, and the costs of maintaining overseas territory seemed to exceed any benefits. The US pledged to grant the nation autonomy, but with a catch: the economic arrangement would continue. The islands had to allow US goods in and could not charge tariffs or differentiate between a product made in the Philippines and one imported from the US. Quotas would eventually be instated, but by then the Philippines was completely reliant on US goods.

During the Japanese occupation of the islands after their attack on Pearl Harbor, the landowning class often collaborated with the Japanese to retain their status and power. After the war, the US did not prosecute these collaborators, despite promises to hold them accountable as enemies of the United States. The US restored them to power, and this only confirmed the US did not care about the people at large but was only looking out for the interests of the upper class. The gentry had become richer under US dominance, and the poor saw only empty promises. The people began to rise up and fight back. They were branded as “communists.”

It culminated when President Marcos faked communist attacks and uprisings in various cities to justify declaring martial law and taking over as dictator. He and his family ran the country as their own personal piggy bank for twenty years while the US was preoccupied in Vietnam. The US looked the other way for the sake of the military bases, vital to the war in Indochina.

Opposition to his rampant corruption was framed as a communist uprising, and the US may have intervened had the failure in Vietnam not soured Washington’s stomach to direct military involvement. Some US presidents may have believed Marcos was keeping the communists down for them, but in fact these were rebellions against the Marcos regime’s corruption and the further oppression of the masses by the landowning class the US and the Philippine government continued to cater to. Marcos was eventually overthrown by an impromptu election he himself called for. His successor, however, could do little but pick up the pieces of the country Marcos had driven into crippling debt. Instead of dismantling the system that had led to such unrest, she merely reestablished the system that had kept landowners in power and the peasants in the mud, looking out for those of her own social class.

The United States hoped to change the Philippines into a bastion of Western civilization in the East, but failing to force change on the established gentry, who controlled land, industry, politics, and all other aspects of the nation, ensured nothing would ever improve for anyone but the rich minority. All promises of land reforms to improve the condition of the poor never happened due to the landowners fighting every attempt at meaningful change. Cronyism still runs the country, and it remains a practically feudal society to this day. (The US may look down on their corrupt democracy, but cronyism and nepotism run the world. It just happens to be less of a secret in the Philippines.)

There’s a reason this chapter of American history is rarely mentioned in school. It is not a simple era. The motivations for taking control of the Philippines were not simple. The outcome was also not simple. There’s no clear lesson to be learned, but a common thread does run through these events: the arrogance of the US trying to impose their culture on somebody else’s, decrying the people as savages who will never adapt to Western ways while ensuring the system that keeps the people oppressed remains intact. Meaningful change could never happen so long as the rich resisted it, and so long as the US caved in to the demands of the rich.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

I blogged about this excellent book here. I learned that my eighth-grade English teacher was right: if you really want to retain what you've read, try writing about it after you read it.

When this book was published, some readers probably went directly to the final chapters – a detailed narrative of recently-passed events before, during, and after the downfall of the Ferdinand Marcos regime – because they seemed the most important part of the book. Now, twenty years later, this narrative has lost its urgency but the events described are not yet far enough in the past to qualify as “forgotten”, and therefore, interesting. At the same time, the first half of the book, formerly prologue, has now taken on a possible new significance as a distant mirror of the current troubles of the USA's occupying armies in the Middle East. While I hope that I am as conscious of the dangers of “presentism” as the next clam, it's hard not to be struck by a narrative of problems encountered by a relatively small number of well-meaning but often quarrelsome administrators trying to get their arms around a gaggle of problems not of their making, while also attempting to extinguish flare-ups which inevitably result when you put a large number of well-armed young soldiers in the middle of a resentful foreign civilian population they don't understand, both literally (i.e., there is no shared language) and figuratively. I think this parallel also struck American author and filmmaker John Sayles, which is why he recently produced both a book and a movie about this darkly ambiguous episode in America's history.

