If we consider the age-old cliche that prostitution is "the oldest profession in the world" and that prostitution evolved alongside American urban spaces and social institutions during the nineteenth century, what do we think is behind all of the concern about prostitution in the colonies during the early twentieth century? Thinking about the readings and the lectures, consider the role of the tropical environment in shaping American understandings of prostitution. Did the moral crusaders and the public health experts reinforce veneral diseases as unique products of the colonial environment or did they advocate that these were diseases that transcend geography and cross the great reaches of the American empire? Of course, any other thoughts or questions you might have are appreciated.
The differentiation between prostitution in the states and prostitution in the tropics seems to be an emphasis on environment. In the states, society tolerated prostitution as a sort of "black market" institution. However, the aspect of being in a new environment certainly played into the difference in reception to prostitution abroad. American "exceptionalism" played a role in stigmatizing Filipino women. If American Progressives were colonizing the Philippines, this means that society assumed that they needed to reform the Filipino population, including their morality. Fear of the unknown has a way of occupying a society, especially when the U.S. is stationed in an unknown land, which happens to be occupied by women as well. Only "The Woman's Column," noted the mistreatment of the Filipino women as immoral. Other sources mainly described Filipino women as test subjects to quarantine and deport. This "immorality" of Filipinos played into the whites' reasoning that they needed to reform this demoralized population.
ReplyDeleteWhat is ironic, yet unethical, is the fact that fear of military members succumbing to "tropical fever"--laziness, increased sexual drive, etc.--did benefit scientific research in preventing the spread of venereal diseases. The Maus piece is a good example of how physicians and scientists experimented with types of STD protection. Due to the fact that legality was lax in the Philippines, scientists were able to quarantine infected communities and even drive women out of the island. This image of experts traveling abroad certainly creates an idea that this problem is unique to the Philippines. Many viewed Filipinos as less moral than whites. Lt. Sweet wrote that the Filipinos were "the lowest, most ignorant class". Society probably was more able to accept this venereal disease problem on the islands and take the lead to eradicate it. I doubt a morally conscious society would ever openly admit that they had a problem with high STD infection rates. It is important to note that scientists like Maus do note that this generation of men and women are more lacking in morality than any other generation; however, most of this blame is placed on the islands.
This "evil" that whites discouraged was partially their own fault. Scientists and the military alike fail to place much or any blame on the military and instead quarantine and deport infected women. One militia actually requested the importation of better looking women for their military men. Maus even goes as far as to argue that "laws should be passed making the spread of venereal diseases a criminal offense and allow damages to the injured party." While Maus does suggest abstinence and that members be paid less while on sick leave due to venereal disease, the Filipino women are being quarantined and deported.
i agree with Catherine that there was a major difference in the ways American's viewed prostitution in America versus prostitution in America's satellites, specifically in the Philippines. Under the guise of American exceptionalism, it was accepted that prostitution was a natural development in America (as Noah explained in class today), where as prostitution was seen as unsanitary, dangerous, and an example of tropical immorality in the Philippines. However, I think it is important to note that prostitution in the Philippines actually was different than prostitution in America. Women were bought and imported from Japan and other areas of South-East Asia for the specific purpose of providing sexual services for American soldiers in the Philippines. In his report of Prostitution in Jojo, Lieutenant Colonel Sweet claimed that he did not specifically set aside a prostitution house for his infantry, he did admit that he allowed such a house to exist and regulated it. The writers of the Women's Column were outraged at the "state regulation of vice" in the Philippines, noting that the U.S. military supervised the acquisition of Japanese slave women and monitored their health as they were forced to live in military-run brothels and serve American soldiers. In the Philippines, prostitution was far from an entirely natural development--U.S. military men created a demand for prostitution and made wel sure that their needs were met.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jackie and Catherine in that prostitution was treated with a different attitude in imperialist countries than in their colonies. The articles all seemed to understand that prostitution occurs throughout the world. However, they do seem to think that the women are the ones that have spread the venereal diseases. For example, in Sweet's report, he is adamant that the Americans did not bring prostitution to the Philippines, even though other articles were adamant that the military was regulating and even encouraging prostitution. Sweet tried to make himself look like the hero in the situation, but he went about it in all the wrong ways. He arrested the "notorious" women and forced them out of the country, even though he admitted that this was breaking the law. Sweet justifies this by saying that it was for the greater good. However, he does not mention any punishment that was given to the soldiers who participated in such activities. This implies that the entire blame for the diseases spread through prostitution was put on the women, but it was viewed as okay that men were involved. He even calls the diseases "Asiatic," even though he must know that they exist at home as well.
