photo by AP |
The Balangiga Bells are in the news again with Vice
President Jejomar Binay urging the United States government to
return them to the Philippines.
“The Balangiga bells are a remembrance
of the men, women and children of Balangiga who died in our struggle for
freedom. The return of the bells will be an act of goodwill that will further
strengthen the long-standing diplomatic relationship between the Philippines
and the US,” Binay said.
The three bells were taken as war
trophies by American soldiers from the town of Balangiga in Samar province
during the Philippine-American War at the turn of the 20th century. Two of which are now at F.E. Warren Air Force Base outside
Cheyenne, Wyoming, and the third is displayed at the 2nd Infantry Division
Museum at Camp Red Cloud, an American military base in South Korea.
Former President Fidel Ramos launched
the first serious effort to reclaim them in 1997, when he sent a delegation to
Wyoming. President Bill Clinton was ready to send the bells back, but his
then-impeachment proceedings diverted his attention. In 2005, Wyoming veterans
voted to return them, but the governor of Wyoming blocked their return,
claiming they represented "a significant part of Wyoming's military
heritage," though no one from Wyoming served at Balangiga.
On May 3 this year, Wyoming Governor
Matt Mead wrote US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary
Leon Panetta a letter, stating his opposition to the return of the bells to the
Philippines.
On that particular conflict, 50
American soldiers were killed in an early morning attack by Filipino freedom
fighters. On the other hand, under the
indiscriminate retaliatory attack ordered by General Jacob Smith, the inhabitants
of the Balangiga town were annihilated, except for children below the age of
10.
Company C of the 9th infantry was
stationed in Balangiga to close the port and choke supplies to revolutionary
Philippine forces in the mountains. Over the course of seven weeks, relations
between the soldiers and the locals, at first friendly, soured when the
overzealous commanding officer, Captain Connell, destroyed much of the town's
food stores, thereby threatening the townspeople's very existence. Henceforth,
the uprising, albeit deemed insurgency by the US forces since America had
bought the Philippines, Cuba, and Puerto Rico from Spain for $20 million. In essence, America owned the Philippines at
that time.
Be that as it may, it is with diligent
prayer that Wyoming Governor Matt Mead gets to read this blog post and
reconsider; thus, support the return of the bells to the Filipinos.
“Laws are silent in times of war.” ―
Marcus Tullius Cicero
The photo
above was originally published in the Omaha World-Herald in May, 1900 with a
letter by a U.S. soldier, A.F. Miller, of the 32nd Volunteer Infantry Regiment.
It told of how Miller's unit would subject captured Filipino insurgents to what
the U.S. forces called the "water cure" in order to uncover
information from their prisoners.
“Now, this is
the way we give them the water cure,” Miller explained. “Lay them on their
backs, a man standing on each hand and each foot, then put a round stick in the
mouth and pour a pail of water in the mouth and nose, and if they don’t give up
pour in another pail. They swell up like toads. I’ll tell you it is a terrible
torture.”
During the
first year of the Filipino-American war, eyewitness accounts of atrocities
committed by U.S. forces — the senseless torching of villages, unmerciful
killing of prisoners — began to appear in American newspapers. Although the
U.S. military tried to censor outgoing cables quite successfully, stories
crossed the Pacific through the mail, which wasn’t censored.
American
soldiers, in their letters home, wrote about "extreme violence against
Filipinos, alongside complaints about the weather, the food, and their
officers." Some of these letters were published in home-town newspapers.
Many
Americans were indeed puzzled by the news that U.S. soldiers were viciously
torturing Filipinos with water, considering that the United States -- since
emerging as a global superpower -- has always been a staunch proponent of
liberation, rescue, and freedom.
More than a
hundred years later, many Americans were just as puzzled by the news that U.S.
soldiers were subjecting Iraqi insurgents and terror suspects to
"borderline torture" tactics at Abu Ghraib prisons.
The
"water cure," however, is no longer the preferred method. It has been
replaced with snarling dogs, short shackles, and mocking of the Quran. Some
were subjected to extreme humiliation by being forced to "perform dog
tricks," "be nude in front of a female," wear "women's
underwear on their heads," and kept awake for continuous 20-hour daily interrogations.
Interestingly,
in both the Philippines and Iraq, the U.S. soldiers themselves -- with photos
taken by their own cameras and letters sent home -- created the clearest
evidence of atrocity against their captives.
