ABSTRACTThe ascendancy of the United States as a global empire produced a crisis in the meaning o... more ABSTRACTThe ascendancy of the United States as a global empire produced a crisis in the meaning of American nationhood, prompting imperial statesmen to recalibrate the boundaries of inclusion and exclusion. The annexation of Puerto Rico and the Philippines in 1898 gave rise to a complex and often volatile system of border-making. Overseas expansion changed the territorial nature of the state, as both the Philippines and Puerto Rico were declared "unincorporated territories" defined as neither fully domestic nor completely foreign. Territorial statecrafttreated the Philippines and Puerto Rico similarly. However, statecrafttowards individuals (as opposed to territories) differentiated the two populations as Puerto Ricans were declared U.S. citizens in 1917 but Filipinos were not. This essay explores how U.S. policies toward these territories and populations became increasingly complex and contradictory as the state tried to manage the national polity in the age of imperial expansion. [Key words: colonialism, citizenship, borders, Puerto Rico, Philippines, empire]the united states' bid for a transoceanic empire during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries had a profound impact on the character of american statecraft. The extension of U.S. sovereignty beyond the nation's continental borders gave rise to contentious debates about the costs and consequences of America's imperial ascent. In the aftermath of the Spanish American War in 1898, the U.S. claimed title to most of Spain's insular colonies, including Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Cuba, and Guam.1 Cuba was granted nominal independence in 1902, allowing American policymakers to focus their attention on the other colonial properties. Although the U.S. had a long history of domestic territorial conquest, the seizure of overseas possessions raised a new set of questions about the boundary lines of the American polity. Precedent established with regard to previous episodes of territorial acquisition (Adams-Onis Treaty [obtaining Florida], Louisiana Purchase Treaty, Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo) had always included provisions granting U.S. citizenship to the inhabitants of annexed lands.2 In addition, federal law as codified in the Revised Statutes of the United States established that all of the rights and protections guaranteed by the U.S. constitution were applicable to territories acquired by the U.S.3The prospect of collectively naturalizing the native residents of the Philippines and Puerto Rico, however, gave many U.S. lawmakers pause, insofar as the people who inhabited these territories were of suspect racial fitness. Expansion towards the new trans-oceanic territories also meant a transition from the hitherto dominant model of settler colonialism, in which territories became states after Anglo settlers became a majority and acquired property and power. This is not to say that "race" did not play a role in continental expansion. The pattern of incorporation could vary considerably depending on the speed of colonization and the size of the resident, non-Anglo population, the evident contrasting examples being California, which became a state in 1849 after the Anglo population that arrived with the Gold Rush overwhelmed the local population, and New Mexico, which had a much larger Mexican population and only became a state in 1912, after a protracted struggles over land titles and political power.4 Settlers would play a very marginal role in insular colonization after 1898.American lawmakers were forced to reconcile two seemingly countervailing political impulses that prevailed in the U.S. in the aftermath of the War of 1898. The first was the urge to enlarge the territorial jurisdiction of U.S. in an effort to bolster America's geopolitical position vis-a-vis rival imperial rivals, especially in the Caribbean Basin and Asia. By doing so, expansionists hoped to secure transoceanic trade routes and access to international markets for American commercial interests. …
Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews, 2012
This book begins with the creation of the colony of the Philippines in 1898 and ends with nationa... more This book begins with the creation of the colony of the Philippines in 1898 and ends with national independence in 1946. However, the book does not center upon either; instead, it focuses on the economic, political, and legal struggles of Filipino immigrants in the United States. The book is organized chronologically, although there is some overlap of periods across chapters. The first chapter deals with the racial politics of empire and the establishment of the Philippines as a colony of the United States. This lays the groundwork for the analysis of the political economy of Filipino immigration (1900s–1920s) in the second chapter. The next chapter deals more specifically with social and legal barriers that Filipinos confronted during the first three decades of the century. Chapter Four is a study of violence directed against Filipinos in the late 1920s and early 1930s. Finally, last two chapters deal with the political negotiations for independence, the participation of Filipinos in the Second World War, and the consequences for immigrants in the United States. The colonization of the Philippines resulted in the creation of a new legal