Tuesday, September 6, 2011
AS.100.369: Managing the Philippine Environment
The image below of Governor-General of the Philippines (and later U.S. President), William Howard Taft, sitting on top of a water buffalo actually served an important ideological project--visualizing the American subjugation of its newest colonial possessions (or it could just be Taft sitting on top of an unfortunate water buffalo--we could debate that). Often, economic exploitation and management of natural resources requires ideological imperatives that sustain this colonial extraction process. After reading the B.I.A.'s "Official Handbook of the Philippines" can you locate certain American ideological imperatives in rationalizing the study and extraction of Philippine nature? What purposes might these rationales serve? Of course, any other questions and thoughts are welcome as well.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
One of the ideological imperatives that I noticed in the "Official Handbook of the Philippines" was the assumption that the forests of the Philippines were awaiting "the skill and enterprise of the American capitalist" to capitalize on its resources. This concept of the Filipino forests needing us American capitalists in order to tap into its full potential creates the imperative of Americans going to the Philippines and exploiting its resources--it makes it sound as if we would be doing the Philippines wrong if we didn't go exploit its forests for them. The author also discussed the establishment of The Forestry Bureau and how they discovered a fine tract of timber blocked by a small obstruction in a stream "that an American logging company would have removed in a short time." This makes native Filipino loggers sound incompetent--and makes it seem as though Americans have far better and efficient techniques to collect timber. By presenting information in this way, it seems clear to assume that the Philippine Islands need Americans in order to become more functional, which is of course beneficial to American contractors and builders who want justification to take all of their timber. The author claimed similarly that Americans would be less wasteful and more efficient at collecting rubber, coconuts, and bamboo.
ReplyDeleteGood pick-up Amanda. I think we should further explore that on Thursday.
ReplyDeleteWhile there is a definite profit-based drive within the Official Handbook, it is worth noting that on page 86 it states, "further devastation will not be allowed." This suggests the emerging trend at the time of utilitarianism, which, although by no means altruistic, advocates the preservation of resources to the degree that they can be used by the next generation. The original goal of many national parks and forest preserves was not to protect animals from hunting, it was to ensure that future Americans would also be able to take advantage of the alleged commodity. This theme can be seen much later in the 1972 Clean Water Act, passed in order to keep the nations lakes and streams "fishable and swimmable," meaning usable by man as a good for future generations.
ReplyDeleteFocusing on the readings from pages 138-143, I noticed that the text disregards “the rich bird fauna” (p. 138) in favor of discussing mammals. While it states that mammals are scarce, the author has more to say on this topic due to the potential value found in these animals.
ReplyDeleteWhen discussing wild hogs, the Handbook states that “few white men who have observed these animals acting as scavengers care to eat their flesh” (p. 139). The author then continues to note that both deer and hogs are a main staple for the natives’ food supply. This idea that the hogs are an adequate source of food for natives but are not suitable for the white man reinforces how Americans viewed the Filipinos as uncivilized, or savage enough to eat scavengers. This also evokes the feeling that the Americans deemed the natives undeserving of the superior food source the white men selected from this new environment.
