Julia Tesch Dr. Moon-Ho Jung History 388 January 13, 2016 In “From Hide to Heart: The Philippine-American War as Race War,” Paul A. Kramer Presents evidence and analysis of race as a driving factor in the Philippine-American War, Having never heard of this war being defined as primarily a race war, I found his overall argument compelling. As a historian whose studies have focused in part on American history, I found Kramer's analysis of the links between race issues in the Philippines and in America to be ‘an essential and insightful part of understanding the larger picture of racism and race relations in the world. Kramer's discussion was mostly comprehensive, but the essay did lack a substantial ee ee ‘Kramer's main arguments surround defining the Phi exploration into the broader relations He argues thatthe Pitippine-American was yds motivated and justified in America by racializing and “otherizin" Filipinos, Kramer explains that America falsely spread the notion of the Philippines as an overall “uncivilized” or “savage” culture and as divided into numerous small “tribes” in order to undermine Filipino atempts to gain international recognition as an independent nation, He further asserts that despite defeating the Spanish, the former colonists of the Philippines, America had no justifiable claim to the Philippines. Overall, Kramer’s argument was clear and well-supported, and his exploration into the relationships between racism in the War and domestic American racism was particularly interesting and insightful. Kramer incorporated African American soldiers’ experiences andys Tesch2 Perspectives and the various opinions of black leaders in America on the War in his discussions rw IL. OnteL ‘ofthe racial polities ofthe Philippine-American War. In doing so, Kramer was wel able to hates? situate the War within the broader piture of racism and the history of race relations in th€ world } However, | found “From Hide to Heart” missing deep exploration into how race, power, ‘and fear connect within the context ofthe Philippine-American War. While reading Kramer's [ essay, I found myself questioning the relationship between America's quest for power and land and its racalization of Filipinos fn esene, | wanted 0 know more abou which Kramer believed was a more causative factor. Did America’s quest for power and land lead it to racialize Necesre| Filipinos in an attempt to justify its land-grabbing practices? Or, did the prevalent view in Sqeabln - desires? “America of white superiority over other races—and a reuting sense of moral responsibilty to : “civilize” eter aces—reate the desire oak conta ver the Philipines? Kramer makes leat what America suggested a the time, thatthe Pilippne-Amercan War was a atural extension of Western conquest” and Anglo-Saxon racial dominance, but he does not critically analyze this wl a ee Ha claim (121, Further, I wish Kramer had discussed the role@ear the Philipine-American (ag {:L. ? War, How much did America’s general “fear of the other” play into the equation? Did the shift of the power balance between the “colonizer” and “colonized” (that is, Spain and the Philippines) ive poweril Americans fear of similar power shif between themselves andthe marginalized g |? ,ome?)My sense is that these are infinitely complex questions, ones whose surfaces could. Inrwesle, have barely been scratched within the scope ofthis chapter. However, Kramer's argument would have benefitted from at least a nod to th slationshi ord ve benefited fom at least nd to thes eltonship Bee ‘Overall, Kramer presented a compelling and insightful analysis of the role of race inthe @ rt Philippine-American War and how this role connected with larger trends of race relations in