Review: Image Versus Reality: A Colonialist History

Author(s): PAUL A. RODELL

Review by: PAUL A. RODELL
Source: Philippine Studies, Vol. 37, No. 4 (Fourth Quarter 1989), pp. 509-516
Published by: Ateneo de Manila University
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/42633154
Accessed: 31-12-2015 14:35 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Ateneo de Manila University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Philippine Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 208.95.48.254 on Thu, 31 Dec 2015 14:35:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 37(1989):
Studies
Philippine 509-16

Image Versus Reality: A Colonialist History

PAUL A. RODELL

IN OUR IMAGE: AMERICA'S EMPIRE IN THE PHILIPPINES. By

StanleyKarnow.New York:RandomHouse,1989.494pages.
IN OUR IMAGE: THE UNITED STATES AND THE PHILIPPINES . A
filmdocumentary
history Projectinassociation
producedbythePhilippine
Angeles,1989.
withKCET/Los

This impressivelyproduced,thoughseriouslyflawed,new book and its ac-

companying three-part documentary filmseries,thatairedintheUnitedStates
overthePublicBroadcasting System,was, perhaps,an inevitablemultimedia
event.The dramatic1986 EDSA Revolutionfocusedworldattentionon the
amazing"PeoplePower"phenomenon surrounding itsdemureand grieving,
butdetermined and struggling, widowleaderwhobecamean instantinterna-
tionalcelebritybest knownas "Cory."In fact,sinceCorazon Aquino'sun-
precedented ascension to powertherehas been a smallrushof hastilypro-
eyewitnessaccountsthatconveythetensionand exhilara-
duced journalistic
tionofthosefateful days.Sadly,mostofthesebookspresentlittlemorein the
of
way analysis than a recountingoftheMarcosregime'swellknownexcesses.
The contemporary Philippinepoliticalsceneis, therefore, an internationally
storywaiting
significant tobe recounted bya crediblearea "expert"whocould
communicate to an Americanaudiencea deeperunderstanding oftheforces
thatcomprisethePhilippines'historically shapedsocial-politicalmilieuwhich
ultimatelycontributed to FerdinandMarcos' downfall.

STRENGTHS AND MINOR ERRORS

StanleyKarnowis an establishedjournalistwithyearsof experiencein

SoutheastAsia and numerouscontactsin Manila.Furthermore, he has an
existingtrackrecord withhisbook :
Vietnam A that
History servedas compan-
ion to the excellentPBS documentary filmseries."Vietnam:A Television
History."It would seemthatStanleyKarnowmightbe suchan "expert."Yet,
Karnow's currentworkis based on morethanhis generalknowledgeand
essay shows an acquaintance
personalcontacts.The book's bibliographical

This content downloaded from 208.95.48.254 on Thu, 31 Dec 2015 14:35:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
510 PHILIPPINE
STUDIES