I agree with Amanda's comment and I want to elaborate further on her comment. It appears that the Americans strongly felt that the Philippines had to be subdued, through the tropical environment as well as the people. Previously, the United States had been relatively successful conquering the "wilderness," such as the West, without much difficulty. However, that was certainly not the case with the Philippines, as shown by the B.I.A.'s handbook and lecture - it is clear that there have been several failed attempts in overcoming and subduing the Philippines’ jungle - for example, "neither American, Australian, or European horses have thus far flourished in the Islands" (189) or "all attempts to domesticate them [the carabos] have failed" (142). In the end, it makes me wonder: did the Americans demonstrate ethnocentrism? The United States' actions reflected the dominion theology - it appears that they assumed and believed that even the tropical jungles, alongside with its inhabitants including the natives, were possible to subdue. The Euro-Americans appeared to believe that they could overpower the Filipino world through war and authority, as well as impose their culture and beliefs upon both the land and people. According to the lecture, most of the U.S. troops during the insurgency viewed the Filipino people as inferior and savage, but were quite mistaken when many American troops suffered through ambushes, torture, or imprisonment because the so-called savages knew the tropics better. The Americans' actions and possible ethnocentrism certainly brought negative effects upon the Filipinos, such as disease (i.e. rinderpest). But I also wonder: while ethnocentrism is often viewed negatively, can it be a positive effect in some ways? For instance, according to the Handbook, the "botany of the Philippines has not received the attention from scientists that has been devoted to the fauna, and whatever attention has been paid to the vegetation has been directed to its economic rather than scientific features" (78). However, "the importance of a more thorough knowledge of the flora...was recognized by the Philippine Commission" (78). The Bureau of Government Laboratories handled all botanical work, botanical books, and equipment. It gave better and more means of obtaining knowledge of the Philippines' flora. This could have somehow benefitted the Filipino land and people in the long run.
ReplyDeleteThis study of Philippine nature should not be titled “An Insular Handbook of the Philippines,” but rather, “Ways to Exploit the Resources of the Philippines.” For a supposedly informative piece on the different types of flora, fauna, and other species of the Philippines, the study seems to be far more interested in detailing exactly the amount of timber one can hope to gain for American benefits, and exactly what the natives and the Spanish have been doing wrong in cultivating their own resources.
ReplyDeleteThis attitude can ideologically be explained by the American need to declare itself as a superpower and to gain resources from the lush environment of the Philippines. This thirst for resources is detailed when the study states that, “the field of operation in many parts of the United States has become limited by the fact that much of the territory has been cut over and no effort made to protect the remaining forest growth” (95). Even though Americans had used up almost all of their timber, it seems as if they felt no qualms in manipulating another country for their own benefit.
Americans felt justified in entering the Philippines because they thought that they could swoop in and teach the natives the correct, Western way of taking over their environment. It even uses a superior tone throughout the study, which is contradictory as it also explains that the natives were the ones who showed them how to hunt and extract gum from their trees. Instead of thanking the natives, the study goes on to complain that “little care has been exercised in breeding”(139) of the horses.
While the US seemed to think it was doing the right thing and civilizing the wild jungle, this study shows that their reasoning was mostly focused on the vast resources that the Philippines offered.
Chapter 5 sheds light upon America's interest in developing the flora of the Philippines. The author starts out by stating that the Spaniards contributions towards developing a botanical knowledge produced "invaluable collections" and a "less valuable library" (that was only destroyed by a fire prior to American occupation) so any prior knowledge of the native flora was inadequate in the minds of Americans. American colonialists hoped to establish a botanic garden in the Philippines where scientific work on timber, medicinal plants, food plants, resins, gums, etc., could be conducted. They rationalize this ideological imperative on the basis that such knowledge would be of "material benefit" to "every inhabitant of the Islands." Much of what the author discusses is that their (American) knowledge of the Philippines is too limited to effectively divide the Archipelago into appropriate botanical regions or completely classify various types of vegetation. Americans had much work to do in order to benefit the "inhabitant of the Islands." By presenting the information in such a way implies that such extensive work could only be conducted with the aid of superior American technology and expertise. Furthermore, I found it interesting that a physical manifestation of outside influence in the Philippines was evident in the approximately 60 species of American origin found on the Archipelago (79).
ReplyDeleteJen-- Yes, pay attention to this notion of utilitarian conservation and if it continues beyond 1902 in the Philippines.
ReplyDeleteCristi-- Why do you think "wild" game is being condemned as unsuitable food for whites?
Allysa-- Certainly yes, you're right in terms of one of the unintended benefits of colonialism is the expansion of scientific knowledge. Perhaps the question is: who benefited from that knowledge? Americans seeking authority or Filipinos who had to live in that environment? Or both? In general, how do you think colonial knowledge benefits the colonized in the long run?