It's unjust that this book won a Pulitzer Prize and Karnow's subsequent history of the Vietnam did not, but that's only because this book is merely extremely good while the Vietnam book is “best-book-of-the-century” material. You can tell in this book that Karnow has Vietnam on the brain. The consistent references might be a little mystifying to someone who wasn't aware of the extent that the Vietnam War transfixed public attention and became the defining event in the lives of many who were there. Still, that's a small quibble in a book as good as this one.

[Tara · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a really readable, interesting account of the history of the Philippines, from Spanish colonization up to Cory Aquino's presidency. Definitely recommend it to anyone traveling to the country. It gave me a better understanding of Filipino society and culture while I was there. The author has spent decades covering the country as a journalist, and includes really interesting insight and anecdotes from his time there. Good book.

[Mostly on Storygraph · Rating 1 out of 5]

Revisionist history that makes widely reactionary conclusions without much backing, such as the assertion that Filipinos "submitted voluntarily to their own exploitation" and the imperialist beliefs that the Philippines would not have formed its own infrastructure had it not been for American intervention.

For more specifics, see Peter Tarr's review in The Nation and various scholarship by E. San Juan Jr.

[Nick Klagge · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very good, and I would recommend it to anyone with an interest in the Philippines--particularly Americans who, like me, haven't had much exposure to the history of the country. Although this book does focus on the relationship between the Philippines and America, it's a pretty comprehensive history of the country, from the arrival of Magellan through Cory Aquino. Karnow is a good storyteller and, I think, a fairly objective historian. I was kind of hoping to find in this book some Filipino heroes to look up to, and while there are certainly some good people, no one is put on a pedestal, even Karnow's personal friend Ninoy Aquino. I was somewhat reminded, in reading this, of the history of Czechoslovakia/Czech Republic--a smallish country that is often outside the grand stage of world affairs, but often gets buffeted about by what is happening there, and occasionally gets drawn onstage for a few minutes as well.

[Paulina · Rating 4 out of 5]

I regret that it took me so long to really get into this. I think I got a bit lost in the introduction of the Spanish era in the Phillippines, but the more modern history including the Spain/US conflict, the US colonization of the Phillippines, and the role of the islands in both world wars was fascinating. Absolutely awful how the country and the people were drawn into conflicts they had no involvement in, such as the gruesome fight between the US and Japan. Reflecting on my time in the Phillippines, I think it’s interesting how English continues to be the dominant lingua franca, and how their opinion of the US remains positive on balance. I learned so much reading this, and the way the history was told seemed to really follow a narrative arc, which made it all the more interesting. Would absolutely recommend.

[Frank Stein · Rating 4 out of 5]

Despite Americans' continual debates about the nature of their modern "empire," or about their supposedly imperialistic foreign policy, there is one extremely relevant case of American empire that almost no one discusses, the Philippines. And yet, as Stanley Karnow shows in this engaging history, the Philippines represents the one place where Americans engaged in a classic colonial adventure, where we tried to govern tens of millions of foreign people for decades (from 1898 to 1946). Yet America seems to have forgotten the experiment.

The Philippine conquest started by chance. In a bid to save the Cubans from Spanish perfidy, America attacked the Spanish empire across the globe. Admiral Dewey smashed the Spanish fleet off the Philippines, and U.S. troops surrounded the Spanish garrison in Manilla. After winning the battle, however, it turned out the Americans were in possession of a massive piece of that Spanish empire. While we had promised to give Cubans their freedom, we had said nothing about this distant archipelago, which President WIlliam McKinley, when he appointed his first ambassador there, couldn't find on a map. McKinley, however, claimed that God had told him in a dream to take possession of the islands, and the treaty confirming this dream only passed the Senate by the tie-breaking vote of the Vice President.