witha numberof significant workson Philippineand Americanhistory and

it is clearthatKarnowconsulteda numberof scholarsand actualhistorical
participants. ThePrefacelistsas welleightresearch assistantswhosecombined
efforts undoubtably contributed greatlyto thebook. Added to his wealthof
information is Karnow'sbrightand engagingwritingstyleand his basic
sympathy the Filipinopeople thatappears unaffected
for by any narrow
ideologically motivatedpoliticalconsideration.
The resultof this combinationof personalknowledge,social-historical
information and literaryskill is a lengthystudyof the Philippinesthatis
highly informative forthegeneralAmerican reader,evenifPhilippinescholars
will not findnew information or insights.Karnow'sworkbeginswithan
introductory chapterthatdescribesthecomplexPhilippine-American relation-
shipwithintheauthor'sanalyticframework, aboutwhichmuchmorewillbe
said shortly. Then,in his succeedingfourteen chapters, Karnowdescribesand
the and
analyzes origins development ofthat relationshipbeginning withthe
precedingSpanishperiod and the new American imperial power's conquest
of thecountry and its imposition of colonialrule.He continueshis detailed
storythroughthedifficult yearsof theSecondWorldWar and the heavily
American-influenced postwarperioddown to a concludingchapteron the
presentpost-EDSA Revolution days.
Despitetheauthor'squalifications and theefforts ofhis researchstaff,the
book containsa numberof minormistakesthatindicatea seriouslack of
scholarlyexpertise.At one point,a "zarzuela"is referred to as a "Spanish
musichall" (p. 19) and bothBulacanand Nueva Erijaare locatedin "eastern
Luzon" (pp. 158 and 178).The islandof Mindorois wronglycategorizedas
beingpartoftheVisayas,and thetownofMamburaoshouldbe notedas the
capitalof its"Occidental"provinceand notofthewholeisland(p. 229).The
roadto Baguiowas madeby cutting alongthesidesofmountains ratherthan
through mountain jungles(p. 215). Meanwhile, educator Alejandro Roces is
creditedwithbeingan historian (p. 17),TeodoroKalaw is merelya "popular
polemicist" (p. 201),AteneoEnglishprofessor DoreenFernandezis a "cultural
anthropologist" (p. 17) and Carmen Guerrero Nakpil is repeatedlycalled
CarmenNakpilGuerrero(pp. xi, 17 and 309). Karnowalso claimsthatthe
Spanishfriars learnedlocal dialectsratherthanteachingFilipinostheCastil-
lianlanguageso thenativeswouldnotget"uppity"(p. 18).The University of
SantoTomasinternment campforcivilianprisoners ofwarwas not"a Spanish
vestigefromtheseventeenth century" or "an arrayofmildewedbuildingsset
in a weedycampus"(p. 305). Rather,theprisoncamp was in thenew UST
campusbuiltduringtheAmericancolonialregime.KarnowclaimsthatHenry
L. Stimsonmediateda rebellionin Nicaraguain responseto a plea from
President Coolidge(p. 251).In fact,Stimsondid notjust"mediate"a rebellion;
as AmericanSecretary of Statehe oversawthe creationof the Nicaraguan
NationalGuard(Vietnamization CentralAmerican style)whosesoldiersassas-
sinatednationalist leaderAugustoSandinoand whichbecamethepowerbase
of AnastasioSomoza's lengthyfamilydictatorship. And finally,the book
containsa numberoftypos,themostembarrassing of whichis a referenceto
the "Surigago"Strait(p. 313).

This content downloaded from 208.95.48.254 on Thu, 31 Dec 2015 14:35:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
IMAGE REALITY
VERSUS 511

COLONIALIST ANALYTIC - FRAMEWORK

Yettheseminorerrorsare nottheproblemalludedto in thefirstsentence
of this review.Rather,Karnov/sfundamentalproblem,that weakenshis
otherwisewelcomeand massiveeffort, is his colonialistanalyticframework
thatdenigrates Philippineculture and the Filipinos'rolein thehistory oftheir
owncountry. Karnowmightclaimthatthiscriticism is notfairsincehehimself
statesin his prefacethathis book . . is nota historyof thePhilippinesas
muchas it is the storyof America'sonlymajorcolonialexperience"(p. xi).
However,Karnowalso statesthathisbookaddressesthreebasicquestions:1)
whatpropelledtheUnitedStatestowardthePhilippines, 2) whattheAmeri-
can colonizersactuallydid, and 3) whatis thelegacyof Americanrule.Had
Karnowlimitedhis workto thefirsttwoquestionsthepresentcritiquewould
be irrelevant,but theadditionof thethirdquestionchangesthefocusofthe
book and opens its authorto criticism. Once Karnowexpandshis scope to
includean evaluationofthelegacyof Americanrulehe mustalso extendhis
analysisto thehermeneutics ofthePhil-Amrelationship. An interpretationof
thedynamicsbetweenthese two countries requires that sufficient
and accurate
attentionbe paid totheFilipinoportionoftheequationand thattheinterpreter
go beyondtraditional colonialistand "Manila-centric" historicalanalyses.In
fact,Karnowdoes neither.