Rachel-- Your comments remind me that we should consider who this handbook might have been written for? Who was the targeted audience?
Tori-- Surprised by the handbook's acknowledgement of previous Spanish contributions to Filipino botanical knowledge?
The authors of the "Handbook" not only described the Philippines in a superior tone, as Rachel explained, but also described the islands in a proud tone. For example, they explained that "the flora of the Archipelago has been increased by the introduction of many species of economic and ornamental value from other tropical countries" (79), but also from the U.S. In the eyes of the Americans, the introduction of, for example, tobacco and corn, obviously improved the Philippines because it expanded their flora and gave them Western resources. However, the authors of the handbook fail to explain how invasive species, like tobacco and corn, can absolutely demolish local flora and fauna, and seriously hamper local markets and economies. One must carefully examine the effects of such western "improvements" upon the Philippines.
ReplyDeleteAnother American imperative apparent in this study was the rationalization of the American exploitation of the Filipino timber resources. As Amanda quoted, the forests are "rich in valuable products awaiting the skill and enterprise of the American capitalist" (87). The authors described how the forests aren't being preserved and the Americans will preserve them while simultaneously and sustainably utilize their products by only felling full-grown trees. This seems quite typical of an American capitalist: under the visage of moral intentions of preservation and sustainability, thoroughly exploit available resources. They rationalized this further by explaining that the Chinese market for timber will grow stronger, which is quite a weak rationale because why would the American capitalist be concerned with the strength of the Chinese timber market? Again, the Americans are simply trying to rationalize their exploitation.
The purpose of these rationales may simply be to avoid creating a guilty conscience, or perhaps to convince investors to invest in the resources of the Philippines, or to convince businesses to understand the value of Filipino nature and use its resources. What we can deduce from the reading is a weakness in moral imperative or perhaps a misunderstanding of the American moral imperative.
The B.I.A. is a prime example of desensitization. It is imperative to desensitize the environment to allow for a clear conscience when conquering the environment. What struck me about the B.I.A. was the business-like nature of the language. I expected to read a more scientific perspective. What I did not expect was the "handbook" to be more than a scientific report of the environment and their explorations. With little or no reference to the Filipino population, the focus rests on how Americans can create a more sustainable environment while still extracting all of its useful resources for capitalist gain. However, they offer no recommendations on how to create this sustainable environment and, instead, detail the resource opportunities the environment provides. The idea of creating this "sustainable" environment further feeds into the American imperative of superiority. If Americans are "helping" others whether it be through the environmental "action" or colonization, then Americans can rationalize this process with little or no questions to the contrary.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading "The Official Handbook of the Philippines" I was particularly fascinated with the section on water buffalo. Here the author discusses the "exciting and dangerous" (141) nature of hunting a type of buffalo called timarau in the wild. At this point in time Americans in the Philippines were generally concerned with conquest and discovery. This attitude is exemplified through the author's description of hunting the wild cattle. As we discussed in class on Tuesday, when the Americans arrived in the Philippines and saw the dense and complex jungles for the first time they were fearful. It was ridden with countless unknown diseases, predatory animals, and plants so intimidating it would not have been crazy to believe they were predatory as well. But here in the "Handbook" it seems as though this mindset is starting to shift. Now that Americans have spent more time on the islands, exploring and uncovering the mysteries within the jungles, they are much less intimidated. They no longer run away from the wild buffalo because it is different than anything they have seen before. Instead they go out on lengthy and grueling expeditions into the jungle because they are fascinated by its elusive qualities and its ability to withstand human gunfire. It is clear that the jungle still holds a lot of its mystery for the Americans, but because they are no longer frightened by it they are memorized by its potential. As they see it, the timarau, like many other aspects of the islands, including its natives, embodies untapped potential. Once they conquer and tame the species, the Americans will be able to utilize it for their own benefit along with all the other undiscovered resources of the islands.