Although the United States brutally put down an insurgency led by the wealthy native leader Emilio Aguinaldo, overall, the U.S. time in the Philippines did prove an exception to the typical Western colonial story of rapine and exploitation. From the beginning, the U.S allowed the Philippines to form political parties advocating independence, to vote in local and parliamentary elections, and to print their own newspapers. Unlike European countries who refused to teach most natives the colonizers' language, America began an unprecedented effort to cover the island with English language primary schools. Fond memories of U.S. matrons teaching history and geography reverberate in the Philippines to this day, and English remains the nation's most commonly spoken language (Tagalog is actually focused in the Northern island of Luzon). Twice, when the U.S. Congress willingly voted for Philippine independence (admittedly at the instigation of US sugar and tobacco barons who feared Philippine competition) in 1916 and 1934, Philippine legislators, including the nominal hero of independence Manuel Quezon, secretly asked that the U.S. hold off, since they wanted access to both U.S. markets and U.S. military protection. Only after General Douglas MacArthur (whose father Arthur MacArthur had actually led the struggle against Philippine insurgents) liberated the islands from a brutal Japanese dictatorship (earning him near godlike status there) did the U.S. give it up.

So despite America's obvious mistakes, the nation has much to be proud of in its time in the Philippines. It brought genuine advancement, and gave the nation up willingly to a democratic alternative. This explains why today Filipinos still admire the U.S., and still identify with U.S. history and culture. The book lags when it deals with the long pre-American Spanish empire, and when it goes into the innumerable twists and turns of Philippine politics post-1946, but on the whole it offers a vivid reminder of one of the U.S.'s strangest, and yet most forgotten, foray abroad.

[Jed · Rating 4 out of 5]

The beautiful archipelago of 7,107 islands and home to a bunch of crazy islanders including my mother. Ask Magellan. Just kiddin, ma! Salamat po, for such an illuminating book about the engrossing history of the Philippine islands. The book is a panoramic study and includes, history of the 400 year colonization from Spain, the blundering attempt by America to purchase and make the P.I. in "our image", and a great recipe for chicken adobo... Okay, the last bit I added, but my copy has one. Hah!

[Alex Zakharov · Rating 3 out of 5]

In preparation for a trip to the Philippines, I picked Karnow up as ostensibly the least biased and best-written historical account of the country. He primarily concentrates on the 20th century, understandable given the dearth of material otherwise. Overall a pretty decent read, and perhaps an indispensable one if one is thinking of visiting the region. Also, a nice coverage of American foreign policy dilemmas and debates at the turn of 19th century.

Outline and notes to self:

Pre-colonial history, sparse
- Settled by humans 2-5K years ago from Asian mainland (“Out of Taiwan” hypothesis)
- 10-12th C. Chinese trading posts across most of SE Asia, including Ph.
- 14th C. Arab traders bring Islam to Malaya, reaching Ph. in 15C.
- 1493 Inter Caetera, Pope splits the world’s exploration between Spain (going West) and Portugal (East)
- Magellan, a Portuguese, but gets funding from Spain. Brutal trip, makes it to Cebu in 1521, converts one tribal chief (Humabon), but gets killed by another (Lapu Lapu). Journey cont’d without him to complete the first circumnavigation of Earth.
- It is somewhat ironic that in today’s devoutly Catholic Philippines Lapu Lapu is venerated for killing the guy who introduced Christianity to the archipelago. But then again no politician anywhere can afford to officially deviate from “colonial legacy” orthodoxy.

Spanish Colonization
- After Magellan 50 years of indecision by Spain, but Mexican Spaniards eventually convince the queen to colonize Ph.
- 1570 Manila burnt to the ground, Arabs out, and 250 years of Acapulco-Manila Galleon trade follows (Chinese goods)
- Spain seals off Ph. Chinese and Spanish influence. Mestizo politics. “Friararchy”.

Roots of independence mov’t
- Jose Rizal - 1890s, birth of national consciousness. Intellectual, educated in Europe, reformer, not a revolutionary. Executed by Spaniards.
- Andres Bonifacio, an actual revolutionary, 1896 uprising and conflict with Spain.
- 1897 Emilio Aguinaldo takes over the mov’t and kills off Bonifacio.
- Apolinario Mabini, “brains of the revolution”, first constitution.
- 1897 interlude. Aguinaldo and Spain reach a “deal”, but both sides are just vying for time and re-grouping.
- (For the next 50 years Aguinaldo get a lot of historical limelight, but today Bonifacio is uniformly revered while Aguinaldo’s rep took a dive)