ReplyDeleteWhile it's evident from the Woman's Column that women in America were highly against this immorality, it seems as if Americans still used this as a chance to experiment on the natives. Maus's article not only states that nine men had sex with one native woman, which is appalling, but that the American military invested in eugenics.
Therefore, the theme of the articles seems to be that men will be men, which allows them to visit brothels. However, they viewed all of the diseases they contracted as the fault of the unsanitary exotic women.
In The Woman's Column, it seemed that the women were most concerned with the ill treatment of the prostitutes. The article states that prostitution was natively unknown in Jolo, and that it was the U.S. military that imported Japanese girls to be used as prostitutes. This makes it appear as though it was not the environment of the Philippines that made the men feel that they needed prostitutes, but simply the morals and opinions of the men themselves.
ReplyDeleteLt. Col. Owen Sweet's report claimed that the U.S. Infantry "fell heir to the lax moral conditions incident to the Philippines and oriental countries,” and hence it was the overall oriental lewdness that cause the soldiers to fall into low graces. The report is blatantly self-serving, especially when Sweet calls the Philippines a “polygamous country” and claims that he restrained the prostitutes for the first time in their lives. Sweet also directly associates race with disease and immorality. He says that in order to reduce the disease in the Philippines, he "rid the towns of the Chinese, the moro women," even "the worst classes of the Filipino women."
In Col. L. Mervis Maus's report he seems to blame the influx of disease in the Philippines directly to the unsanitary and “savage” habits of the natives. He compares Manila to 16th century Europe--essentially calling the city backwards. When Maus continues on to the the discussion of venereal diseases he gets kind of crazy, claiming "no one should be permitted to marry unless recommended by a state board of medical examiners." He then creepily suggests a sort of social cleansing where people should only be allowed to reproduce if they are "free from all morbid and mental conditions which affect heredity." Along with this he supports the "race sterilization" of all male criminals.
It seems that there existed a widespread opinion of the Philippines being natively savage and sensual, partially as a result of the tropical weather, the jungle, and the heat. This made prostitution seem even more treacherous, because it went jointly with the belief that the Philippines rubbed off on the U.S. soldiers to make them equally lax in morals.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAllysa Dittmar said...
ReplyDeleteI agree with above comments, especially with Rachel's, in that it seemed that Americans largely placed the blame on the women rather than the men. If one compares the penalties imposed on the American men and the prostitutes, it is clear that the prostitutes received harsher penalties while the men received lax or no penalties. In the Woman's Column, it was mentioned that disease was avoided by "sequestering only the women affected by it, while the men similarly affected are allowed to go about freely and spread it" (2). Sweet says he ordered "all notorious women were watched, restrained, and examined; some were arrested and locked up, and some were forced to leave Jolo, while others were actually deported" (Sweet, 2 - 3). Maus' beliefs portray the same ideas as well, as mentioned by Catherine: "any woman engaged in illicit traffic as a trade or profession and found suffering from an infectious venereal disease should be confined in a lock hospital until she had recovered" (Maus, 577), while the men simply receive less pay if ill with VD.
I also wanted to point out that while we may be focusing on the women, young girls may have also been affected by this. From the Woman's Column, it was mentioned that, due to the desire for younger women, there was an organized traffic of girls by British officers in India in 1886. This makes me wonder whether this situation was also seen in the Philippines - the trafficking and prostitution of girls. The articles often use the word "girl," but it is unclear how old they are. The articles seem primarily concerned about the ills and issues of prostitution of women and neglect the fact that young girls may have been involved. None of the articles mention age, which is in a way intriguing.
Progressivism is also highlighted when Maus, in his report, "Public Health and Venereal Disease in the Philippines," discusses how social vices can be solved by scientific and rational measures. A major tenet of Progressivism is "scientism" and that people can and should make everything rational and efficient. It makes sense that Maus's report would include this statement because he is reading it before the fifteenth International Congress on Hygiene and Demography. He suggests to the congress the enactment of laws to inspect and segregate the demi-monde, which reminds me of the segregation of the US from the natives in the Panama Canal Zone through their construction of large white walls. The demi-monde refers most directly to the prostitutes, but can also symbolically refer to the natives in the tropics in general. Americans believed they should shield themselves from the dangerous and different environment of the tropics and in doing so, shield themselves from the uneducated and unsanitary natives and the venereal diseases which they carry. To conclude, Sweet stated in his "Report on Jolo Prostitution Inspections" that "It is doubtful if mortal man ... can fully and successfully reform the oriental morals." Therefore, Sweet set before Americans the task of attempting to civilize the natives and rid them of disease, but seemingly for the sake of the military men stationed there, not for the improvement of the natives.