ReplyDeleteWhile the Americans mention the vast array of flora and fauna available in the region and their desire to study them, they clearly believe that the most important and valuble animals are the ones already familiar to them. They mention deer, squirrels, hogs, and horses just to list a few. It seems that they want to use the animals they recognize, import ones they need, change the ones that are similar, and remove they ones that don’t seem helpful. In regards to horses the author writes, "little care has been exercised in breeding, and they might doubtless be greatly improved." The Americans clearly believe that their animals are the best and so they will either only use the familiar animals when colonizing a new area or change the animals to make them familiar. The one animal listed in this document that is not a familiar animal is the timarau and the author writes, “its extermination by man would be well-nigh impossible.” They write this because they have found it hard to kill them, but it is concerning that their extermination is something the colonists would want to do. The author does mention a desire to continue studying their animals, but seems to hold the opinion that they already know the important and useful ones.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tori’s comment concerning the classification and scientific study of the different flora. The idea that knowledge of flora “can be carried on to the material benefit of every inhabitant of the Islands” implies that the natives did not yet realize the full potential of their resources, and thus suggests that they are less knowledgeable than the new US inhabitants. However, I also believe that Americans chose to classify the flora of the region in order to follow in the imperialistic footsteps of other successful empires. The manual states that “In the colonial possessions of Great Britain and Holland the fact that an accurate knowledge of the flora of the country is the first essential for future successful agriculture and forestry work was realized in the beginning of their colonial administration.” The handbook then cites a number of examples of prosperous colonies, and argues that Americans must identify and research the various flora in order to have similar prosperity in the Philippines. The US was looking towards great empires such as Britain and Holland, and was hoping to gain similar status as an imperial nation. Successful acquisition of the Philippines would not only allow the US to play an active role in trade with China and Southeast Asia, but it would also enable the US to step onto the world stage as a new superpower. By studying and extracting the natural resources of the islands, Americans could potentially revolutionize Philippine agricultural and timber industries, and more importantly, seamlessly incorporate the Philippines into the capitalist nature of the new American Empire.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I agree with Amanda’s argument that the Americans wholeheartedly believed that the Filipinos needed their help to extract the rich resources of their own environment. The handbook reminded me of Rudyard Kipling’s “The White Man’s Burden.” Ironically enough, when I looked up the date of this poem to see if it corresponded with the time frame we’re dealing with here, Wikipedia told me that the subtitle of this work is: “The United States and the Philippine Islands.” Kipling, and other imperialists of the time, staunchly believed that it was their duty and obligation to civilize those who did not embody Western ideals. This included the natives of the Western frontier back home, as well as the indigenous abroad, including the Filipinos. Throughout this handbook, the Bureau of Insular Affairs constantly alludes to the Filipinos’ way of handling their environment as incorrect. For instance, usage of the carabao as the Islands’ chief beast of burden is noted as “crude,” (89) suggesting that the Philippine society is primitive in comparison with the United States.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Allysa’s proposition that perhaps American ethnocentrism was positive as well. While the handbook certainly portrays the cataloging of the Philippine flora and fauna as beneficial to the Filipinos, I believe that in cataloging this information, American zoologists and botanists only had American interests at heart. The purpose of understanding the Philippine environment better, was so that Americans could exploit the Islands’ resources more efficiently. The handbook articulates: “a botanic garden in the Philippines is a matter of such great importance to the agricultural interests of the Islands… [and] to the material benefit of every inhabitant of the Islands.” (77) This makes me wonder: if it were so important, wouldn’t the Filipinos have cataloged their flora earlier? Also, the Spanish had already done so, but the U.S. didn’t trust their research. Thus, I think the underlying message is that a botanic garden is of “great importance” to the UNITED STATES and to the “material benefit” of the UNITED STATES. The U.S. made that quite clear by going into the Islands and exploiting the environment beyond repair. Even though the handbook mentions how the rate of timber per cubic foot will only increase and therefore benefit the Philippine government, since the Americans had already used up most of the Philippine’s timber supply and were now looking towards the virgin forests for more lumber, will there be any left for the Filipinos?