American Context
- US expansion trajectory: 1803 Louisiana purchase (thanks to broke Napoleon), 1846 Mexican-American War, 1898 Spanish-American War.
- S-A war all about Cuban liberation, both Ph. and Guam were almost accidental excursions. Guam was hilarious (Spanish garrison, oblivious of the war, mistook Dewey’s bombardment for salute)
- Context: Dewey in Pacific, McKinley as president is indecisive, gets pushed into war by Teddy Roosevelt who has just rebuild the navy.
- Lots of debate in Congress, US’s first expansion outside of continent, unease with “imperialism”

1898-1902: Spanish-US tango over Philippines, independence war.
- US troops in Ph, Aquinaldo is convinced to help with ambiguous promises of independence
- Spanish avoid surrendering to Ph, want to surrender to US, but must signal resistance to avoid a court-martial. A bit of a clusterfuck.
- Americans enter Manila, rebuild the city, reestablish order, status of Ph unclear, more Congressional debates.
- 1899 incident between US and Ph troops sparks war of independence against US, 200K dead, brutal.
- Comparison to Vietnam: US probably should have lost, but Aquinaldo made too many mistakes, even assassinated his own general, famous Antonio Luna.
- Conventional war morphs into guerrilla warfare 1900-02. Aguinaldo captured in 1902, officially ending the war, but insurgency continues for another decade, including Moro war with Muslims in the south.
- Dewey returns home to massive parade, McKinley arranges for government transfer from military to civilian: Taft vs McArthur.

American colonization
- Unlike British in India and French in Vietnam, Americans were faced with western-educated class of “illustrados"
- Americans with massive guilt over colonization, want “benevolent assimilation”, and arrange for local elections as early as 1907!
- Provide for infrastructure, sanitation, currency, massive education efforts/reform.

1907-35 Path to self-rule
- Classic case study for Fukuyama’s trifecta of rule of law, accountability, and state building – all heavily modulated by highly kinship-oriented patronage-prone culture.
- Very Tammany hall… Typical dilemma of how quickly to expand democratic franchise etc. Still – first parliament in Asia.
- Main politicians Sergio Osmena and Manual Quezon, latter dominates.
- Constant theme of local leaders publicly advocating full independence, while privately ambiguous, preferring autonomy under US presence, aid and protectorate.
- 1916 “Jones Act” granting autonomy, radically more progressive than every other European colony at the time.
- 1935. Resolution for 10yr path to full independence.

1939-45, WW2, Japanese invasion
- Context: 1929 GD depression in US, 1931 Japan in Manchuria; Ph. nervous.
- 1920-41 McArthur in/out of Philippines, venerated to this day.
- US knows Ph is indefensible, but can’t commit more troops or pull out.
- 1928 McArthur officially comes back as “defender of archipelago”
- ’41 Pearl Harbor, followed by bombing of Ph. McArthur’s defense plan in ashes, but successful troop retreat.
- McArthur evacuated to Australia as commander of Pacific, and to keep Australian troops in Europe fighting Hitler.
- Dynamics between Wainwright (fighting in Ph), McArthur (in Australia) and Eisenhower. The latter despises McArthur. Wainwright takes most of the hard fighting, McArthur gets the glory.
- 1942 US capitulation in the Ph(!). Bataan Death March – horrific. Manila atrocities.
- Guerilla warfare. Huks (commies) most successful, historically significant for next 30 years.
- 1944 McArthur comes back, lands in Leyte, terrible battles. Manila worst-hit Allied city after Warsaw.

After the war
- Fate of collaborators. Theme throughout the book of how throughout history illustrados shift loyalties among Spaniards, nationalists, Americans, Japanese.
- Locals’ anger over collaborators redirected by holding Japanese war criminal crimes in the Ph.
- Elections: Roxas, ex-soft collaborator, backed by US/McArthur vs Osmena. Roxas wins.
- Independence. US bases. Fears of communism. Huks outmaneuvered politically in parliament, leads to Huks uprising 1946-52. Luis Taruc.
- Roxas and then Queriono handles insurgency badly, tensions in the provinces, peasants get screwed, villages destroyed by gov’t troops.
- US dilemma: how to deal with client gov’t that discredited itself with native populace.
- Backs Ramon Magsaysay who as defense minister suppresses the Huks, reestablishes order, elected president 1953, social reforms, reduce corruption. But dies in ’57 in aircraft incident.