COLONIALIST CULTURAL INTERPRETATION

Despiteintroducing Filipinoculturalaspectssuchas hiya,utangna loob,and

the sociallyimportantphenomenonof compadrazgo relationships,Karnow
actuallyuses theseculturalcharacteristics in a way thatdepreciatestheFili-
pino capacityto establishand maintaina well orderedand, in a Western/
Americansense,egalitariansociety.KarnowstatesthattheAmericanrulers
did notrestructure thePhilippinesocial-economic orderand thattheformer
nativeeliteswhoachievedtheirsuperiority duringtheSpanishcolonialperiod
wereallowedto continueto dominatePhilippinesociety.Filipinopoliticians
builtlocal powerbases uponthesocialreciprocity ofcompadrazgoand on the
indebtedness of utangna loob whichled ultimately and logicallyto therise
of FerdinandMarcosand theimposition of MartialLaw. This sameelitealso
controlled thecountry'sland and naturalresourceswhichalso led ultimately
and logicallyto today'sshockingsocial-economic imbalancesthatthreaten to
underminethenation'spoliticalstability.
Karnowimplantsthesedoubtsaboutinherent Filipinoculturalcapabilities
whilementioning, butnotexplaining, thatit was in ¿heinterest oftheAmeri-
to
can colonizers coopt the local elitejustas it had been for the earlierSpan-
iards.In fact,fromthebeginning, Americaneconomicand politicalinterests
insuredcontinuedFilipinoeliterule and activelydiscouragedfundamental
social-economic change. Even when exploringthe United States' colonial
rulershipand AmericanpostwarpoliciesKarnowdoes notprovidea sufficient
answerto hissecondquestionthataskswhattheAmericancolonizersactually
did.ForKarnowto implythatthePhilippines'current problemsarethelogical
resultof its own societalfaultsis disingenuous.

This content downloaded from 208.95.48.254 on Thu, 31 Dec 2015 14:35:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
512 PHILIPPINE
STUDIES

Karnow'sabuse of thesePhilippineculturalcharacteristics also preventsa

deeper analysis of thePhilippine-American For
relationship. exampleheignores
thepossibility thatFilipinodealingswiththé UnitedStatesmightbe better
understoodas a function of the country'sdependencyon the muchlarger
country. Filipinopoliticalleaders seekAmericanapprovalnotsimplybecause
of mutualgood feelingsand the familiarity of a sharedpast,whichare of
coursereal factors,but because Americansupportis essentialforholding
power.FilipinoswereoutragedthatJapanreceivedmorepostwareconomic
assistancethandid theircountry, notsimplybecausetheyfeltneglectedby
theirbig Americancompadre "UncleSam/'butbecausetheyneededmoneyto
putthecountry back together and becausetheyhad vividmemoriesofJapa-
nese wartimecruelty.
Ironically,it seemsthatKarnowhimselfmightfeeltheinfluence of utang
na loob in his own analysisof theJapaneseoccupation.Whendiscussingthe
issue of wartimecollaboration withtheJapanese,Karnowis especiallyhard
on BenignoAquino,Sr.who,he claims,was "chauvinistic" and an "apologist."
At thesame time,however,he also notesthatbothBenignoAquino,Sr. and
his fatherbeforehim always had been extremelynationalistic and anti-
American. It wouldappearthattheAquinomenoftheRevolutionary era and
ofWorldWarII wereveryconsistent in theiropinionsof and actionstoward
the UnitedStates.Could it be thatKarnowbelievesthatthe Aquinos are
"walanghiya"and shouldhave felt"utang"to America?
COLONIALIST HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