Lastly, and this might be a bit of a stretch, I thought it was interesting that one of the chief predators of the Philippine timber is white ants. The handbook states: “The question of durability and resistance to the attacks of the white ants and other destroying insects is of great practical importance…” (88-89). This brought to my mind an image of white Americans, like the white ants, acting as predatory insects feeding off of the Philippine environment, and destroying its beauty.
Alyssa, I am glad you noted the idea that the United States' occupation of the Philippines lead to an increase in scientific knowledge of the tropical environment. Throughout the assigned sections of the Official Handbook of the Philippines, the Bureau of Insular Affairs discussed the already-known information of the Philippines' flora and fauna, along with the potential for further research and discovery of the ecosystem. In Chapter Five, the bureau draws from other colonial occupations of tropical areas, noting that "in all of these institutions, the primary object has been to study and classify the flora," and that the United States must continue to take the same approach in the Philippines and rebuild the botanical gardens. The Bureau claims that studying the plants of the Philippines will lead to "the material gain of every inhabitant of the Islands" (77). While it it true that further research of the flora could result in the discovery of plants that have economic value, studying Filipino flora has even greater potential value. As Alyssa said, expanding knowledge of the flora can benefit the Filipino people and land; it could lead to further economic development and introduce sustainable practices, which would bring wealth to some Filipinos and lay the foundation for sustainable land use in the long-run. However, the greatest beneficiary of the research of flora in the Philippines is (surprise) the United States. Not only would research have economic gains for Americans; it would also ensure that the United States has the largest database of tropic knowledge in the world. Having access to study the ecology of Philippines gives the United States an intellectual advantage over the rest of the world, further strengthening the idea that American is superior or exceptional. In the end, intellectual knowledge has more value than any sort of economic gains from the United States' occupation of the Philippines.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading "The Official Handbook of the Philippines" I noticed an ever present trend in which the book often had a tone of superiority much like Julia had said. Whether it be through its description of the local diet or its description of the local hunting methods, there was an ever present condescending tone or tone a of superiority. As someone already pointed out the book described the pig as a staple in the locals diet, and a little further down goes on to say how "few white men who have observed these animals acting as scavengers care to eat their flesh” (139) suggesting that the wild hog was unfit for human consumption due to its scavenging nature, however for the "wild" locals it was suitable. Another interesting example of this is when the book describes the locals methods for hunting the water buffalo. The book describes the water buffalo as a lazy stubborn animal that when provoked or injured turns into a force to be reckoned with. To give you an idea of the violent nature and determination of the buffalo and the dangers in hunting them the books says how the water buffalo were "known to kill men after being shot in the heart" (141). The book then goes on to describe the locals hunting methods as using their own water buffalo as decoys in order to get close to the wild buffalo, and once close enough the native attempts to hit the animal with his bolo in an attempt to subdue/kill it. "If he fails his carelessness to apt to cost him his life" (141). Keep in mind the book had just stated buffalo have been known to kill men after getting shot in the heart, yet if a native fails in beating the buffalo to death he is "careless". The book also talk about how there are horses in the Philippines, that are sturdy and of good build, however they were imported from China and not of the locals own doing. It goes on to say that the horses could be greatly improved upon if the natives paid any attention to breeding them correctly, however they do not and mostly let them breed freely. These instances really give the feeling that the natives are uncivilized, dim witted savages who are very far behind Americans.