1960-80, Marcos/Imelda.
- Context: after Magsaysay, massively corrupt Garcia (’58-61) and moderately not-terrible US-based Macapagal (’61-65)
- Still: corruption, irrelevant party denominations, crime, voter fraud, patronage galore.
- Marcos enters political scene - brilliant, charismatic, impresses US, wins presidency ’65 in costliest campaign in history.
- Dance with LBJ over Vietnam, symbolic commitment of Ph troops to Vietnam for extended aid package.
- Over next 20 years Marcos/Imelda hobnob with LBJ, Nixon, Reagan in US;Imelda’s ostentations parties in Ph.
- ’68-70 rise of ‘reformed’ post-Huk communist party, student/peasant/labor movements/protests, crime.
- Eventually Marcos imposes martial law 1972 (see below). Cleans up crime, thus gaining support of some F.
- Builds his own plutocracy, amasses huge personal wealth (20B!?), crony capitalism, nationalizes when necessary.
- ’73 oil crisis, poverty/crime skyrocket, by 80s commie guerrillas everywhere
- Even Catholic church turns against Marcos – Cardinal Jamie Sin as “Filipino Khomeini”

Ninoy Aquino/Cory
- Background: smart, started as journalist, well-traveled, famously interviewed Taruc to surrender back in ’52.
- Mayor, then Senate in ’67, Marcos’s rival. Briefly dated Imelda at some point. Marcos and Ninoy family clans had plenty of overlapping business connections and interests.
- ’73 was to be a big year for both: Marcos’s would seek 3rd term re-election to run against popular Ninoy.
- But Marcos imposes martial law and Ninoy is jailed.
- 7yr Sakharov-live jail drama: hungers strike, M-N negotiations, world’s attention. Marcos concerned with image in US.
- 1980 Ninoy allowed to go US, hospital. Stays in US 1980-83.
- Against everybody’s advice decides to come back, assassinated right off the plane, by military.
- Marcos was totally sick at a time. One plausible theory is that Imelda and general Ver were plotting a coup, and Ver had N assassinated. Today, Ninoy, like Rizal, has as a borderline saint-martyr status.
- Interesting to speculate on counterfactual history if Ninoy had won the 73 election… back then Ninoy and Marcos were remarkably similar in intent, and both wanted to cleanup crime etc.

1983-90 Transition to Cory Aquino
- Early 80s context: Ph economy in the gutter, increased commie political presence.
- Despite Ninoy’s assassination, Marcos still clings to power durin 83-86, US Congress tries to extricate itself from supporting Marcos, but Reagan supports to the end.
- US reluctantly and quietly supports Cory, also support from Cardinal Sin. Quietly helps Cory prepare to campaign.
- Internally US split between supporting Marcos (mostly republicans) and Cory (mostly dems)
- Cory develops and cultivates image of piety, mysticism, “Joan of Arc”
- Meanwhile military coup is likely at home and Marcos calls “snap” election in ’86.
- Voter fraud yet again, Marcos declares victory, and Cory also claims success.
- Odd transition with Marcos extricated to US, while CIA is listening in on brewing military coup, and streets are filled with pro-Cory demonstrations. Coup is diffused, and Cory’s “EDSA revolution” paves for “bloodless restoration of democracy”.
- Of course, reality is a bitch, and Cory’s rule is mostly uninspiring: Marcos oligarchy simply replaced with Cory/Ninoy’s oligarchy
- In the end Cory simply restored a slightly more reasonable status quo and despite her mandate, blew a real chance of genuine reforms.
- All endemic problems stayed: corruption, poverty, tax evasion, absence of much needed land reform.