ReplyDeleteThe primary concern about prostitution in the colonies is that the “Asiastic” diseases would contaminate our soldiers and would then be brought back to our country. As we talked about in class, the Americans wanted to keep the colonies at arms length. We wanted to have them to use them for the resources, but there was no “white settler” mentality and we did not want them to be incorporated in to our nation. The Public Health and Veneral Disease in the Philippines article goes in to great depth on the unsanitary conditions of the Philippines and how they are inherently unclean and how this relates to the spread of veneral disease.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of giving in to the tropics is very apparent in the newspaper article from the 1900s. It begins the article by saying "Taking it for granted that the soldiers cannot or will not live uprightly, ..." This quote indicates the acknowledgement hat they have given in to the tropics and there is no hope for them to behave the way they had in the United States. When he transitions in to why we should not do this at in the United States he says things like the men in the US want to treat the women with more respect – not simply that the women in the United States were considered to be cleaner and safer.
In the end of the article he talks about two other countries where prostitution exists- England and India. England, of course, represents a civilized nation, and India represents another tropical environment. He seems appalled that England would consider this system, but he seems more at terms with the fact that India has this system established.
In terms of diseases he definitely recognizes that they can occur in multiple places. Even in the Phillipenes where the girls are controlled and inspected, there are still venereal diseases passed. If they assumed it was a clean facility they would not need to continually check the girls. The author also acknowledges that even in the US no community that supports many men with one woman is a healthy community and that venereal disease will spread. Owen Sweet did call the veneral “so-called Asiatic diseases” which indicates the prejudice in the islands and the fear of “going Asiatic” or being contaminated by them, but I think that it is acknowledged that they are widespread diseases.
I agree with what everyone else has been saying about the distinction between prostitution in American and in the Philippines. The Women's Column states that 600 women were controlled by the military for the purposes of prostitution and notes that "this does not include the swarms of loose who have rooms and prowl about the streets". While this phrasing may not be euphemistic, it can be used to set apart the two types of prostitution, one being the controlling, sex slave trafficking described in the Women's Column, and the other, the more traditional commercial sex work people tend to think of when they hear the word prostitution.
ReplyDeleteI was surprised by how prostitution was regulated in the Philippines. One main point that the Women's Column makes is that despite the screening and in-patient treatment required of these women, the spread of disease cannot be contained as their is no surveillance on the men. The nature of these concurrent sexual relationships makes transmission to other members of this network far easier.
I also think that this systematic approach to prostitution lessened fears of who the prostitutes were and the possible health outcomes of such interactions. If the men felt safer health-wise entering the situation, they would be less likely to perceive risk; their irrational fears regarding native women may also lessen. The attitude generally seemed negative when discussing the natives, but the surveillance of the women's health status appears to rationalize some mens motives when engaging in sex with them.
Although prostitution was a common practice amongst Americans during the nineteenth century, its existence does contradict inherent values behind the concurrent moral progressivism movement. American exceptionalism was significantly undermined by the fact that they could not control their satanic urges to indulge in immoral behaviors. Despite the inherent dangers posed by sexually transmitted diseases, a significant portion of Americans could not subdue their animalistic urges. This evidence indicated that they are no more civilized than the Filipino natives they are trying to refine and culture. Doing things like create public schools so that in “ten years English will be generally spoken through the islands” (Maus 190) implies that Americans who speak English enjoy pleasures higher than sex. The contrary fact that military officials cannot control the immense amount of prostitution that occurs in the tropics illuminates the fallacy within that façade.