It should be
noted that American and allied forces were also subjected to brutal tortures
and extreme heinous conditions such as by their Japanese captors during the
Second World War and by the Vietcong during the Vietnam conflict.
Meanwhile in Bohol, which is
approximately 300 kilometers from Balangiga, Samar ...
On March 17, 1900, 200 troops of the 1st Battalion, 44th
Infantry Regiment of U.S. Volunteers (USV), led by Maj. Harry C. Hale, arrived
in Tagbilaran. Bohol was one of the last major islands in the Philippines to be
invaded by American troops.
Bernabe Reyes, "President"
of the "Republic of Bohol" established on June 11, 1899, separate
from Emilio Aguinaldo's national government, did not resist. Major Hale hired and outfitted Pedro Samson
to build an insular police force. In
late August, he took off and emerged a week later as the island's leading guerilla.
Company C of the 44th U.S. Volunteers
encountered Samson on Aug. 31, 1900 near Carmen. The guerillas were armed with bolos, a few antique muskets and
"anting-anting" or amulets. More than 100 guerillas died. The
Americans lost only one man.
Two hundred men from the 19th U.S.
Regular Infantry Regiment led by Capt. Andrew S. Rowan, West Point Class 1881
(LEFT), reinforced the Americans on
Bohol.
On Sept. 3, 1900, they clashed with Pedro Samson in the
Chocolate Hills. From then on through
December, US troops and guerillas met in a number of engagements in the
island's interior, mostly in the mountains back of Carmen. Samson's force
consisted of Boholanos, Warays from Samar and Leyte, and Ilonggos from Panay
Island. They lacked firepower; most of them were armed simply with machetes.
The Americans resorted to torture
--most often "water cure"--and a scorched-earth policy: prominent
civilians were tortured; 20 of the 35 towns of Bohol were razed, and livestock
was butchered wantonly to deprive the guerillas of food.
In May 1901, when a US soldier raped a
Filipina, her fiance murdered him. In retaliation, Capt. Andrew S. Rowan
torched the town of Jagna. On June 14-15, 1901, US troops clashed with Samson
in the plain between Sevilla and Balilihan; Samson escaped, but Sevilla and
Balilihan were burned to the ground.
On Nov. 4, 1901, Brig. Gen. Robert
Hughes, US commander for the Visayas, landed another 400 men at Loay. Torture
and the burning of villages and towns picked up. (At US Senate hearings in
1902, when Brig. Gen. Robert Hughes described the burning of entire towns in
Bohol by U.S. troops to Senator Joseph Rawlins as a means of
"punishment," and Rawlins inquired: "But is that within the
ordinary rules of civilized warfare?
General Hughes replied succinctly: "These people are not civilized."
At Inabanga, the Americans killed the
mayor and water-cured to death the entire local police force. The mayor of
Tagbilaran did not escape the water cure.
At Loay, the Americans broke the arm of the parish priest and used
whiskey, instead of water, when they gave him the "water cure". Major
Edwin F. Glenn, who had personally approved the tortures, was later
court-martialed.
On Dec. 23, 1901, at 3:00 pm, Pedro
Samson signed an armistice in the convent of Dimiao town. He arrived with 175 guerillas. That night at
an army-sponsored fete there were speeches and a dance.
On Feb. 3, 1902, the first American-sponsored elections were
held on Bohol and Aniceto Clarin, a wealthy landowner and an American favorite,
was voted governor. The Philippine Constabulary assumed the US army's
responsibilities and the last American troops departed in May 1902.
Source: PhilippineAmericanWar.Webs.com
Source: PhilippineAmericanWar.Webs.com
My best friend in New York gave me a
copy of this book for my birthday. The following is a review of
it by T. Bailey of The Washington Post (February 25, 1985):
IN WHICH WAR was the term
"Gook" invented? When did American soldiers conduct their first body
count and pioneer the use of the "water cure" to persuade Asian
guerrillas to betray their comrades?
After which battle did a young
rifleman write home to the folks in Kingston, New York, "I am in my glory
when I can sight my gun on some dark skin and pull the trigger"?
Modern as it all sounds, the answer is
not Vietnam, or even Korea or World War II. The American conquest of the
Philippines barely rates a mention in school history books, usually as a
cryptic footnote to the short war which President William McKinley and
publisher William Randolph Hearst waged on Spain in 1898 for the independence
of Cuba and the circulation of Hearst's newspapers. Yet 126,458 Americans
fought in the Philippines between 1898 and 1902, of whom 4,234 died, while
16,000 Filipinos died in battle and another 200,000 in "reconcentration
camp." There were in addition massacres of civilians in reprisal for
guerrilla attacks and similar sideshows all too familiar in subsequent Asian
wars.