[Jason Friedlander · Rating 5 out of 5]

It’s flawed and far from perfect, but reading this significantly changed the way I’ve come to understand US-Philippine relations over the past century, and for that, its new perspectives are invaluable.

[Dustin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting overview of how the combination of the Filipino people, Spanish colonialism and America's presence there have affected how things have shaken out in the Philippines for the last 150 years.

[Bea · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a masterwork from Stanley Karnow, the original "old Asia hand" and an indispensable resource for understanding U.S.-Philippine relations which goes back to 1898. So many descriptions of Philippine politics at the turn of the century still ring true today.

[Ingrid · Rating 5 out of 5]

Karnow won the Pulitzer prize for this sweeping, detailed history of American colonialism in the Philippines from pre-history to 1989 when the book was published. I have yet to encounter a more comprehensive history (though if you know of one please send it my way!) and highly recommend this book to anyone with an interest in imperialism or asian History.

I love when a historian has an opinion. Karnow’s voice comes through clearly in moments of deep insight as well as humor (for example, he clearly disdained President McKinley). As a journalist covering Asia from 1959 to 1974, and was personally acquainted with some of the major players in recent Philippines history, including the martyred Benigno Aquino Jr. and his wife and president of the Philippines Corazon (Cory) Aquino.

His experience, together with his deep research allow him to outline expertly how the changing American policy (or lack there-of) towards the Philippines had lasting effects on the nation.

On a more personal note - I was a Peace Corps volunteer in the Philippines. In Our Image was on the list of suggested reading, but I breezed over the history in what I perceived at the time to be a more urgent need to tackle the language.

In retrospect, I think it’s a failing that I entered my service without a clear picture of the imperialistic role America played in the Philippines from 1898, when Spain ceded sovereignty of the Philippines to America, resulting in a bloody conflict between American troops and Filipino nationalists, to when the Philippines became independent in 1964, and the influence the US continued to exert on elections, defense, and economy in the Philippines from its first election as a free nation to the present.

I’m embarrassed by things I learned in this book - as someone who lived and worked in the Philippines for multiple years, I should have known better. American colonialism is certainly brushed over in schools. I’m thankful for this book and see it as a starting point. This year I’m reading as much about the Philippines as I can, including contemporary fiction. Please send any recommendations my way.

And any prospective Peace Corps volunteers out there - I know you’re in a time of limbo right now. My thoughts are with you and, if you can read during this waiting time, I encourage you to learn as much about the history of your host country as possible, especially if it has a relationship with the United States.

[Ashley · Rating 3 out of 5]

Although this book is valuable in its readability, it lacks the rigor of true scholarly historical writing.
Karnow does not include any reference material to his source work, which brings into question where some of his claims stem from. In addition, he sometimes comes across as paternalistic toward the Filipino people, comparing them to petulant teenagers seeking their parents approval, diminishing their contribution to the fight against the Spanish when recent scholarship demonstrates how important their resistance truly was, and claiming an almost benign imperialism on the American side when often it was anything but.
Even worse are the depictions of Filipinos as practically begging for a continued U.S. presence, which Karnow attributes to their love and respect of Americans - this can also be explained by cold, hard practicality, particularly because the Filipino economy had become so forcefully linked to the U.S. it was being artificially propped up by tariffs and trade. Resistance was rampant throughout the U.S. tenure, which Karnow often acknowledges nearly in the same breath as claiming Filipinos want to be submissive to the U.S.
Karnow is an excellent writer, and his text is interesting and keeps the reader glued to the page. It is a useful book for a lay reader or hobby historian, but not as a scholarly work.

[Glenn Fingler · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a very good book on the subject covered. One weakness that bothered me, however, was the author's analysis of the causes of the Filipino failure to defeat the Americans seemed to equate the situation of the Filipinos with the North Vietnamese situation versus the Americans. It ignored the fact that the North Vietnamese received extremely extensive supplies from both Russia and China throughout their war with the USA and the South, as well as the benefit of 200,000 Chinese troops that were based in North Vietnam to enable the NVA to send more troops into the South and to forestall a US invasion of North Vietnam. The Filipinos received almost no supplies from outside, the Philippines being effectively blockaded by the US Navy. I don't know how Karnow could have equated the two situations when he was supposed to be an expert on the Vietnam War.