ReplyDeleteIn accordance with this attitude it is natural that the tropical environment played a significant role when Americans acknowledged the grim aspects of prostitution, namely the resulting diseases. Because in the tropics prostitutes were either natives or non-American imports, they were easy for the soldiers to blame. Rather than taking responsibility for their actions to sleep with prostitutes, it was much easier for Americans to blame the aspects of their external environment they assumed were beyond their control. This ideology can be seen, as mentioned above, through the unequal treatment of men and women. For instance, Colonial Maus believes that “laws should be passed making the spread of venereal disease a criminal offense” (Maus 577). Here he shows his belief that it is the prostitutes’ responsibility to not infect his soldiers. Instead of admitting that Americans should disengage in sexual dangerous activity, he explains that the women of the tropics need to clean their bodies so they can be better fit for the soldiers’ use.
While these articles did admit that venereal disease was a global disease, it is important to recognize the stress and emphasis they put on VD in the tropics. In Maus’s article it seemed as though he was blaming VD on the unsanitary conditions of the natives. Maus certainly sets his readers up to have a negative predisposition towards the natives when he describes their lifestyle and homes, he states that their drinking water comes from infected reservoirs by their homes and that they throw their garbage and feces into their backyard for their pigs to eat. This in itself would certainly lead one to believe that it is the natives fault Americans are contracting STD’s as surely no white man could give an STD to such a filthy native.
ReplyDeleteI also think it is important to point out that while people saw prostitution as something that naturally evolved in America (as Jackie said ) people viewed prostitution as immoral and wrong in the tropics. It is important to see that the government regulated houses sprung up in the tropics out of demand by the soldiers yet no one seems to be ready to blame the soldiers, just the women who engaging in prostitution (some of which are actively sought after by the military in order to supply the demands of soldiers, such as younger girls who are taken from their families) .
I agree with the notion that there are differing views of prostitution in America itself, versus in the American colonies. Why is this so? As Jackie pointed out, prostitution was more of a natural development in the U.S., but was forced into being by the military in the Philippines. There was a regulated influx of foreign women for this very purpose. Once prostitution became state-regulated in the Philippines, there were more reports of venereal disease. Is this the case because it was not accurately reported before, so it just looks like a lot more disease exists now, or because state regulation promoted, and therefore increased, prostitution? The “Woman’s Column” mentions that when the “state regulation of vice” in British India disappeared, reports of venereal disease extinguished. I believe this was the case because the government was no longer checking up on everyone’s sexual encounters, so not everyone would report disease if they were not forced to do so. Moreover, since the U.S. had a blind eye towards prostitution at home, how do we know that these diseases were not just as rampant there? Why did prostitution in the Philippines, and not in the U.S., become state-regulated? Perhaps many Americans believed that a dangerous environment makes immoral practices seem even more dangerous. With this attitude in mind, venereal disease would be more likely to occur in a disease-ridden locale like these Islands. The government at this time thought of the U.S. as pure and disease-free, so this kind of regulation would be futile and unnecessary in their eyes.
ReplyDeleteI also found it interesting that at first, Americans had no knowledge of the rampant prostitution ring in the Philippines. The government and the military kept it quiet because they knew that the American people at home would denounce the practice. The white soldiers and settlers knew that they could get away with engagement in this practice abroad, and so they took full advantage of the opportunity, knowing that they would be deemed morally degenerate if they did so at home. As the “Woman’s Column” reveals, “The United States should not adopt a method that Europe is discarding, nor introduce in our foreign dependencies a system that would not be tolerated at home.” In the Maus article, he hints at the moral degeneration of the age, which he felt needed reform. This progressive attitude is also seen in the other two articles, as the women in the “Woman’s Column” felt that the treatment of prostitutes as “inmates” was unjust and needed reform, and Lt. Colonel Sweet discussed his personal achievements at eradicating this system in the Islands.
In territories referred to as immoral and lawless by this week's authors, and with unsatisfactory conditions for structured society to exist, it is expected that we see something like prostitution arise. The Philippines were inhabited by many indigenous populations combined with American soldiers, liquor dealers, and other officials. Ways were found to combat the bubonic plague, smallpox, and even cholera. However it is quite difficult to prevent men who are far from home and a foreign tropical place that they haven't seen before to indulge in the act of prostitution. We have spent time discussing the stress put on the civilians of the Philippines by being imperialized, but the American soldiers in the Philippines in some ways saw just as much stress as the Filipinos. It is possible that prostitution, in combination with alcohol, were ways for Americans to cope with their new environment. Public health officials needed to make sure to contain venereal disease and even without a full understanding of these diseases, they knew that harm would be spread just as fast as the diseases did. I would hope that all efforts possible were made to control venereal disease in the Philippines and prevent the spread. Ideas of banning alcohol were mentioned in the readings, but removing vices of stress relief from soldiers would not have been nearly effective enough.