ReplyDeleteIn "Official Handbook of the Philippines," there is without a doubt a pro-American sentiment that places all natives of the Philippines and even the environment below the dominant prowess of the imperializing Americans. Automatically upon arrival, Americans recognize the "need of work on the flora," enforcing superiority without being there for very long. The handbook then claims that plants need to be studied for various different reasons and that the island inhabitants would benefit greatly from this study. America knew that these people did not have the means to study before them, it is obvious that the islanders will benefit, yet the United States felt the need to credit themselves with being a giver of knowledge to the Filipinos. It also claims that the Philippines are "rich in birds, but poor in mammals" and seem to attribute the lack of animals to the Filipinos' lack of civilization. Many of the mammals and sea life have come from other areas of the world and again, the Filipinos seem to be blamed. Taylor brings up a good point when discussing the horses and how if the breeding was carried out correctly, they would have better horses, at least to American standards. The handbook expresses negativity about the native Filipinos letting horses breed naturally in their environment. Ultimately The United Sates its promoting its economic agenda when discussing the need for research. With definite gains in a booming timber industry and many different types of flora for possible medicines foods, and other materials, the United States saw the Philippines as a gold mine inhabited with a people who has no idea of what value they find themselves on. Capitalism and taking opportunities for maximum economic benefit are high on the list of the United States priorities throughout history, and the conquest of the Philippines is no exception.
ReplyDeleteThe Official Handbook of the Philippines shows the American outlook on knowledge of the environment, one based on commodification of natural resources. The author describes the efforts to catalog and classify new species and measure the acres of forest, turning the biogeography of the islands into statistics. The author dismisses the practical knowledge of the Filipinos because it is not relevant to the American’s mission of economic development: “...an accurate knowledge of the flora of the country is the first essential for future successful agricultural and forestry work...” (77) Other knowledge relevant to the sustainability of logging, like where species fit into an ecosystem, is disregarded because it does not lend itself to reduction and abstraction of numerical data.
ReplyDeleteWhen I first began to read "Official Handbook of the Philippines", I did so under the assumption that it would be a guide to understanding how to live and survive in the Philippines for someone visiting. What I instead read was a critique of what had yet to be done to fully harness the natural resources and environment of the area. "A botanic garden...is a matter of such great importance" yet "the botany of the Philippines has not received the attention" Later on in the same section does it reason why it is so important, "vegetation found about most towns in the Archipelago, which may prove of interest to many American residents" When discussing fauna in the Philippines the handbook mentions a "rich bird fauna" yet fails to mention many if any of these animals in their article. Instead the topics are of animals that are familiar to Americans, horses, hogs, deer, cattle, and water buffalo. While within this "handbook" they do discuss the Philippines, it is always with American interests at heart and for the betterment of its citizens on the islands
ReplyDeleteWhile doing this week's reading, I, like Annie, was particularly fascinated by the role of water buffalo in the Philippines, but for a different reason. I focused primarily on the information included in Chapter 10, and particularly on the fauna that is naturally found on the islands, as well as the livestock that has been imported from other places. Because the fauna of the Philippines is characterized by a shortage of mammals, the water buffalo is increasingly important, especially because it is a primary source of food for the native people. As we discussed in class, in the wake of the American occupancy and the subsequent Filipino insurgency, the islands were left in a state of ecological disaster, and the water buffalo were at the center of the destruction. Because the Philippines had such a shortage of mammals to begin with, the prolonged effects of the war were felt for a long time even after the actual fighting was over, particularly with regard to the water buffalo. The main factor that contributed to the ongoing destruction was the uncontrollable outbreaks of Rinderpest, a disease with a mortality rate of 90%, and the subsequent deaths of thousands of Filipino people because of starvation. Much of the ecological destruction that occurred in the Philippines during this time can be directly attributed to American greed and the need to further expand into the South Pacific. If the US had not begun their occupancy of the Philippines in the first place, there would never have been a need for the total war that took place, and the destruction that occurred both to the Filipino people and to their ecosystem could have been completely prevented.
