Synthetic Memories (Cristian, blog 2)

In the U.S., historical accounts are taught as objective truths. Students, and the rest of the world, are led to believe that America was founded on the idea of freedom. America the just. America the benevolent. America the leader. I would like to clarify that I am not using the words “U.S.” and “America” interchangeably. In this context, the U.S. refers to the country’s geographical location whilst America is the ideology which its citizens have so carefully constructed. America has gained so much momentum that it has been able to lift itself from the pages of textbooks to affect those that pick up the cursed narrative to construct how they view themselves as citizens and in comparison to the rest of the world. What is even more pressing is that it has successfully influenced citizens of other countries to see it through its lens. In the Philippines for example, according to Illeto, “U.S. pacification and education programs after 1902 managed to transform resistance in the ‘boondocks’¹⁹into a condition of banditry while the American towns came to signify progress and democratic tutelage” (Ileto, 1998, p. 8).This reconstruction of history has affected the way in which Filipinos and Filipino-Americans have internalized memories which were created for them? The lack of perspective from its people, succumbing to American Exceptionalism, has created a hostage situation for the Filipino mind.

Work by: Lance Valenzuela, Ivy Chavez and Mads Mallapre
Students from the Arts Department at PWU shared their artwork with us during a lecture. I really connected with this piece because as Lance explained it, it symbolizes the burden of the Other and we must choose whether we drown from its weight or rise above it.

America is different; it does not do things like the mother country and other western powers which so brutally colonized the poor peoples in need of civilization. That’s where that narrative ends. Mark Twain, a man who refused to succumb to America’s imperialist notions, utilized satire to deconstruct U.S. history:

They look doubtful, but in reality they are not. There have been lies; yes, but they were told in a good cause. We have been treacherous; but that was only in order that real good might come out of apparent evil. True, we have crushed a deceived a confiding people; we have stamped out a just and intelligent and well-ordered republic [The Philippines]; we have stabbed an ally in the back and slapped the face of a guest; we have bought a Shadow from an enemy [Spain] that hadn’t it to sell; we have robbed a trusting friend of his land and his liberty; we have invited our clean young men to shoulder a discredited musket and do bandit’s work under a flag which bandits have been accustomed to fear, not to follow; we have debauched America’s honor and blackened her face before the world; but each detail was for the best. We know this. (2002, p. 67)

Ileto is an author who, like Twain, is shedding light on Filipino history. Filipino history is much more complex than the U.S. history books lead us to believe. For example, some ilustrados, educated revolutionaries, such as Pedro Cantos, had the ability to cross the divide between colonial rule and the resistance movement making them essential to “straddling the divide between the colonial and revolutionary orders” yet, this "‘duality’ of much of Filipino behavior during this particular war” leave influential figures such as Cantos excluded from the textbooks (Ileto, 1998, p. 11). Civilians engaged in amigo warfare, friends by day, enemies by night, were seen as neutral which deeply frustrated the Americans. To end this type of resistance which Americans considered treacherous, civilians were threatened with town burnings if civilians continued to support the revolutionaries (p. 12). The problem with this reasoning is that the Americans themselves were engaging in this behavior; acting friendly and striking at the young nation whenever possible. Zinn (2008) illustrates this in A people’s history of American empire. Zinn’s illustrations and historical narrative recount that the Americans began as friendly allies, when in truth they were scheming with Spain to buy the Philippines from them, and after they had achieved their goal, not only of obtaining what they wanted but of making it seem as if they did it in a fair and just way, the Americans occupied the Philippines and began to impose their doctrine of “benevolent assimilation” (2008). The irony of this situation is that America’s intentions of coming in as Big Brother to shed light on Filipinos was effective—their tactics were used against them and Big Brother had to find a way to stop this.

At intramuros. Rizal's footsteps end where the gaurd stands. Rizal's ideas live on, but have they also been reconstructed by America? Why aren’t there Aguinaldo shrines all over the country? Why is America the greatest country in the world? Why is it okay for America to wage war in the name of freedom, but terrorism when other countries do it? 

If this is so, Filipino revolutionaries were not uncivilized natives as U.S. officials thought, but rather strategic and effective in their counter attacks against colonization. When given the option of being “friends” or enemies, many civilians chose to support the insurrection by staying away from the U.S. protected zones (Illeto,1998). Yet, instead of interpreting these actions as a declaration of independence, the U.S. Army interpreted civilians’ decision to support the revolutionaries as a hostage situation. According to Ileto, the U.S. Army sought to “liberate the masses and protect them from their oppressive caciques” (1998, p. 12). Brave civilians willing to fight for their independence were thus turned into defenseless casualties of a war that the U.S. deemed unnecessary. This type of deconstruction and reinterpretation of events on America’s part has been a weapon which contributes to the illusion of American Exceptionalism; the idea that America is the greatest country in the world. I am beginning to understand why it is so important, if not necessary, for Americans to leave the U.S. and travel abroad; especially those who are seen as the minority. Oscar Campomanes has said, Filipinos are beginning to come home. I would like to further explore this idea of "coming home" and if there are other groups doing the same. What kind of mental shift must one make to cross from the American context to the next? It is not enough to read history in the textbooks because as we have been learning, the textbooks are biased interpretations that reinforce citizenship and patriotism, but which unfortunately, demoralize, subvert, and make invisible the reality of the oppressed. This is not to say that other countries do not engage in this sort of deceptive banter in their historical accounts, but the synthetic memories that America has created have influenced, and will continue to influence how Filipinos and Filipino-American’s see themselves in this fictitious historical context which parades itself as historical facts. But as mentioned earlier, there are those who have fought and continue to resist America’s historical objectivity.

References

Ileto, R.C. (1998). The Philippine-American War, Friendship and Forgetting. In Shaw, A.V. & Francia. L.H.

Vestiges of war. (pp. 3-21). New York: New York Press.

Twain, M. (2002). To the person sitting in the darkness. In Shaw, A.V. & Francia, L.H. Vestiges of war.

(pp. 57-68). New York: New York Press.

Zinn, H. (2008). Invasion of the Philippines. In A people’s history of American empire. (pp.53-72) NY:

Metropolitan Books.