ReplyDeleteBesides venereal disease, the eradication program for the plague can be seen as one of the most successful vaccination programs of the 20th century on the same level as the Soviet Union's polio campaign. It is amazing that military-distributed glycerinated vaccines reached the entire population at such an early stage of medicine. The Soviet Union's polio campaign was ran by state public health leaders and scientists and was successful in eradicating polio from the nation. The fact that the military was able to organize a distribution schedule for a lightly tested vaccine is very progressive for the U.S military at this point in history.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDespite the United States’ Puritan roots, which dictate that all men are flawed and thus destined to sin, the moral crusaders of the early 1900s believed that the ills of humanity could be solved to create a more Utopian environment. The moral crusaders in particular sought to use the government to force the population to behave as they ideally should, promoting improved hygienic and moral education. Thus, the belief arose by some that temperance could be applied to prostitution as well as alcohol or any other “urban” vice. Maus writes of solutions to the, “two of the most prominent sociological problems of the age, alcoholic addiction and prostitution” (Maus 575). The particular fears towards the institution in the tropics is partially based upon Huntington’s ideas from last week’s readings that white men degenerate physically and morally in a tropical climate. While Progressives against prostitution may attempt to combat and reform those within the United States borders, the presence of brothels in the Philippines presents a group of people beyond the reach of alleged guidance and help. Due to the soldiers “weakening” state, they were more likely to give into base instincts, thus creating an environment that required prostitution.
ReplyDeleteI was additionally concerned by the implication that many of the women mentioned, particularly those in French colonial possessions, were being held against their will in the sex trade. The Woman’s Column Protest notes, “In all the countries where State regulation prevails, the women in the licensed houses are to a large extent slaves… she is no longer a person, but a thing belonging to the government” (Woman’s Column, 1). At this point we are not simply encountering a questionable use of government spending, we are discussing a violation of human rights.
To echo the thoughts that Erin mentioned in her post, I think the issue with prostitution in the colonies was less about prostitution as an industry and more about the women who were being hired as prostitutes and subsequently having relations with American men. Yes, it is true that there is an inherent stigma attached to prostitution as an industry in general, but the main problems with it in the colonies was that white people were afraid of white soldiers becoming infected with diseases that they believed should only affect native people and the prostitutes themselves. In the Sweet Report, the culture in the colonies is described as "low and debased" and as having "lax moral conditions" which clearly leads directly into the issues with prostitution and disease there. The idea of "American Exceptionalism" is very clear in the bias that exists about the prostitution industry in general versus the prostitution industry in the Philippines. Americans were okay with sweeping prostitution in the United States under the rug and dismissing it as a part of the black market, but they were unwilling to have the same attitude about the industry in the Philippines.
ReplyDeleteBoth Sweet in the Jolo report and Maus in the Sanitary Conditions reading, make their beliefs about the state of the colonies in the Philippines pretty obvious. Both writers critique the general state of sanitation and cleanliness, the prevalence of disease, and the Filipino people's inability to care for themselves in an acceptable way. Maus refers to the natives at one point as "wild" and criticizes their water sources and the way that they dispose of their excrement. Although the comments about general disease in the Philippines do not directly correspond to the prostitution industry, the American perspective on both is essentially the same and is reflected in both of these readings.
As others have noted, the American outlook on venereal disease in the Philippines was an extension of their belief that the environment—natural and built—was inherently unhealthy and unsanitary. From the miasma theory of disease to Maus’s description of uncivilized settlement pattern of the Filipinos, the American Progressive view was that the tropical environment needed to be improved and brought up to American standards. Maus states, “Great strides have been made in the general sanitation of the islands and sociological condition of the natives since American intervention in 1898. Through the beneficence of a public educational system, light has penetrated the remotest corners of the archipelago...” (Maus, 190) Just as the built environment needs reform, so does the public health emergency afflicting prostitutes and the American military.
ReplyDeleteSomething else I found interesting was that the differing arguments from the Women’s Column and Lt. Sweet’s report can be heard in almost the same form today. Some argue that legalizing prostitution will benefit women by making it safer and less exploitative, while others find the idea morally repugnant. Sweet’s report praises the inspections and reforms that made prostitution less dangerous, while the Women’s Column finds such inspections degrading and would rather see prostitution stamped out.