Unfortunately,Karnow'sdiscussionoftheUnitedStates'legacytellsonly
partofthestorybecauseoftheauthor'semphasison theAmerican actors.The
"Castof PrincipalCharacters"appendix,forexample,listsonly50 Filipinos
comparedto 101 Americans.This numericalimbalanceis reflective of the
book'stexturalemphasisso thatwiththeexceptionof his description of the
Filipinocompadrazgosystem, Karnow'shistory does notextendbeyondthat
colonialcontext.Colonialrulerssuchas Governor-General WilliamTaftand
neocolonialmoversand shakerssuchas GeneralDouglasMacArthur and CIA
kingmaker EdwardLansdaleareemphasizedwhileonlythoseFilipinoleaders
whodealtdirectly withtheirAmericansuperiorsare discussedto anyextent.
Beyondsimplequantitative emphasis,Karnow'sanalyticframework also
containsa distinctqualitativebias. Philippinenationalleadersare presented
eitheras colonialcreationsor as confinedby American-established parame-
ters.Forinstance,Karnow'sdiscussionofCorazonAquino'svictorypresents
theroleof Americanofficials so prominently thatthestrength ofthePeople
Powermovement and theanti-Marcos eliteoppositionis obscured.Karnow's
colonialist
perspectiveeven preventshimfromunderstanding how criticalit
was forFilipinosto reacha definitive answerto thequestionofwho ordered
Aquino'sassassination.He says,"Equallyincomprehensible intheyearsahead
was thefutilequestforthebrainsbehindtheplot"(p. 404).Eventhe
Philippine
CommunistPartyis describedas if it is littlemorethana reactionto the
Marcosadministration's excesses(p.406)and no mention is madethattheCCP

This content downloaded from 208.95.48.254 on Thu, 31 Dec 2015 14:35:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MAGEVERSUS
REALITY 513

has alwaysgivenequal blameto "U.S. Imperialism and Neocolonialism" for

thecountry'ssituation.
The book'scolonialist perspective is presented mostgraphically in discuss-
ingwartimeevents.Forexample,Karnow'sinterpretation ofofficialAmerican
dealingswithGeneralAguinaldoleaves littledoubtas to theauthor'spreju-
dices,butthereareinteresting, and convenient, in hisnarrative
inconsistencies
thatcall intoseriousquestionhisbeliefthattheUnitedState'sconquestofthe
countrywas an "accident"of history. Forexample,Americanrepresentatives
RounsevelleWildmanin Hong Kong and HowardBrayand SpencerPrattin
Singaporearedescribedas beingsomething akinto freebooterswithconsular
ranksincetheyreallylookedoutfortheirownbusinessinterests first.
Further-
more,theywereunschooledin diplomacyand had little, ifany,guidancefrom
Washington. Karnowtellsus thattheUnitedStatescouldnotfindcompetent
representatives and had to be contentwithacceptingwhoeverwas on hand.
This,then,is offeredas a reasonwhyAguinaldowas so deceivedby what
these Americanofficialstold him,i.e. the officialswere incompetent and
uninformed. On theotherhand,KarnowshowsthattheAmericanconsulin
Manila, Oscar Williams,was verycompetent, informedon the issues and
assignedspecifictasks.He also made detailedreportsto his superiors.Simi-
larly,AdmiralDeweyis alternately said to be tooexperienced and disciplined
to have misledAguinaldowitha "firmguarantee"of Americansupportfor
thePhilippinecause,butalso to tendto "babble"histhoughts withoutregard
forrepercussions. Insteadof acceptingtheobviousimplications ofhis narra-
tive,KarnowblamesAguinaldoforfiltering Dewey's remarks"through the
prism of his own dreams" (p. 114).
Karnowpresentsa graphicallydetaileddescription of the 26 September
1901earlymorning surpriseattack by Filipino revolutionaryforceson Ameri-
can troopsin Balangiga,Samar,whichAmericanreportspromptly termeda
"massacre."Although onlyfifty Americansoldiersdied in theattack,Karnow
notesthatthisincidentwas responsibleforthe"ferocity" ofAmericantroops
who thenlaid wasteto Batangasprovinceand who later"raped"Samar.The
Americanpublic'sdisgustwiththebehavioroftheirtroopsis mentioned, as
is the subsequent"admonishment" of GeneralJacobSmithfororderingthe
massacreof Samaťs civilianpopulation,but Americanmilitary atrocitiesin
Batangas and Samar (as well as those in many otherprovinces) are not de-
scribedin thesamegraphicmanneras is theattackofFilipinotroopson enemy
soldiers(pp. 187-194).
Karnowdoes an excellentjob exposingMacArthur's incompetence during
thefirst hoursofJapan'sDecember8 attack,and puncturing themyththatthe
defenseof BataandelayedtheJapanesetakeoverof SoutheastAsia. He then
shiftshis narrative to thebrutalDeath Marchof Filipinoand Americansol-
diersfromBataanto theirprisonerofwarcampsin Tarlacand theinternment
of Americanciviliansin theUniversity of SantoTomas compound.Karnow
showshis readershow theseunfortunate prisonerssuffered,buttellsus very
littleabout thewartimetribulations of the generalFilipinopopulation.The
sensitivecollaboration questionis rehashedwithverylittleempathyforthose
FilipinoswhojoinedtheJapaneseconquerors (cf.comments aboveon Karnow's