ReplyDeleteUpon first reading this document, it reminded me of Darwin's On the Origin of Species. I had to read a chapter or two of that book for another class, and I just remember it just going on and on with details about the environment. The format of the “Official Handbook of the Philippines” is obviously quite similar in that regard. It seems to me as that the Americans see doing classifications as part of their duty (this goes back to the “taming” of the jungle discussion that we had in class). In the forestry and timber section, an early mention is made of the fact that very little of the forestland was private property. This seems like a bit of an obvious point as I would assume that the Filipinos’ ideas about property were most likely fairly different from the Americans even with their earlier interactions with other European societies. A prominent part of the packet was how the Philippine environment would lead to economic fertility. The discussion of testing trees to see which ones were ideal for contractors shows a lot about what the Americans planned to do, the results of which could negatively impact the environment. The statement “the Philippine market will be strong for many years” on page 90 really demonstrates how Americans saw the Philippines as a tool for their own economic purposes. It was also rather peculiar that at the top of page 138, the text says “dairies needed.” This statement seems to be somewhat careless. What would be the impacts of introducing cows into the region? How would they impact the water buffalo? Were these things being considered at all? Upon reading about the hunts for wild water buffalo later in the text I couldn’t help but think about the overhunting of the American bison. I’m not saying that these situations were the same but it was just a thought that came into my mind.
ReplyDeleteThe BIA is from the point of view of the American thoughts about the Philippine’s wildlife at the time. The Americans act as if they have the right to the forest and do not seem to worry about the Philippine workers or their thoughts. Throughout the reading it seems as if the American’s act as if they are better than their Philippine counterparts. Specifically when it discusses that the virgin forests were valuable products waiting the skill and enterprise of American capitalist. This just furthers the view that American’s were more considered about its own economic gain then the well being of the area. Also in the reading, it states that the logging industry will help keep the Philippine market strong. Yet, the American’s view the logging practices of the locals to be inferior to their own techniques. The uprising of a strong market in the Philippines would better the American market itself become more prosperous. Also the Americans were concerned about discovering what timber would be best for each industry. They were not concerned with the destruction of the forests as much as they were concerned of their economic well being.
ReplyDeleteI agree with all the comments noting that the American author goes to some pains to say that United States discipline and "know how" was necessary to "enforce a system of forest preservation," to make use of the "99 percent of lumber going to waste," to save acreage from being "burnt over each ear by the savages," and to improve the "very primitive" lumbering operations being conducted by natives "without any thought or system of forest management," and to "protect the remaining forest growth" while harvesting wood and rubber.
ReplyDeleteHowever, despite these occasional attempts to give a higher calling to America's commercial interests, the reading was actually quite blunt about the true interest of the US in the region. The US may have established the Forestry Bureau, but seems to have done so to ensure continued lush growth for US commercial exploitation. The writer focuses repeatedly on the agricultural products that were available for American use. For example, he discusses the many types of trees whose wood was unknown at the time that could be marketed successfully. Further, he discusses which areas have waterways necessary to facilitate logging and commerce, the large relatively nearby markets available for exports (e.g., China) and comments on what "little cutting" was currently going on in the region's extensive virgin forest. Further, the article focuses on how the US can exploit the Islands' other natural resources, such as rubber, rattan, bamboo and cocoa palm. The last paragraph of Chapter VI is the most telling: "Thus the actual wealth and the possibilities of profitable investment by exploiting the almost limitless forest resources of the Philippines present an attractive picture . . . . Modern methods, labor-saving appliances and cheaper freight charges will deliver these valuable products to market to the advantage of all concerned."
Like Candace, while reading the B.I.A and also from class on Tuesday, one thing that really interested me was that Americans went into the Philippines, exploiting the land without a care about what the Filipino people thought. The Americans perceive themselves and their techniques and the Filipino's techniques are savage and lazy, but back in the United States, Americans use the same techniques. For example, the get trees to saw mills, they use rivers as the easiest way. This is the same technique that the Filipinos use. I just think it is a very interesting concept that Americans have conquered the "wilderness" of North America and think they are superior to anyone and have the right to conquer any land.