category: the U.S. national, that is, those persons owing allegiance to the United States because they were at the same time citizens of one of its colonies. However ‘‘nationals’’ were not full-fledged citizens of the United States, and this initially led to considerable confusion about their rights to entry and to work. This ambiguous political status set the stage for the immigration of Filipinos who came to work in agri-business, first in Hawaii and then to the western and southwestern states. Later, Filipinos would also find work in service and industrial sectors. The first generation of Filipino immigrants struggled for and soon (in 1906) attained the right, as U.S. nationals, to unlimited entry into the United States. The author skillfully shows how Filipinos were clearly agents, and not merely victims, in this process: they were active in both class struggles, to obtain better wages and conditions, and legal battles, to achieve right of entry into the United States. Even though they gained the right to unrestricted immigration, Filipinos confronted other legal barriers regarding interracial marriage, property rights, and naturalization as U.S. citizens. In addition, local governments also attempted to police the color line by passing laws enforcing social segregation. In general, the legal issues were complicated by two principal factors. First, the laws were not always created with Filipinos in mind and the existing racial categories did not easily apply. Indeed, part of the strategy of Filipinos was to argue that they were outside of the laws that were erected explicitly against Afro-Americans, Mexicans, and ‘‘Asiatics,’’ namely, Chinese and Japanese. Second, the interests of local ‘‘nativists’’ often conflicted with those in agribusiness or the federal government. On the one hand, the nativists sought to preserve white privilege, dominance, and the color line; they opposed Filipino immigration. On the other hand, agricultural enterprises were in favor of Filipino workers, although they also sought ways to divide and conquer them whenever workers organized and pressed for better working conditions. In addition, the federal government was obliged to concede some degree of legal and naturalization rights to Filipinos. In the international sphere, it was not good politics to simply exclude them as ‘‘aliens’’ in U.S. society. Especially interesting is the analysis of the diverse and often contradictory positions of the local nativists in towns, counties, and states, the economic interests of agribusiness in the region, and the laws and policies of the federal government. In addition, the full range of actions and strategies of Filipinos on different fronts is fully explained.
Carlos Bulosan, in a 1949 letter to Philippine labor leader Amado Hernandez, warned his friend an... more Carlos Bulosan, in a 1949 letter to Philippine labor leader Amado Hernandez, warned his friend and political ally that they must be guarded in their future correspondence. Referencing FBI surveillance of left-wing labor activists in the United States, Bulosan tells Hernandez, " I'm being watched too. " To cover their tracks they employed aliases in their communiqués, Carlos adopted the nom de guerre, " Julie " and addressed his letters to Hernandez using his middle name " Victor. " " Julie " was but one of many anonyms that Bulosan used in his political communications during the Cold War to circumvent the watchful eye of the FBI. ii The letters to Hernandez along with similar dispatches to Luis Taruc, leader of the Hukbalahap (Huk) peasant movement were eventually discovered by Philippine police after the arrest of Jesus Lava, a key figure in the Philippine Communist Party (PKP). This information alarmed American intelligence operatives who worked closely with the Philippine government to suppress left-wing political opposition in the newly independent nation. Consequently, federal authorities redoubled efforts to disrupt transnational ties linking Filipino partisans in the United States and the Philippines. American authorities believed that a worldwide communist conspiracy was at the root of political unrest in the former U.S. colony and that Filipino labor activists in the United States communicated with insurgents in the Philippines through an elaborate spy ring that linked left-wing cadres across the globe.
abstract The ascendancy of the United States as a global empire produced a crisis in the meaning ... more abstract The ascendancy of the United States as a global empire produced a crisis in the meaning of American nationhood, prompting imperial statesmen to recalibrate the boundaries of inclusion and exclusion. The annexation of Puerto Rico and the Philippines in 1898 gave rise to a complex and often volatile system of border-making. Overseas expansion changed the territorial nature of the state, as both the Philippines and Puerto Rico were declared " unincorporated territories " defined as neither fully domestic nor completely foreign. Territorial statecraft treated the Philippines and Puerto Rico similarly. However , statecraft towards individuals (as opposed to territories) differentiated the two populations as Puerto Ricans were declared U.S. citizens in 1917 but Filipinos were not. This essay explores how U.S. policies toward these territories and populations became increasingly complex and contradictory as the state tried to manage the national polity in the age of imperial expansion.