Other than that flaw, I liked the book very much, and I intend to reread it.

[Car Sal Fol · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book covers a large span of Philippine history from Magellan to Macros. It's a history book that flows well and reads as a story. The focus is the US involvement in the islands. As the Philippines votes today between an array of controversial candidates, Karnow's comment "To this day, [Filipinos] are trying to define their national identity," remains as relevant as ever. I hope to one day read a book covering a similar timeframe during Philippine history but from the perspective of a Filipino.

[Quinn Crossley · Rating 2 out of 5]

I couldn't get past the first fifty pages. This book is quite harsh on the Philippine people. It said that without the US there would be no paved roads, it also insinuates that the Filipinos have no sense of democracy, that they like having another country colonize them and that the universities in the Philippines are diploma mills and basically useless. There are some interesting bits but I can't get past the smug attitude of the author.

[Elysa · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is one of the best sources on Philippine history. I used to be a little kid asking my parents for stories on their country’s political history, only to be met with vague, short sentences. My little fingers would tap away on clickety library computers searching for even a sliver of the mysterious lives of my ancestors. Karnow’s text covers various parts of the country’s long colonial history and has been invaluable to me over the past couple months.

[Joe Perez · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book for Filipinos, Americans of Filipino descent, and for anyone who wants to learn more about America's role as a colonial power...and it explains to many Americans why Filipinos are able to not only assimilate quite easily to American culture, but why so many of them have a working knowledge of the English language.

[Gerald · Rating 4 out of 5]

Having visited The Philippines a number of times while on active duty with the Navy, I had always wanted to learned more about this 7,000+ island nation, especially its history. Stanley Karnow's book is an excellent read. I really enjoyed it a lot.

[Ryan Mcconville · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this before a trip to the Philippines and it really helped me understand the historical context of the country. It is a pretty dense read - so not likely great for someone who wants a quick, breezy intro. History buffs on the other hand will likely really enjoy it.

[Justin Tapp · Rating 5 out of 5]

I think every State Department employee assigned to the Philippines reads this Pulitzer prize-winning book, or is told to read this book and never completes it. It's comprehensive, even as the author reveals his biases and maintains his own opinions as the primary source. One should remember that while his experience in the Philippines is extensive, it is not comprehensive. His own observations serve as primary source, and he gives his own spin on history. That said, he has researched things well from Magellan to Marcos. Another book I recommend to people is Mixed Blessing: The Impact the American Colonial Experience on Politics and Society in the Philippines (edited by McFerson) which is a compilation of essays written years after Karnow's book; that book also contains more statistics that I found useful. I consider the books complementary. James M. Scott's 2018 Amazon award-winning book Rampage on the Battle of Manila gives many more important details about MacArthur and the WWII experience that Karnow omits.

The author was friends with Ninoy Aquino and his wife Cory, and the friendship plays a critical role in the chapters regarding that family. The friendship biases him, surely, but it also gave him unique windows into their lives that no one else would have. Karnow chronicles the good, the bad, and the ugly bits of U.S. policy toward the Philippines after first giving a great overview of Spanish colonial history. He also details various intrigues of the political lives of Philippine Presidents as seen through the workings of various CIA handlers, U.S. Ambassadors, and U.S. Presidents. One major thing I gleaned is that an administration change-- from Republican to Democrat-- has always had large foreign policy implications, causing swings overnight in U.S. policy towards its colony. This was seen most dramatically when Woodrow Wilson and the Democrats came into power and Francis Burton Harrison became a pro-independence Governor General, rapidly moving to "Filipinize" the civil service over an 8 year period in contrast to the Republican administrations who roughly wanted to keep the Philippines a colony indefinitely. While no president fares well, Reagan probably fares the worst in the book.

There is plenty more to glean about the culture of the Philippines, the history of landed gentry owning the power, the corruption, etc. that is pretty well detailed in the book. Karnow pays special attention to documenting much of the monetary value of the Marcos' corruption, something needed as many people today are in denial or yearning for the "good old days."