There seem to be several factors driving the American concern with prostitution in the tropics. Firstly, Americans were concerned with venereal disease. A strong military presence was essential for a controlled, successful occupation of the Philippines, so the health of the US troops was critical. Additionally, I believe that Americans understood venereal disease as something that could easily transcend oceanic boundaries and enter into the continental United States. Although none of the articles explicitly discuss the possibility of increased venereal disease in America, the article from “The Women’s Column” discusses the problems that France and Belgium have had with venereal disease and immorality. Americans thus understood venereal disease to be something that can flourish outside of the tropics, even if they perhaps thought that it was more prevalent in places like the Philippines.
ReplyDeleteAnother motivation was the preservation of American middle class values. The writer of “The Women’s Column” stated,
“Whenever a government undertakes to provide its soldiers with faculties for vice, it soon connives at, if it does not actually instigate, the most high-handed and unscrupulous measures for keeping up the supply of women. This is especially apt to happen when troops are stationed in a foreign country, remote from the influence of public opinion at home, and among natives of a different race and color.”
I believe that this quote suggests that soldiers not only are lacking moral character when removed from American public opinion, but that also the intermingling of the races is partly to blame for this decline in American values. (Just as a side note: I don’t really think that female progressives necessarily intended to use race as an argument against prostitution. It seems from the article we read that they had the women’s best interests at heart, and that this racially infused discourse was just a normal part of the language of the day.)
It would seem from these motivations that there would be one united front against prostitution. However, as many of you pointed out, this was far from the reality. American militarists, trusting totally in the scientific method, believed that a systematic approach to the regulation of prostitution was the best and most rational way to obliterate the spread of venereal disease, as was evidenced by Dr. Maus’s paper. As Rachel noted, the women, not the men, were blamed, and therefore they were the ones who were forced to pay expensive medical bills and undergo frequent examination. Meanwhile, as Catherine noted, the Philippines offered a perfect laboratory of sorts where scientists could test STD prevention and public health techniques.
I find it very interesting that within all of this discourse about STDs and decreased morality that no attention was given to another serious consequence of illicit sexual activity- procreation. If these so called “prostitutes” were in fact young innocent girls that had unwillingly become part of organized human trafficking, then they were by no means professional prostitutes. I would imagine they would thus be very likely to become pregnant by American soldiers. Was this not considered an “American” problem? I would think that in an era so focused on immigration issues and so full of white supremacist discourse that this would have been a grave concern, but it doesn’t enter into any of the articles. Since the young prostitutes were forced to take care of their own medical expenses and remain disease-free for the white soldiers, I have to assume that this too would be their issue that they would have to deal with alone. Any thoughts?
After reading the articles, specifically the ones by Sweet and Maus, I believe that the Americans did understand that these venereal diseases transcended geographic boundries, but did their best to not let the disease escape acceptable areas. Almost all of the officials in the Philippines saw prostitution as a problem, but not because of the act itself but because it spread diseases so easily to the soldiers. The behavior of the soldiers was attributed to many vices, but prostitution was closely related to alcohol. Maus even says it is after the soldiers drink liquor that their 'moral standard is lowered" and they become "less cautious". It seemed like only the Women's Column looked at prostitution as an immoral act in itself, while the others just believed it was a means of transporting diseases that took soldiers out of commission.
ReplyDeleteProstitution is one of the “oldest professions in the world”. Prostitution appears in everything from the Bible, to monarchies, to present day society. There are two causes that make prostitution in the Philippines different to the United States than prostitution around a military base for other countries or prostitution in the United States.
ReplyDeleteThe United States was founded on puritanical ideas, and these ideas have been incorporated into American society and culture. The thought of a Temperance movement in France or Italy is laughable. A monarch without a mistress is equally comical. The United States’ puritanical ideas filter through society in many ways. Some of the movements that occurred during the Progressive Era can be seen as revival of these ideals. Because of our puritanical beliefs, prostitution for many years has been illegal, but not non-existent. Prostitution laws were not well enforced throughout history, allowing it to become a form of “black market” throughout many cities of the United States. In the Philippines, the military was attempting to turn prostitution into a “system of State-licensed vice”. There was uproar at the thought of making prostitution an acceptable commonplace in the military, and therefore American society. Several other European countries had already implemented similar systems, England had the “Queen’s women”. This uproar of American society compared to the acceptance of European countries clearly demonstrates the different views Americans and Europeans have.
