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

by Stuart Creighton Miller

American acquisition of the Philippines and Filipino resistance to it became a focal point for debate on American imperialism. In a lively narrative, Miller tells the story of the war and how it challenged America’s sense of innocence. He examines the roles of key actors—the generals and presidents, the soldiers and senators—in America’s colonial adventure.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Asia, War, American History, International Relations, United States

340 pages, Paperback

First published January 28, 1982

Reviews

[J.M. Hushour · Rating 5 out of 5]

Does this sound familiar? The US attacks a country under false pretenses, with the media going along with it wholeheartedly and even collaborating through "implanted journalists" in covering up atrocities; seeing the murky foe as little more than "rebellious Asiatics", the folks at home go along for the ride with gusto in the name of American greatness and imperial innocence with a minority of intellectuals gingerly opposing the war (though they'd never sit down for a drink with said victims); politicians vie to out-patriot each other; atrocities are widely committed by American occupying troops and largely ignored; torture is used to gain information; the supposed conflict-in-the-name-of-democracy blunders along generating violent, guerilla opposition.
No, no, this isn't Iraq or Afghanistan. It was the Philippines! Nearly a century ago!
Boy, we sure don't learn from history, do we?
This is the sad-sack story of America's first major imperial intervention, constructed and construed on utterly false pretenses. Led by an officer corps culled from the veterans of "Injun Wars" they brought their ruddy racism and fever-flushed, cheeky voracity for violence to our imperial endeavor, slaughtering innocents and razing villages just to the east of where it'd be done all over again 60 years later.
Should be required reading for Americans under 18.

[Erik Graff · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a depressing book to read, depressing not only because of the strong evidence for our government's almost entirely unabashed genocidal policies in the Philippines, but also for the amassed evidence that the American attitude towards foreign peoples, particularly if they are not European, has not changed much since our extermination of the Amerind Nations. Still, as a survey of the war and of popular, political and editorial responses to it, this is an excellent piece of scholarship. Miller provides ample documentation, appears to give a balanced portrayal of both the majority, pro-war, and minority, anti-war, positions (although he does evince qualms about racism, murder and rape), and writes well.

For those who like to harp about how Democrats start wars, as if Iraq and Afghanistan weren't enough, it is to be remarked that the wars against Spain and the Philippines were conducted under McKinley and T. Roosevelt, both Republicans. The issue, so far as Miller addresses it, is more a difference between liberal perfectionist administrations, like Teddy's or Kennedy's (Vietnam, Cuba), and conservative ones, like Eisenhower's (Korea). It should also be noted that, officially speaking, there never was a declared war in the Philippines, despite the hundreds of thousands we slaughtered and starved there. Finally, as a cautionary note, it may be noted that the anti-imperialists on the domestic front were, with very few exceptions, every bit as much racist as the imperialists.

[Bill Putnam · Rating 1 out of 5]

Miller has an agenda and its fairly obvious when you read some of the better books out there, especially Linn's book. Were there soldiers who were racist and committed atrocities? Yes, but these have been proven to be the exception and the not the rule by more modern research. Miller's book portrays the US Army in a very negative light as if every soldier was out to commit genocide and that is just not the case. Read Linn's book for a more objective perspective.

[Melanie · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this because I've been doing some family history research and learned that an ancestor did a 2.5 year stint in Subic Bay/Olongapo. I honestly couldn't remember very much HS history on the post-SpanAm War effort and wanted to know more.
It is a college textbook; that said, textbooks are interesting and informative, and the end notes give you tips on other books/sources you might want to take a look at.
I definitely recommend reading this book if you want to know more about a darker period in US history. There were several chapters that really shocked me, but the whole thing gave me a better perspective on how my ancestor may have experienced the war and how it may have affected family ties.

[Dan · Rating 3 out of 5]

An accessible narrative of the Philippine-American War, but to some degree dated by its historiographical moment. Later scholars have offered much more interesting and compelling presentations of the function of colonialism.

[Nathan · Rating 5 out of 5]

A definitive history on the atrocities of the American forces in the Philippines and an excellent work of history. Highly recommended.

[Rhuff · Rating 4 out of 5]

Overall, an excellent recapitulation of the American-Philippine War, an extension of the "Spanish-American" at the turn of the 20th century. Herein one finds the voices of soldiers and generals, hawks and doves, though little from the Filipino side - this is a story more of the war's impact on America and Americans. Miller explores the presumptions and attitudes that led to war and its opposition, and reveals the saber-rattlers often saw themselves as do-good missionaries; while opponents frequently feared racial amalgamation as much as the side-effects of militarism.

But rather than recount his exploration of the war itself, I will concentrate on his conclusions with which I take issue. The alleged "good intentions" in both the Philippines and Vietnam were more of the self-righteous delusions American policy-makers have always indulged; virtue-signaling postures that are not to be taken at face value. These analogies are not as misleading as Miller maintains: John Kennedy and Theodore Roosevelt were both wildly-popular young presidents, espousing alike an expansive "muscular democracy."

Where they differ is for reasons Miller does not mention, beyond the simple fact that the US lost in Vietnam but won in the Philippines. Protest was muted and conservative not because the early 1900s were more naively patriotic than the early 1960s. Reviewing the media of the time reveals the opposite. Soldiers in the Philippines were volunteers; those in Vietnam were draftees, in an ever-expanding war machine demanding more and more raw material. The 1960s anti-war movement was an outgrowth of the civil rights movement, and involved much the same people. There was no military-industrial burden on the US taxpayer of 1900 - the main reason Congress at last defunded the war. Had these conditions been present in 1900, the Philippine War would have gone quite differently: a protracted, profitable intervention abandoned for cost regardless of battlefield outcome.

Yet for all my caveats on interpretation, the work is still a good introduction to yet another of America's conveniently-forgotten wars of empire.

[Derrick Rowe · Rating 1 out of 5]

Although there are good sections of Miller's book, such as the discussion on the anti-imperialist movement, this work is vastly outdated. Miller comes to the Philippine War with a clear agenda-driven approach to history. As with most works relating to this conflict that was published close to the Vietnam War, the book is not really about the Philippine War, it is more of a discussion and criticism of the US involvement and American foreign policy, in the 1960-1980s. The most frustrating element of this work is that Miller clearly wears his politics on his sleeve and that it could have been a good work about the anti-imperialist movement in the US, but gets sidetracked by the author's politics in order to criticize the US Army and the US Govmernt for its actions and policies in Vietnam.

[Sean Brennan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent work that leaves any individual who would regard themselves as a 'compassionate human being' appalled at the atrocities committed in the name of 'freedom', this barbaric treatment of a whole population, that was seen by the vast majority of Americans as 'savages' simply ashamed!