ABSTRACTThe ascendancy of the United States as a global empire produced a crisis in the meaning o... more ABSTRACTThe ascendancy of the United States as a global empire produced a crisis in the meaning of American nationhood, prompting imperial statesmen to recalibrate the boundaries of inclusion and exclusion. The annexation of Puerto Rico and the Philippines in 1898 gave rise to a complex and often volatile system of border-making. Overseas expansion changed the territorial nature of the state, as both the Philippines and Puerto Rico were declared "unincorporated territories" defined as neither fully domestic nor completely foreign. Territorial statecrafttreated the Philippines and Puerto Rico similarly. However, statecrafttowards individuals (as opposed to territories) differentiated the two populations as Puerto Ricans were declared U.S. citizens in 1917 but Filipinos were not. This essay explores how U.S. policies toward these territories and populations became increasingly complex and contradictory as the state tried to manage the national polity in the age of imperial expansion. [Key words: colonialism, citizenship, borders, Puerto Rico, Philippines, empire]the united states' bid for a transoceanic empire during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries had a profound impact on the character of american statecraft. The extension of U.S. sovereignty beyond the nation's continental borders gave rise to contentious debates about the costs and consequences of America's imperial ascent. In the aftermath of the Spanish American War in 1898, the U.S. claimed title to most of Spain's insular colonies, including Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Cuba, and Guam.1 Cuba was granted nominal independence in 1902, allowing American policymakers to focus their attention on the other colonial properties. Although the U.S. had a long history of domestic territorial conquest, the seizure of overseas possessions raised a new set of questions about the boundary lines of the American polity. Precedent established with regard to previous episodes of territorial acquisition (Adams-Onis Treaty [obtaining Florida], Louisiana Purchase Treaty, Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo) had always included provisions granting U.S. citizenship to the inhabitants of annexed lands.2 In addition, federal law as codified in the Revised Statutes of the United States established that all of the rights and protections guaranteed by the U.S. constitution were applicable to territories acquired by the U.S.3The prospect of collectively naturalizing the native residents of the Philippines and Puerto Rico, however, gave many U.S. lawmakers pause, insofar as the people who inhabited these territories were of suspect racial fitness. Expansion towards the new trans-oceanic territories also meant a transition from the hitherto dominant model of settler colonialism, in which territories became states after Anglo settlers became a majority and acquired property and power. This is not to say that "race" did not play a role in continental expansion. The pattern of incorporation could vary considerably depending on the speed of colonization and the size of the resident, non-Anglo population, the evident contrasting examples being California, which became a state in 1849 after the Anglo population that arrived with the Gold Rush overwhelmed the local population, and New Mexico, which had a much larger Mexican population and only became a state in 1912, after a protracted struggles over land titles and political power.4 Settlers would play a very marginal role in insular colonization after 1898.American lawmakers were forced to reconcile two seemingly countervailing political impulses that prevailed in the U.S. in the aftermath of the War of 1898. The first was the urge to enlarge the territorial jurisdiction of U.S. in an effort to bolster America's geopolitical position vis-a-vis rival imperial rivals, especially in the Caribbean Basin and Asia. By doing so, expansionists hoped to secure transoceanic trade routes and access to international markets for American commercial interests. …
Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews, 2012
This book begins with the creation of the colony of the Philippines in 1898 and ends with nationa... more This book begins with the creation of the colony of the Philippines in 1898 and ends with national independence in 1946. However, the book does not center upon either; instead, it focuses on the economic, political, and legal struggles of Filipino immigrants in the United States. The book is organized chronologically, although there is some overlap of periods across chapters. The first chapter deals with the racial politics of empire and the establishment of the Philippines as a colony of the United States. This lays the groundwork for the analysis of the political economy of Filipino immigration (1900s–1920s) in the second chapter. The next chapter deals more specifically with social and legal barriers that Filipinos confronted during the first three decades of the century. Chapter Four is a study of violence directed against Filipinos in the late 1920s and early 1930s. Finally, last two chapters deal with the political negotiations for independence, the participation of Filipinos in the Second World War, and the consequences for immigrants in the United States. The colonization of the Philippines resulted in the creation of a new legal category: the U.S. national, that is, those persons owing allegiance to the United States because they were at the same time citizens of one of its colonies. However ‘‘nationals’’ were not full-fledged citizens of the United States, and this initially led to considerable confusion about their rights to entry and to work. This ambiguous political status set the stage for the immigration of Filipinos who came to work in agri-business, first in Hawaii and then to the western and southwestern states. Later, Filipinos would also find work in service and industrial sectors. The first generation of Filipino immigrants struggled for and soon (in 1906) attained the right, as U.S. nationals, to unlimited entry into the United States. The author skillfully shows how Filipinos were clearly agents, and not merely victims, in this process: they were active in both class struggles, to obtain better wages and conditions, and legal battles, to achieve right of entry into the United States. Even though they gained the right to unrestricted immigration, Filipinos confronted other legal barriers regarding interracial marriage, property rights, and naturalization as U.S. citizens. In addition, local governments also attempted to police the color line by passing laws enforcing social segregation. In general, the legal issues were complicated by two principal factors. First, the laws were not always created with Filipinos in mind and the existing racial categories did not easily apply. Indeed, part of the strategy of Filipinos was to argue that they were outside of the laws that were erected explicitly against Afro-Americans, Mexicans, and ‘‘Asiatics,’’ namely, Chinese and Japanese. Second, the interests of local ‘‘nativists’’ often conflicted with those in agribusiness or the federal government. On the one hand, the nativists sought to preserve white privilege, dominance, and the color line; they opposed Filipino immigration. On the other hand, agricultural enterprises were in favor of Filipino workers, although they also sought ways to divide and conquer them whenever workers organized and pressed for better working conditions. In addition, the federal government was obliged to concede some degree of legal and naturalization rights to Filipinos. In the international sphere, it was not good politics to simply exclude them as ‘‘aliens’’ in U.S. society. Especially interesting is the analysis of the diverse and often contradictory positions of the local nativists in towns, counties, and states, the economic interests of agribusiness in the region, and the laws and policies of the federal government. In addition, the full range of actions and strategies of Filipinos on different fronts is fully explained.