Another cause that made prostitution in the Philippines different than in the states is due to American exceptionalism and eugenics. In the beginning of Maus’s Sanitary Conditions in the Philippines on American Occupancy and Work of the Board of Health”, Maus outwardly mentions exeptionalism and eugenics, evident in phrases such as “survival of the fittest”, “semi-civilized race”, “Filipinos were more susceptible to the disease and the death rate was greater among them then in the …American[s]”, “light has penetrated the remotest corners of the archipelago”, and “the government has…its sacred duty of spreading the gospel of personal and political liberty throughout the dark corners of the Orient”. All of these rhetoric phrases reinforce the idea that Americans are superior to the people of the Philippines, including the women. The idea that the tropics and the native people are uncivilized, unsanitary, “backwards”, and “semi-civilized race” lead the military and American society to fear the interactions with the Philippine women might lead some of their soldiers to go “Asiatic”. As people have already pointed out, mostly it was the women who were blamed at giving the military men these diseases; the women were seen as unsanitary and contaminating the American troops. Since the American Revolution, there have always been prostitutions or women who traveled with American troops. However, these women who were keeping the American troops in the Philippines company were not Caucasian, and therein is a cause of why American society reacted as they did to the “state system” of prostitution in the Philippines.
I believe the environment played a large role in shaping American understandings of prostitution because prostitution in the Philippines was as an extension of American desires to conquer the tropics. White men considered Filipino women to be inherently immoral; driven by American exceptionalism, white men sought to remain in the tropics and civilize the population. However, if progressives were looking to reform the Philippines, promoting prostitution and giving into their own self-control was an entirely backwards approach. Americans do not even present opportunities for moral advancement because, as the Woman’s Commission states, “a women who sacrifices her modesty, sacrifices also her liberty.” To the white men in the tropics, the natives and the Japanese imports were no more than slaves, “pure and simple.”
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, only infected women, not American soldiers, were required to be vaccinated and admitted to hospitals. Therefore, prostitution continued to develop as a savage institution unique to the Philippines and venereal diseases were thought of as purely colonial because Americans placed the blame on the native women as carriers of diseases They refused to look to themselves as the cause of the problem.
The two male writers, Sweet and Maus, clearly believed prostitution in the Philippines, and the prevalence of venereal diseases among American troops stationed there, was rooted in local immorality, filthy sanitary conditions, lack of US scientific “know how” to combat disease, and ineffective monitoring of the presence of diseases in the local population and American soldiers. Both appear to believe that American exceptionalism mandated that the US eradicate immorality and disease in the archipelago. Neither addresses the detailed allegations in “The Women’s Column” that the US sponsored prostitution for the enjoyment of American troops.
ReplyDeleteSweet, who simply denies he maintained houses of prostitution for use of the troops, refers to the “immoralities [of the] lawless community” and “immoral Asian women.” He calls venereal diseases as “Asiatic diseases,” despite the obvious presence of both prostitution and venereal disease elsewhere, including the US. He believed it was his duty to examine women for disease, quarantine them, and even deport them in egregious cases. Maus seems to view the Philippines as a laboratory for American scientific expertise. He writes at length about the extreme unsanitary conditions of the Philippines, describing them as the equivalent of conditions in European cities in the 16th century, and extols American success in reducing disease and introducing sanitation to the islands. He blames the native population for the prevalence of venereal disease and its spread to US. soldiers, who he seems to think cannot be held responsible for contracting the disease. Taking a “boys will be boys” approach, he writes, “No quarantine was imposed against the homes of those affected with any infectious diseases, nor were social visits discontinued. The fighting, drinking Anglo-Saxon possesses the same traits the world over, hence few of our young soldiers hesitated to enter Filipino homes when swayed by passion regardless of diseases, conditions or consequences.”
Only “The Women’s Column” expressed any concern for the women involved. Its report on US military practices regarding prostitution, if true, represents the extreme arrogance of America’s imperialist presence in the Philippines. Not only did the military regulate vice in a manner that would have been unacceptable in the US, but they reportedly bought women in Japan and elsewhere in Asia to work as virtual sex slaves for the US troops. This behavior would have been intolerable if it involved American women or took place at home. It’s interesting that this piece, written by and for women, is the only one that expresses outrage at official US actions promoting prostitution in the Philippines for the benefit of US soldiers who, apparently, were not deemed responsible enough to avoid exposure to venereal diseases.