The story of how, and why America
liberated the Philippines from Spain and then took the islands back from their
inhabitants two weeks later is a complicated one, already well told in one of
the classics of American historiography, Leon Wolff's Little Brown Brother,
published in 1960. But the writing of history is never finished, and DavidHaward Bain has managed another fine book on the subject, not disagreeing with
Wolff's conclusions, but making them fresh and vivid for a generation which has
seen yet another Asian war.
This is not, however, simply another
tale of savagery in the rice paddies. Almost as if he could read tomorrow's
newspapers, Bain has brought his account up to the minute, with perceptive
entries, for instance, indexed under Aquino Benigno and Ver, General Fabian
(the latter currently on trial for complicity in the former's assassination).
This energetic young historian has thus pulled off that rarest of publishing
coups, a scholarly historical work of bang-on topicality. He has, what's more,
found a most original way of bringing his story to life.
From this distance, and even at the
time, the American conquest of the Philippines has always been difficult to
fathom. But, then and now, two figures jump forth from a cast of thousands:
Emilio Aguinaldo, not quite 30, brave and passionately patriotic, the president
of the republic of the Philippines proclaimed as the beaten Spaniards departed
(and the first republic in Asia) and Colonel Frederick Funston, six years
older, who drove the last nail into the republic's coffin by capturing
Aguinaldo on March 23, 1901, after a long and daring hunt through the jungles
and mountains of northern Luzon.
Aguinaldo, who looked remarkably like
his current successor, Ferdinand Marcos, survived his capture and lived a long
life, long enough to welcome the arrival of the Japanese in 1942
(understandably, perhaps; the new invaders also promised liberation), to march
in the Manila independence parade of 1946, carrying the flag he first raised
against Spain in 1896, and to see a new American war just getting under way in
Asia in 1964, the year of his death. A largely forgotten figure now, even in
the Philippines, Aguinaldo emerges from Bain's book an authentic hero and his
republic a tragically missed chance for the United States to have been the
protector of Asia's first genuine democracy.
His captor, the adventurous son of a
Kansas politician known as "Foghorn Funston, the farmers' friend" was
plainly just as archetypal a figure. "I am afraid that some people at home
will lie awake nights worrying about the ethics of this war, thinking that our
enemy is fighting for the right of self-government" he told a New York
Times correspondent. "The word independent, which these people roll over
their tongues so glibly, is to them a word, and not much more . . . . they are,
as a rule, an illiterate, semisavage people, who are waging war, not against
tyranny, but against Anglo-Saxon order and decency." Funston's feat, a
mixture of reckless daring and ingenious double-cross, or what used to be known
in Vietnam as a "John Wayne stunt," was the stuff of movies, and
would have made a splendid vehicle for James Cagney (Funston was 5 feet 4
inches tall and touchy about it) if Hollywood had blossomed before American
imperialism went out of fashion.
BUT, LIKE MANY a veteran from the
East, Funston could not settle down to life back home, took to the bottle and
died at 51 in 1917, when he was being seriously considered for command of the
American Expeditionary Force that went to France that year. But for his heart
attack, in fact, we would very likely now be debating the merits of the Funston
rocket instead of the one named for his deputy, General John Pershing, who got
the job instead.
Here, unmistakably, we have the Green
Beret, or cowboy turned romantic military stuntman. In fact, Funston's boss,
General Arthur MacArthur, father of the even more famous Douglas, was an old
Indian fighter, and so were many of his buddies in the 20th Kansas infantry he
led to the Philippines. The fact that the Far East is West of the Wild West has
profoundly shaped America's wars there, a point made in the insightful and
absurd movie The Deer Hunter.
It is hard to quarrel with Bain's
conclusion that the years of American rule did little or nothing to solve the
basic political problem of the Philippines. After three centuries of Spanish
colonial government, the islands had none of the institutions of self-rule and
no experience of it. All the new rulers achieved was a superficial
Americanization of the illustrades, the Hispanicized native upper class,
leaving the masses in pious poverty and the way open for a native-born
dictatorship to follow the authoritarian rule of slippery Spaniards and decent
Anglo-Saxons. People learn self-government by governing themselves and making
their own mistakes, and America put off the Philippines' fateful day for 50
years, failing, in the end, even to supply the military protection that is the
only justification for empire.