Carlos Bulosan, in a 1949 letter to Philippine labor leader Amado Hernandez, warned his friend an... more Carlos Bulosan, in a 1949 letter to Philippine labor leader Amado Hernandez, warned his friend and political ally that they must be guarded in their future correspondence. Referencing FBI surveillance of left-wing labor activists in the United States, Bulosan tells Hernandez, " I'm being watched too. " To cover their tracks they employed aliases in their communiqués, Carlos adopted the nom de guerre, " Julie " and addressed his letters to Hernandez using his middle name " Victor. " " Julie " was but one of many anonyms that Bulosan used in his political communications during the Cold War to circumvent the watchful eye of the FBI. ii The letters to Hernandez along with similar dispatches to Luis Taruc, leader of the Hukbalahap (Huk) peasant movement were eventually discovered by Philippine police after the arrest of Jesus Lava, a key figure in the Philippine Communist Party (PKP). This information alarmed American intelligence operatives who worked closely with the Philippine government to suppress left-wing political opposition in the newly independent nation. Consequently, federal authorities redoubled efforts to disrupt transnational ties linking Filipino partisans in the United States and the Philippines. American authorities believed that a worldwide communist conspiracy was at the root of political unrest in the former U.S. colony and that Filipino labor activists in the United States communicated with insurgents in the Philippines through an elaborate spy ring that linked left-wing cadres across the globe.
abstract The ascendancy of the United States as a global empire produced a crisis in the meaning ... more abstract The ascendancy of the United States as a global empire produced a crisis in the meaning of American nationhood, prompting imperial statesmen to recalibrate the boundaries of inclusion and exclusion. The annexation of Puerto Rico and the Philippines in 1898 gave rise to a complex and often volatile system of border-making. Overseas expansion changed the territorial nature of the state, as both the Philippines and Puerto Rico were declared " unincorporated territories " defined as neither fully domestic nor completely foreign. Territorial statecraft treated the Philippines and Puerto Rico similarly. However , statecraft towards individuals (as opposed to territories) differentiated the two populations as Puerto Ricans were declared U.S. citizens in 1917 but Filipinos were not. This essay explores how U.S. policies toward these territories and populations became increasingly complex and contradictory as the state tried to manage the national polity in the age of imperial expansion.
Transpacific Femininities: The Making of the Modern Filipina. By Denise Cruz. Durham, NC: Duke Un... more Transpacific Femininities: The Making of the Modern Filipina. By Denise Cruz. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2012. 312 pages. $89.95 (cloth). $24.95 (paper). Over the past twenty years, the field of Filipino American studies has exploded, from just a handful of scholarly books on the subject to more than three dozen titles and countless essays. The field's notable progress is not surprising given the growing population of Filipinos in the United States: estimated at 3.4 million by the 2010 US Census Bureau, the Filipino American population grew by nearly half within the last decade alone, to become the second largest Asian group in the United States. Yet despite this demographic support, the emergence of Fil-Am studies has been no easy task. In addition to the epistemological challenges involved in conceiving a field from such a heterogeneity of disciplines, combined with the practical challenges involved in institutionalizing a field that remains largely underrepresented in academe, Fil-Am studies scholars have also had to write themselves into existence—writing against decades of imperial amnesia that have maneuvered to erase the historical record that exposes the United States' forfeitures of democracy in favor of empire building. The ways in which Filipinos have become forgotten and made invisible despite their long-standing presence in the United States have been well documented by early scholars in the field, such as Fred Cordova and Oscar Campomanes.
Uploads