This content downloaded from 208.95.48.254 on Thu, 31 Dec 2015 14:35:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
514 PHILIPPINE
STUDIES

analysisof BenignoAquino,Sr.).Instead,Karnowmakestheamazingclaim
thattoday7 s "endemicvenalityand corruption ... is largelya legacyof the
ethicaldegradationof thatperiod."The obviousimplication of thisblanket
statement (even granting,forthe sake of argument, thatthe Philippinesis
actuallyburdenedwithendemicvenalityand corruption as Karnowclaims)
is thatFilipinosmusthave some inherentweaknessthatkeeps themfrom
regaining theirprewarethicalstandards.Ifthepeoplesof manyothercoun-
triesenduredharshwartimeoccupationswithoutsuffering the permanent
debasement of theirmorality,
whatis wrongwithFilipinos?

A COLONIALIST CRITIQUE OF AMERICAN RULERSHIP

Despiteacknowledging someveryreal Americanfaultssuchas theexces-

siveeconomicand military demandsthathad to be fulfilled ifthePhilippines
weretoreceivepostwarrecovery assistance, Karnow'scolonialanalyticframe-
workfindsthe Americancolonialtrackrecordto be generallybenignand
ultimatelybeneficialto thecountry. Thereare onlymusingsin his analysisof
somegreater faults.One ofthesemusingsis thattheUnitedStateswas actually
toobenigna colonizer.In supportofthisconclusionhe notesthatindepend-
encewas grantedwithouta fight, and even fasterthansomeprominent Fili-
leaders
pinopolitical wanted: America's of
easygranting independence the to
Philippines"deflatedtheelan of theirearliernationalism" (p. 16). Karnow
thenspeculatesthatifAmerican colonialrulehadbeenoppressive, theFilipino
peoplewouldhavegalvanizedthemselves intoa morecohesivenationalunit.
(Whenlookingaroundthe"thirdworld,"however, onecannothelpbutwonder
exactlywhich former colonialnations benefited from crueltreatment). On the
otherhand,Karnowalso believesthat sincetheUnitedStatesdecidedto stay
in thePhilippines
to helpthecountry matureand to teachthenativesdemoc-
racy,theAmericanregimeultimately failedbecauseitdid notgo farenough
in transformingthecountry. Americancolonizerswiththeirmissionary zeal
werenoblereformers, as theireffortsin mass educationproved,buttheydid
notrootoutthecolony'ssocial-economic structureand itsculturalnormsand
moresand supplantthesewitha thoroughly Americanculturalmodel.