In all, I give this book five stars. There are some typos and factual points I would quibble about but it's hard not to give this comprehensive a volume five stars.

[Dylan Matthews · Rating 5 out of 5]

The title is a misnomer: this is not a history merely of the Philippine-American War or the occupation, but the whole sweep of Philippine history up to the beginning of Corazon Aquino's presidency. If anything, the heart of the book comes when we get to characters Karnow knew as a correspondent in Manila, in particular Ninoy Aquino and Imelda Marcos (their spouses were the presidents, but they were the characters).

Having an old Asia hand like Karnow as the author has its advantages and disadvantages. He has an incredible eye for anecdotes, and literally every story he has about Imelda in particular is completely batshit insane (she claimed to be Douglas MacArthur's adopted daughter?). It's eminently more readable than Abinales and Amoroso's more academic treatment, entirely because Karnow is a better writer, which for chauvinistic reasons I'll credit to him being a journalist rather than an academic.

His background on Vietnam also comes in handy when it comes time to describe the American war, or the Communist insurgency. There's a great section explaining why Ho Chi Minh was able to succeed while Emilio Aguinaldo couldn't: he promised the peasants real improvements in living conditions (Aguinaldo was by contrast patrician and uninterested in economic issues), and he knew to fight a guerrilla war rather than a conventional one (Aguinaldo seemed to think he was at Austerlitz).

On the minus side there are sentences like "A Spanish mestizo, Quezon had the impulsive, mercurial, flamboyant temperament of a prototypical Latin," the journalistic equivalent of your grandpa who won't stop saying the word "Oriental." But some racial essentialism here and there I'll forgive in an otherwise comprehensive, meticulously researched, and passionately constructed book.

[Stan Rea · Rating 4 out of 5]

The emphasis in this book is more on America's role in the Philippines which begins in earnest in the late 19th century. It's interesting to read how integral the Philippines were to some very famous Americans (Teddy Roosevelt, William Howard Taft and Douglas MacArthur especially). There are also some very interesting items that help explain a lot about how and why the Philippines are the way they are today.

There are three things working against the book. First, the book is a product of the Cold War. Written in the late 1980s, the threat of Communisim is still very real and the Soviet Union is still the big bad guy. When it was written this wasn't a problem. However reading the book 30 years later, the constant references to Communist threats and takeovers are dated.

Second as is typical of most histories that lead up to the present, the level of detail(s) increases as you get closer to the present day. In this particular case the last chapter is almost incomprehensible for the who, what, where, when, why and how of the writing. The last two chapters read more like a long newspaper story rather than a seasoned history. I read an edition printed in 1990 or so. I believe there were later editions but I was unable to find them which may have allowed a smoother analysis of what was going on.

Finally, the author makes himself a part of the story. Not a large part and not in a strange way (like Morris biography of Reagan) but he's in there. As you read toward the end of the story and the rise and fall of the Marcos dynasty and the rise of Cory Aquino he points out quite often his personal feelings about the players and his likes and dislikes about them.

[Kerrie Mariah · Rating 1 out of 5]

I was disappointed with this book as a history of the Philippines and I honestly don’t know how it has such high reviews. Not only was the book itself not well written and lacking a cohesive linear narrative but the author tried to shove as many details as possible into the story, making the cast of characters long and unmemorable. I can’t count how many times an ‘elderly man who was still quite handsome” entered the scene for only a few pages.

The author also did not cite his sources, there were many typos and syntax errors in the kindle edition and it was some of the most opinionated history that I’ve ever read. The author appears to stick his nose up at every point of history, without distinction from the good or the bad or in-between. It’s as if he’s following a brand of academic doublespeak which in his own ironic cynicisms continues to emulate the white man’s burden of self-flagellation at his own “whiteness and the evils of his own wonderful prestige” in the face of the poor unhappy native.

Honestly, if he had made his writing more concise, cited sources, and put away the battering ram he used to shove his own inconsistent opinions down the readers throat it could’ve been a good and informative book.