Prostitution can be considered “the oldest profession in the world,” but has not been presented positive moral way. The thought that prostitution evolved with American landscape is true to the point that it was not a concern if it did not offend people. As the Progressive movement starts to development, women begin to see prostitution as degrading against poor, young women. The concerns of family life help raise questions towards the morality of prostitution. Also there is a great deal of concern that it brings down men’s morality. The occupation of American military in the Philippines gave prostitution a stronger reputation of an uncivilized process. Seeing the Filipinos to be below the white man, Americans did not want to see them fall into the uncivilized lifestyles that were brought out in tropical environments such as laziness, alcoholism and most importantly, sexual indulgence. Venereal diseases were seen as products of the environment. The Women’s Column, it discusses the atmosphere of these brothels and how it was the prostitutes who were spreading diseases. The prostitutes were tested for diseases by army surgeons while they did not want to test the men, as if the native women were the only carriers of the diseases. Even the strictest of policies did not help upkeep health and wellness the Philippines.
ReplyDeleteTo me, Americans accepting prostitution in the US as an evolution alongside American urban space and deeming prostitution in the Philippines as immoral displays American exceptionalism. As we have seen in previous lectures and readings, Americans consider themselves more civilized than the Filipinos in various aspects. For example, Americans thought the Filipinos were uncivilized because the Filipinos did not take advantage of their natural resources or the amount of timber found on the island. The Amercians had to come onto their ‘wild’ island and show the people how to be ‘civilized.’ Americans thought of the people along with the environment of the island as savage and they needed to tame it. I feel that we can also use this as a reason why Americans were concerned with prostitution in the Philippines and not in the United States.
ReplyDeleteAmericans thought of the native prostitutes as ‘immoral’ due to the environment which was considered ‘uncivilized.’ These native prostitutes had diseases which were dangerous to the American soldiers and instead of blaming the men for ‘demanding more young and attractive women,’ people were blaming the environment for making the men go ‘asiatic.’ According to Sweets, native women were had to go through extensive medical examinations to make sure they were not disease, while the men were able to walk around. being arrested, locked up, and some were even deported, while the men went to a detention camp a mile from Jolo. These women were being treated like slaves and were thought of as immoral when in reality they were only doing what they were told by the American soldiers.
I believe the concern about prostitution in the colonies in the early 20th century was less about public health and more about supremacy and control. The cause for concern was because there were groups who felt they had something to lose in the power paradigm asserted by the existence of these brothels. Namely, women’s rights and suffrage agitators, small government advocates, civilian authorities, moral authorities and groups concerned about human trafficking.
ReplyDeleteThe brothels were of concern to women’s rights and suffrage agitators because it seemed to be a setback in the struggle for political equality that there were women trafficked into and subjected to prostitution and seemingly invasive medical exams which the men who visited them were exempt form. Small government advocate would have been alarmed by the existence of the micromanagement of the brothels and the invasion of privacy implied by weekly health examinations. Furthermore, it was an experiment in governmental control like never before—the idea that the government could mandate personal weekly health inspections and to some extent control morality by decreeing what was (visiting state sanctioned prostitutes) and was not (sleeping with inspected native women) morally permissible. It was also an instance of army control winning out over the civilian authorities, since the entire system seems to have been long kept a secret from the continental American public as well as civilian political leaders. The moral implications of legalizing prostitution in a US colony would have been of moral concern to puritanical groups and the methods of procuring prostitutes a matter of concern for human rights advocates.
While it may have been a legitimate concern for military officials and administrators to maintain the sexual health of US troops, if the true aim were public health, the regulators should logically have inspected the clients as well as the prostitutes as the “Women’s Column” pointed out.
I'm really sorry that my post is late. I sincerely apologize, it won't happen again. I think that prostitution is a major concern because of the fact that many women's rights groups were advocating social change (like the Woman's Column article) and saw prostitution as immoral and degrading to society. It was obviously sinful for men to be possibly having affairs and for naive girls to lose their way because of money. Other Progressives were likely intrigued by the opportunity to check the advances of science in these tropical regions due to the fact that the "Constitution didn't follow the flag." The presence of prostitution meant the presence of diseases that needed to be eliminated. The Progressives believed that their policies could fix these issues. Also, based on Sweet's Report, it seems like many Americans saw themselves above the vice and sins that were "typical" of the natives. Americans were above such activities and they needed to show that.
ReplyDelete