PROBLEM OF SOURCES

Karnow7s analyticlimitationsseemto have shapedhis workand to have

beenreinforced by his sources.His "Noteson Sources"reveals
symbiotically
thatwhenin Manila,KarnowonlyutilizedtheAmerican HistoricalCollection
andfrequented theSolidaridad
bookstore whileignoring suchotherrichsources
as theNationalLibrary, theUniversity of thePhilippinesFilipinianaCollec-
tion,theAteneo's RizalLibraryand thePhilippineNationalArchives.Karnow
citesas well Americanexpatriates and religiousscholarsin Manila and has
consultedsome of the country'sleadingacademics.However,althoughhe
acknowledges theexistenceofsomeofthemoreradicalPhilippinenationalist
academicssuchas RenatoConstantino, theirworkshavebeenlargelyignored
withinthe contextof his analyticframework. In the UnitedStates,special

This content downloaded from 208.95.48.254 on Thu, 31 Dec 2015 14:35:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MAGEVERSUS
REALITY 515

mentionis made oř the Cellar Bookstoreand its owners,but the vibrant

Philippineleft'sexilecommunity is noteven mentioned. It would seemthat
Karnowlimitedthescope of his sourceseven as he limitedthescope of his
analyticframework.
Obvious omissionsfromKarnow7 s discussionof sourcesare some recent
and importanttitlesin Philippinelocal historyby Americanand Filipino
scholars.Whencombinedwiththeauthor'scolonialistanalyticparameter the
resultingstudycould onlyhave a Manila-centric "GreatLeader" focusthat
failsto answerKarnow'sthirdquestion.Of courseKarnowhimselfnotesthat
thePhilippineswas notremadecompletely "In Our Image/'buthe also details
theextensiveAmericaninfluence on thecountrywhileitwas a formalcolony
and how thatinfluencehas continuedto the present.Yet,because Karnow
does notexpandhisfocusbeyondmetropolitan elites,he cannotdetermine the
degreeto whichAmericanization has or has notpermeatedthePhilippines at
the provincial,municipal,and even barriolevels.In effect,theauthor'sana-
lyticand sourcelimitationsmeanthatthisbook is littlemorethana Manila-
based journalist'simpressions
withsome carefully added historicaland aca-
demicbrocadethatwill notthreaten colonialistpreconceptions.

THE DOCUMENTARY FILM SERIES

Afterreadingthe book one would expecta filmserieswitha different

emphasisthanwhatKarnowand hisassociatesproduced.In fact,onlythefirst
and halfofthesecondofthethreepartscloselyparalleltheoriginalhistorical
text.In contrast,whileonlythelastthreechaptersofthebook(someseventy-
sevenpagesinlength)deal withrecenteventsand contemporary much
affairs,
ofthesecondsegmentofthefilmseriesand all ofthethirdwereused to cover
eventsof thelast fewyears.In effect,thereseemsto have been a deliberate
decisionto emphasizecurrent events,perhapstocatertoa televisionaudience,
ratherthanto offerfullydevelopedhistorical narrationsuchas thatprepared
forthe book's readership.Despite this emphasison contemporary events,
however,Karnow'scolonialist analysisis repeated,and evenintensifiedinthe
filmseries.
In itsopeningsegmentthestoryof America'sconquestof thePhilippines
is told fromthe Americanvantagepoint,completewithan interviewof an
elderlyAmericanwomanwho thoughtit terriblethatAmericanmenhad to
endure Philippineheat,mud and mosquitos.The Balangiga"massacre"is
given greatplay,the Thomasitesare prominently featured,and America's
psychological-culturalimpact is made real to theviewer throughinterviews
withJoseDiokno,EmmanuelPelaez and DoreenFernandez.The remainder of
the firstpartthenrushesthroughthe Americancolonialperiod,theSecond
WorldWarand theexuberant liberationofthecountry byMacArthur's forces.
Karnow,who wrotethefilmscript,providedthenarration and conductedthe
interviews, is harshonceagainwithMacArthur who,he notes,had no interest
in instituting postwarreformsin the Philippinesas he laterdid in Japan.
Instead,MacArthur onlywantedto restoreAmericanand Filipinoeliteinflu-
ence to its formerstrengthand glory.