But Americans are still well thought
of in the Philippines, as Bain and a group of friends, including his
photographer-brother Christopher, discovered when they repeated Funston's epic
trek through the Luzon jungle in 1982, talking to the same locals, fording the
same streams, and being bitten by descendants of the same mosquitoes which bit
the pint-sized adventurer and his party 80 years earlier. Melding past and
present, and interweaving the historical background with present politics
brings vividly home the long shadows still cast by America's first adventure in
Asia. This is an important story, honestly researched and well told -- a second
classic, in fact, on a fascinating subject.
Review by T. BAILEY
The Washington Post, February 24, 1985
By David Haward Bain
1984, Houghton Mifflin Company
The title of the book, “Sitting in
Darkness,” was taken from one of Mark Twain’s essays. And it was much to my
surprise to learn that Mark Twain was a staunch anti-imperialist who gave the
Filipinos a voice in the American press during the turn of the century.
Through his essays, Mark Twain
articulated his sentiments against America’s occupation of the Philippines. He
became an active speaker at anti-war rallies and flooded newspapers with his
letters of protests. With a caustic tone he even suggested a new flag for the
Philippines — "just our usual flag, with the white stripes painted black
and the stars replaced by the skull and cross-bones."
In his 1901 essay entitled, To the Person Sitting in Darkness, Mark Twain pointed out how the occupying Americans
treated the Filipinos.
The following is an excerpt from his essay:
We had lent them guns and
ammunition; advised with them; exchanged pleasant courtesies with them; placed
our sick and wounded in their kindly care; entrusted our Spanish prisoners to
their humane and honest hands; fought shoulder to shoulder with them against
the common enemy (our own phrase); praised their courage, praised their
gallantry, praised their mercifulness, praised their fine and honorable
conduct; borrowed their trenches, borrowed strong positions which they had
previously captured from the Spaniards; petted them, lied to them—officially
proclaiming that our land and naval forces came to give them their freedom and
displace the bad Spanish Government—fooled them, used them until we needed them
no longer; then derided the sucked orange and threw it away. We kept the
positions which we had beguiled them of; by and by, we moved a force forward
and overlapped patriot ground—a clever thought, for we needed trouble, and this
would produce it. A Filipino soldier, crossing the ground, where no one had a
right to forbid him, was shot by our sentry. The badgered patriots resented
this with arms, without waiting to know whether Aguinaldo, who was absent,
would approve or not. Aguinaldo did not approve; but that availed nothing. What
we wanted, in the interest of Progress and Civilization was the Archipelago,
unencumbered by patriots struggling for independence; and War was what we
needed. We clinched our opportunity. It is Mr. Chamberlain’s case over again—at
least in its motive and intention; and we played the game as adroitly as he
played it himself.
One scholar, Tom Quirk, noted,
"Particularly in his later years, the fierceness of Twain's
anti-imperialist convictions disturbed and dismayed those who regarded him as
the archetypal American citizen who had somehow turned upon Americanism
itself."
Who would have thought that Mark
Twain—the author of Huckleberry Finn, the first truly American writer known for
his wit and wisdom—would be so radical and intrepid as to speak for the
Filipinos and against the American occupation of the Philippines?
* * *
Suggested reads:
Wall Street Journal - The Bells of Balangiga
The New York Times - A New History of the Philippine-American War
Wall Street Journal - The Bells of Balangiga
The New York Times - A New History of the Philippine-American War
Please note:
I very much appreciate my articles and
photos appearing on fellow bloggers' sites, popular broadsheets, and local
broadcast news segments, but I would appreciate even more a request for
permission first.
Thank you!
An excellent post! I knew about the bells, but some the other info about the war was new.
ReplyDeleteAre you aware of the most recent book on that war: Honor in the Dust? Read the NY Times review:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/books/review/a-new-history-of-the-philippine-american-war.html?pagewanted=all
I'm going to put a link to this on my FB page, so my many pares from the PI can read it.
Many thanks for the URL and for linking my post to your FB page Spencer! Hopefully, this will get to the governor's attention.
DeleteThanks for sharing this bit of history... I agree, it would be nice to have the bells returned... Thank you for sharing on Weekly Top Shot #39!
ReplyDelete