ReplyDeleteTo continue with my previous post, I find it interesting how the B.I.A. implies (further) American colonization in addition to extracting its resources for capitalist gain. For instance, in Chapter V when describing the flora, the report states that diverse vegetation found on the island "may prove of interest to many residents of the Archipelago." The report describes some of the vegetation as "luxuriant", almost like an advertisement for a vacation resort. Furthermore, the report's statement "in recognition of need of work on the flora of the Philippines by the Civil Commission" may suggest more capitalist intentions, in addition to the physical extraction of profitable resources.
ReplyDeleteThroughout history any conqueror, here the United States, considers themselves superior and more civilized than the people and the habitat they encounter, and therefor it is their right to subjugate it. This rationality in the minds of the conquerors is a necessity if the goal of the conqueror is to exploit the people or the land and stems from the belief that the conquered are less civilized and therefor their environment and livelihood are not as significant as the conqueror’s.
ReplyDeleteIn the “Official Handbook of the Philippines”, the author uses specific word choice to imply superiority. He uses this tone while expressing the commonly shared belief, throughout the United States and Western Europe, that the "white man" is superior to the "uncivilized man" and his equally uncivilized environment. Phrases such as "pagan tribes", "an officer of experience and extensive study…who at once brought intelligence and enthusiasm", and the "skill and enterprise of the American capitalist" clearly imply the belief of the superiority of the "white man". While phrases such as "valuable", "careful attention", "protection of the remaining forest areas", "evident and striking element of wealth", and "prove of interest to many American residents" all express the possible benefits the Americans could reap from the Philippines, as well as the superior intelligence and technology the United States would bring to the region. In order to reap these benefits, the Americans would have to look at the Philippines as an untamed and wild region and people that needed their society’s enlightenment in order for the land and society to achieve its full potential.
Per Hannah's reference to Kipling's "The White Man's Burden" (1899), I have posted the text to the poem so you guys can get a sense of its implications.
ReplyDelete"Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.
Take up the White Man's burden--
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain
To seek another's profit,
And work another's gain.
Take up the White Man's burden--
The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.
Take up the White Man's burden--
No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper--
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go mark them with your living,
And mark them with your dead.
Take up the White Man's burden--
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
"Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"
Take up the White Man's burden--
Ye dare not stoop to less--
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloke (1) your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your gods and you.
Take up the White Man's burden--
Have done with childish days--
The lightly proferred laurel, (2)
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!"
What I found most striking in the Bureau of Insular Affairs "Official Handbook of the Philippines" reading for this week was that ecological interference and degradation was a conscious decision by the United States, which was fueled by its underlying capitalist imperative.
ReplyDeleteWe can see that at the time this report was written, the scientist involved already had a reasonably high non-indigenous species count and even reported that many had become "spontaneous," or naturally occurring, and possibly invasive. For instance, on page 79 in the chapter five which is on "Flora," there is a record of 60 species of plants from America with many from Spain, Malaysia and neighboring islands—meaning that there was a catalogue of ecosystem interference already at the time. Yet later on in chapter ten, which is on “Fauna,” page 140 mentions plans to introduce more foreign organisms to the environment for use in dairy industry. (I find it ironic that mention of Rinderpest mortality rates of native herds are mentioned on the same page considering the eventual outcome of importation.)
Additionally, I was impressed to find that there was a fairly detailed historical deforestation record in chapter six (“Forestry and Timber”). It mentions on page 86 that the exact acreage of forest in 1876 was 51,537,243 acres and that by 1890 it was down to 48,112,920. From this data we can already see an alarming rate of deforestation that resulted in a loss of 3,424,323 acres over 14 years, or roughly 244, 594.5 acres a year. Clearly this rate also caught the attention of the forestry experts preparing the report, for this is followed up with a suggestion to work on forest preservation. However, the underlying motivation is clearly intrest in preserving the forest as a replenishing commodity to be sold.