This content downloaded from 208.95.48.254 on Thu, 31 Dec 2015 14:35:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
516 STUDIES
PHILIPPINE

The second partof the seriescontinuesto detailthe country'spostwar

political-economicconditionwithspecialemphasison theHukbalahaprebel-
lion.Karnow'sanalysishasobviouslybenefitedfromBenedictKerkvliet's
work
on former Huk peasantmembersin CentralLuzon,as wellas frominterviews
withLuis Taruc.The filmalso utilizesthe storyof Huk supremoTaruc's
surrender to introduce
BenignoAquino,Jr.,thena youngnewspaperreporter.
The Americanemphasisresurfaces witha detailednarrativeoftheCIA-«ngi-
neeredriseof RamonMagsaysayand interviews withformer agentsAlger
Ellis,CharlesMorinand JosephSmith.Of thethree,Smithis themostreveal-
ing whenhe admitsthathe himself:
. . . feltthiswas theAmericancenturyand I feltthatratherunabashedly
. . . We did havea missionary
feelingso we had a certainarrogance.
I think
thatthereis no questionaboutthat."[But,inthisinstancetheCIA]". . . was
on theside of theangels.

Afterfirmly establishing theUnitedStates'importance in thePhilippines'

postwarpolitical lifeto its American audience,thefilmintroduces freshman
Congressman Ferdinand Marcos. Immediately afterflashes of the youthful
Marcosfamily, thefilmshiftsto Marcos'laterPresidential Aide AdrianCris-
tobalwho talksabouttheearlyMarcospresidency. WithAquinoand Marcos
alreadydiscussed,theonlymajorremaining factorincontemporary Philippine
affairsin thePhilippineleft,whichFranciscoNemenzo,Jr.introducesin his
interview alongwithsupporting statements fromFernandez, Cristobaland Fr.
Ediciode la Torre.Once all oftheplayersare in place,thedocumentary cuts
to former UnitedStatesAmbassadorHenryByroadewho claimshe always
thought thatMarcos'declaration ofmartiallaw was a mistake. The remainder
of parttwo centerson the Marcosregime'scorruption and the contrasting
Aquinoopposition,exile,returnand assassination.
The finalsegmentof thefilmseriesis leftto coverthewell-known events
leadingto Marcos'downfallwitha, by now expectedly, heavyemphasis on
theAmericanrole.FormerAmbassadorStephenBosworthmakestheincred-
ible claimthathe had sufficient foresightabout Marcos'"snap election"to
knowin advancethatsuchan electoralexercisewould forceMarcosto cheat
so muchthathis credibility would be called intoquestionin Washington as
well as in Manila.Partthreethenturnsto post-EDSARevolutionsocial-eco-
nomicconditionsin urbansquattercommunities and in thecountryside by
showingpoor peasantsin CentralLuzon and NPA insurgents in Negros.It
also devotessubstantial discussionto theuncertain futureofAmerica'shuge
military baseswhicharethreatened bythedemandsofPhilippine nationalism.
The filmends withauthor/bookstoreownerF. SionilJosesayingthatthe
Philippines has to finditsown soul and thatthecountry canillafford chasing
afteran alienAmericanimageforitself.Karnowwould doubtlessagree,but
sucha Filipinosearchforidentity willnotprofit fromhiscolonialist bookand
documentary film series.

This content downloaded from 208.95.48.254 on Thu, 31 Dec 2015 14:35:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions