John C. Fremont named the entrance to San Francisco Bay "the Golden Gate to the Orient." What has happened when ships crossed it to build their empire on the other side of the ocean? This episode examines a chapter of history that led to the United States expanding into Asia -- and brought Filipinos to California believing a distinct version of the American Dream.

[marching music] SO: Hey Anne! AM: Hi Sabrina! What have we got going on today? SO: Well… what do you think about taking a trip out the Golden Gate? AM: What? Really? [SO: Mhm] When? Yes! SO: I mean, metaphorically. AM: Oh. That’s fine, too, of course...um, let me just console myself with coffee. SO: I’m so sorry! [AM: Eh] I also have some tea? [AM: I do like tea.] Okay, but, see, we’ve been talking a lot about ships that have sailed into the strait, bringing people to San Francisco from across the Pacific. Today, I think we can look at another side of that story: American ships have been sailing out of it to cross the ocean too. And, as much as I know we both want to go on vacations, I’d say these weren’t pleasure cruises departing from Fisherman’s Wharf. AM: Vacations? [SO: Mm] Cruises? Mmm, after our last episode about plague rats aboard ships, it might be a while for me...But, that’s true. For much of the time period we’ve been tracking -- and a long time before and after -- the U.S. was mostly going to Asia for commercial, diplomatic, or military operations. SO: These reasons are part of why and how so many different Asians -- beyond the gold mountain men, the paper children, and the daughters of joy -- started coming here. AM: Right. We’ve been talking mostly about the historical Chinese experience in California, but there are at least 24 distinct groups within the category “Asian American.” SO: So let me rephrase: for today, what do you think about taking a trip out of both Chinatown and the Golden Gate? AM: A metaphorical trip is still a trip! Let’s goooo! [pauses] Wait. Where exactly are we going? SO: Hmn, well this totally real itinerary says the Presidio, the Philippines... then back across to the States... to hop around the South and East Coast... before we sail home… by Angel Island to Hyde Street Pier. AM: Hmmm, that itinerary looks a lot like a history book...but I see where this is going and if you don’t mind, I’ll get this trip started! SO: Anchors aweigh! AM: So -- Today, people of Chinese descent make up the largest single minority living in San Francisco. They also comprise the largest Asian American subgroup. But, of all these subgroups in the city and country, the second-largest is Filipino; the entire Bay Area is home to about half a million Filipinos. SO: And the population is such that--along with English, Spanish, and Chinese--Tagalog is the most commonly spoken language in the city, as well as California and the United States! AM: Now, the Chinese were the first Asians to come to California in significantly large numbers, mainly due to the Gold Rush. [SO: Mhm] But weren’t Filipinos actually the first known Asians to set foot on what would become the continental U.S.? SO: Yeah! Filipino crew on a Spanish galleon landed briefly in Morro Bay, California in 1587. Those Manila galleons -- as they were called -- sailed along this coast as they traded silk, silver, spices, and other goods between the Philippines and Mexico from 1565 to 1815. AM: Like California before U.S. annexation, both were then under Spanish colonial rule. SO: Right. Yet while galleons sailed to and from the Philippines -- and their crews became mainly Filipino and Chinese -- thousands of other people from Southeast, East, and South Asia also came to the Americas through the galleon trade. Often, they were aboard as sailors, servants, or slaves. AM: And, by 1763, Filipinos who’d worked on such ships made their way to Louisiana and established a settlement near New Orleans. St. Malo, as it’s called, is said to be the oldest continuous Asian American community in North America. SO: You know, a billion storage servers can be devoted to podcasts on how the Manila galleon trade linked Asia and the Americas for 250 years. But for now we only have this podcast, so we should stop me and we should skip a couple centuries to 1898. AM: Sounds good. SO: [chuckles] That’s when Spain, the Philippines, and California once again became players in a familiar story of colonies and commerce -- this time with the United States stepping into a major role. AM: And that’s the story of the Spanish-American War, which led to the Philippine-American War, and the American conquest of the Philippines. These helped lead to the large-scale migration of Filipinos to the mainland U.S. at the beginning of the 20th century. [beginning melody of “Battle Hymn of the Republic”] AM: Before we keep going, I think we should point out that remnants of these wars are actually still all around. SO: Soldiers and supply ships left for the Pacific from the nearby Presidio, which is part of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. [AM: True] From the 1910s onward, through the Korean War in the 1950s, they did so through the San Francisco Port of Embarkation. That's now at the Fort Mason Center, right beside our park. AM: Mmhmm, and before deployment, tens of thousands of troops also camped in today’s Richmond District. And, speaking of ships, a couple of the Spanish-American War's most famous vessels -- including USS Olympia , the flagship of our Asiatic Fleet -- were built right at the city's Union Iron Works. And, we've talked about the Pacific Mail Steamship Company, right? SO: Yeah, it's been one of the constants through our episodes. AM: Several of their vessels were also chartered for the Spanish-American War. [SO: Hm!] There's even a film of the California Volunteers First Regiment boarding the steamer City of Peking at Pier 40. A monument to those soldiers stands on Market and Dolores Street – they were the first men to the Philippines. SO: Right. And there are other such remnants, but, before we keep going further, I also want to go back to a good point you made in a previous episode. AM: Which one? [laughs] SO: [incredulous chuckle] Are you complimenting yourself again? I forgot you were just drinking coffee. AM: Just matching you cup for teacup! SO: Mm, good point. Well. You had one great point [AM: Ha!] that the same historical event can be written about in different ways. And you’ve also said that we have to reconsider the stories that have been told to us -- since biases also frame the way we look at history, or the history we choose to look at. AM: Those are two good points. Or maybe three? SO: Many of your many good points... [AM: Hahaha, right back atcha] They come into play in some of the history we’re about to recap. AM: Which is the history behind the war also called the Philippine Insurrection? SO: Which is the point! That’s what it was called in American newspapers and textbooks. That’s still what it’s called on some websites. But you will never hear it called that in the Philippines. [AM: Hmm] It’s the Philippine-American War -- a war that was just one part of the Philippine Revolution. AM: I see what you mean. “Insurrection” implies uprising against an authority – and presumes the lawful authority was the U.S. But “revolution” means overthrowing an entire ruling system, such as colonialism -- and “war” denotes conflict between two sovereign nations. SO: Now I have to concede those are three good points. AM: It might be the coffee. SO: Maybe not just. [AM: mm] But you know what, let’s have more caffeine. The rest of this trip requires it! AM: Good point! [Melody of the Battle Hymn of the Republic] AM: Well. When you think about warfare, what adjectives come to mind? SO: Hmmm, tactical? Brutal? Militaristic? AM: How about “little” or “splendid”? SO: How about no? AM: Well, that’s how Secretary of State John Hay described the Spanish-American War, which centered on armed conflicts between Spain and the United States in Cuba and the Philippines. SO: Cuba’s history and its relationships with Spain and the United States are certainly worth diving into, but for this episode, let’s stick with the itinerary and stay in the Pacific theater. AM: You’ve got a deal. And theater is a good word for it, because this quote-unquote, splendid little war ended with a staged battle. SO: Wait, are you saying the Battle of Manila Bay was staged? AM: It depends which battle you’re talking about. The Spanish-American War lasted less than six months--from April 21, 1898 to December 10 of the same year, when the Treaty of Paris was signed. From what I’ve read, the Battle of Manila Bay which took place on May 1,1898, was a real battle between the naval forces of Spain and the United States and it’s recorded as a decisive victory for the U.S. And there’s a statue here in San Francisco to honor it. SO: That’s the Dewey Monument at the center of Union Square! [AM: Mhm] President William McKinley broke ground on the monument in 1901 and it was dedicated by his successor, President Theodore Roosevelt in 1903. AM: That’s true! Now let’s backtrack a little. On August 12, 1898, the U.S. and Spanish governments signed a peace protocol in Washington, DC, which ended warfare in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines. It also ceded Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Manila to the United States...dependent on a final peace treaty. The only problem was, word didn’t reach the Philippines, because Admiral George Dewey cut the cable between Manila and the outside world following the first Battle of Manila Bay on May 1st. SO: So on the morning of August 13, the second battle of Manila commenced. Can you hear the quotes in my voice? [AM: Yep] The United States and Spain staged it so that the Spanish could concede the war without losing face… and so that the Filipino forces did not regain their independence. According to an article by the Smithsonian Institution, only Admiral Dewey, Major General Wesley Merritt, the Spanish Governor-General, and a Belgian consul knew the complete plan. The historian Teodoro Agoncillo later wrote that, quote, “ [t]he few casualties on both sides in the phony attack were due to some ‘actors’ bungling their ‘lines,’ or possibly to the fact that very few officers were let in on the charade.” AM: Of course, while a relatively bloodless battle ended the Spanish-American War, the Philippine-American War would be another story. Fought from February 4, 1899 to July 4, 1902, US forces lost roughly 4,400 soldiers, roughly 1,000 of whom were killed in action. 20,000 Filipino soldiers were killed in action. 200,000 Filipino civilians were killed during this conflict. In 1899, General Merritt told a journalist from the New York Sun that he had come, quote, “with orders not to treat with the [Filipinos]; not to recognize them, and not to promise anything”, end-quote. He went on to say that General Emilio Aguinaldo, the president of the Philippines, was, quote, “just the same to me as a boy in the street.” I also got that quote from a Smithsonian Institution article which asserted that t he U.S. military’s treatment of native Filipinos echoed the longer histories of Americans’ attitudes toward African Americans and Native Americans back home. SO: I can see that. While the U.S debated expansionism to the Philippines at the turn of the twentieth century, the U.S. had expanded across North America over the course of the 1800s. This resulted not only in war with Mexico, but in the dislocation and brutal mistreatment of Native American, Hispanic and other non-European occupants of the territories now being occupied by the United States. AM: We mentioned in a previous episode that San Francisco and California weren’t just there to be discovered. [SO: Mhm] Native American--or American Indian--nations had been living on these lands for thousands of years before Spanish explorers claimed it for their empire. In fact, our park is situated on Ramaytush Ohlone land. SO: That’s very true. And there’s an interesting connection there. In 1889, Jose Rizal, a Filipino reformist living in Paris, was at the Paris World Exposition. There was a performance of Buffalo Bill’s Wild West that drew cheers of “Indians brave!” from the French crowds. The cries inspired Rizal to reclaim a term which the Spanish had been using to demean native inhabitants of the Philippines. Rizal told his friends, “Let us wear the name indio as our badge of racial pride! Let us make the Spaniards revise the concept of the indio--we shall become Indios Bravos!” AM: Los Indios Bravos-- as the group was called--worked together to write and publish works that raised awareness of the mistreatment of the people of the Philippines under Spanish rule. SO: The poet Luis Francia would later argue, "By taking a term, ‘Indios,' and shaping it as something positive and aspirational, political reformist and national hero José Rizal captured, in the late 19th century, the first moment in the history of the colony where a group of intellectuals started to think of themselves as a nation." AM: What’s that saying--the pen is mightier than the sword? SO: [chuckles] Well, we both know it’s more complicated than that, [AM: Mhm] but claiming the power of the pen is a significant step in giving a mission or a movement more permanence...And, I suppose, it is more difficult to judge a person by the color of their skin when you can only read their words. [music transition: “Battle Hymn of the Republic” continued] SO: Speaking of the written word, you know who else seems to be a constant through our episodes? AM: Who’s that? SO: William Randolph Hearst! AM: What does he have to do with things now?! SO: Well, we mentioned it a few episodes back, but Hearst’s newspaper, the New York Journal , and Joseph Pulitzer’s New York World continued their competition for readership beyond The Yellow Kid cartoon. And you know what they used to do it? The Spanish-American War. AM: That’s true! Today, historians argue whether Hearst’s and Pulitzer’s coverage caused or fomented the war; however, it’s widely accepted that their coverage heightened public awareness and maybe even resulted in public outcries for involvement. SO: With attention-grabbing headlines like “ Who Destroyed the Maine? $50,000 Reward,” “Spanish Treachery” and “Invasion!” that doesn’t surprise me. AM: From their headlines, the New York World, the New York Journal, and their publishers seemed to be in favor of war with Spain. But what happened after the war ended? SO: So the Spanish-American War formally ended in December 1898 with the Treaty of Paris. The United States took possession of Guam and Puerto Rico, and purchased the Philippines for 20 million dollars. It proceeded to establish military rule in the islands, with President William McKinley proclaiming that the government’s mission would be one of, quote, benevolent assimilation. AM: But as the twentieth century approached, there would be more battles to come. SO: The Filipinos, who had already declared their independence from Spain and established their own republic, were not suddenly going to embrace another nation’s rule. The Spanish-American War thus soon became the Philippine-American War. This formally lasted from 1899 to 1902, though resistance in the islands lasted till 1915. AM: Yet, as Filipinos continued fighting a new imperial power, Americans also found themselves divided over the question of empire. President McKinley himself had been torn about what to do with the Philippines. In an interview published in The Christian Advocate , he said that he had “walked the floor of the White House night after night until midnight”, because he “did not know what to do.” SO: President McKinley came to these conclusions, as read by Ranger David Pelfrey: DP: (1) That we could not give them back to Spain-that would be cowardly and dishonorable; (2) That we could not turn them over to France or Germany, our commercial rivals in the Orient-that would be bad business and discreditable; (3) That we could not leave them to themselves-they were unfit for self-government, and they would soon have anarchy and misrule worse then Spain's was; and (4) That there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them and by God's grace do the very best we could by them, as our fellow men for whom Christ also died. AM: At the same time, before the Spanish-American War even ceased, there was already a group that knew exactly what it did not want the U.S. to do. The American Anti-Imperialist League formed in June 1898 to oppose the annexation of the Philippines. They argued that doing so would go against the fundamental principles and noblest ideals of the United States -- specifically, the principle that“governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. SO: The Anti-Imperialist League drew support from many prominent figures – including Andrew Carnegie, Grover Cleveland, William James, Jane Addams, and Mark Twain, who wrote prolifically of his views. AM: In a piece for the New York Herald in October 1900, Twain harkens back to the concept of Manifest Destiny -- of the United States expanding farther west than the Rocky Mountains. He says: DP: I wanted the American eagle to go screaming into the Pacific. It seemed tiresome and tame for it to content itself with the Rockies. Why not spread its wings over the Philippines? [...] But I have thought some more, since then,and I have seen that we do not intend to free, but to subjugate [...] We have gone there to conquer, not to redeem. . .And so I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land. SO: Ultimately though, the eagle did. As we noted, the Philippine-American War was brutal. Casualties reached the hundreds of thousands, as the U.S. military employed civilian reconcentration policies and the water cure on suspected guerrillas. Resulting epidemics and food shortages added to the death toll. And the violence was horrific from soldiers of both sides. AM: In one of the war’s darkest chapters, Filipinos ambushed U.S. troops on the island of Samar. Forty-eight soldiers died, many of them hacked to death before they could reach their firearms. Newspapers called it “the worst defeat of U.S. Army soldiers since the Battle of the Little Big Horn.” SO: American forces then responded with a campaign to pacify that island. The commanding officer was Brigadier General Jacob H. Smith, a veteran of the Battle of Wounded Knee. Smith ordered his men to kill all persons bearing arms and over the age of 10. His words were, quote, “I want no prisoners. I wish you to kill and burn; the more you kill and burn, the better it will please me… the interior of Samar must be made a howling wilderness.” AM: While the war stretched on, the U.S. began setting up a civilian government, and winning over Filipinos -- especially among the elite -- whose visions for their country ranged from U.S. statehood to complete independence.These efforts were led by the first Governor-General of the Philippines, William Howard Taft, who was less militaristic than his predecessors. SO: Taft implemented policies that allowed Filipinos a degree of participation in government. His administration laid the groundwork for the first truly coeducational and public school and health systems in the Philippines. And it was also Taft who coined a phrase that would follow the relationship of the two countries for years to come. Taft told President McKinley, quote, “Our little brown brothers [would need] fifty or one hundred years [of close supervision] to develop anything resembling Anglo-Saxon political principles and skills.” AM: Okay, wait. I feel we should step back and really look at that phrase: “little brown brothers.” There’s a lot to unpack there. SO: Mm, not to mention in pretty much all the rhetoric we’ve been quoting. AM: That’s very true. But there is one more speech we should quote here. SO: Oh, are we going from quoting newspaper excerpts to speeches? AM: Mmhm, but don’t worry. Neither of us has to recite it. SO: We don’t? AM: Not this time! It’s this speech Taft made in September 1908 as the Republican nominee for president. It recaps why American policies should continue in Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines. Amazingly, this speech was recorded and is preserved in full on the Library of Congress website. Let’s listen to some excerpts now: WILLIAM HOWARD TAFT [AUDIO]: The Republican Party has pursued consistently, the policy originally adopted with respect to the dependencies that came to us as a result of the Spanish War. [...] In the Philippines, the experiment of a National Assembly has justified itself both as an assistant in the government of the island, and as an education and the practice of self-government to the people of the island. We have established a government with effective and honest executive department and a clean and fearless administration of justice. We have created and are maintaining a comprehensive school system, which is educating the youth of the island in English and in industrial branches. We have constructed great government public works, roads, and harbor. We have induced the private construction of 800 miles of railroad. We have policed the island so that their conditions as to law and order is better now than it ever has been in their history. It is quite unlikely that the people, because of the dense ignorance of 90%, will be ready for complete self-government and independence before two generations have passed. But the policy of increasing partial self-government step-by-step as the peoples shall show themselves fit for it should be continued. The proposition of the Democratic platform is to turn over the island as soon as a stable government is established – this has been established. The proposal then, is in effect to turn them over at once. Such action would lead to ultimate chaos in the islands and the progress among the ignorant masses and education in better living will stop. We are engaged in the Philippines in a great missionary work that does our nation honor, and is certain to promote in a most effective way the influence of Christian civilization. It is cowardly to lay down the burden until our purpose is achieved. [audio break - no music] SO: Alright, so, how do we even begin unpacking all that? AM: Well, I don’t think we can until we talk about the song we’ve been playing all episode. SO: You mean “The Battle Hymn of the Republic”? AM: I do! Which means I also mean “John Brown’s Body.” SO: Go on. AM: Well, the song we know today as “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” was originally a marching tune written by Union soldiers during the Civil War. Many people at the time, including the abolitionist writer Julia Ward Howe, thought the song was about the abolitionist leader, John Brown, who gained notoriety during what is known today as “Bleeding Kansas.” This referred to the struggle between pro-slavery forces and abolitionists during Kansas’ election to become a state either prohibiting or permitting slavery. In October 1859, John Brown led the raid at Harpers Ferry, Virginia, to seize weapons from the armory and local pro-slavery leaders. Though Brown and his company of roughly 22 volunteers--including several formerly enslaved Black men--did succeed in capturing the armory, the abolitionists were captured by the future Confederate General Robert E. Lee and a company of Marines under orders from President James Buchanan. SO: John Brown was executed by hanging on December 2, 1859. His death would spur fellow abolitionists to more decisive action, eventually leading to the outbreak of the Civil War in 1861. But the song isn’t about this John Brown? AM: Well, not originally! A Scottish soldier by the name of John Brown served in the Massachusetts Volunteer Militia during the Civil War. His fellow soldiers often joked with him about this. They created a teasing song with a contagious melody which spread to other units, who didn’t know the joke. So as the song gained popularity, it gained verses about the other John Brown. Including John Brown was a hero, undaunted, true, and brave; Kansas knew his valor when he fought her rights to save; And now the grass grows green above his grave, His truth is marching on! And John Brown died that the slaves might be free But his soul is marching on! SO: And when Julia Ward Howe attended a public parade and review of Union troops in Washington, D.C., in 1861, the melody stuck and inspired her. She came up with her own lyrics and created this well-known hymn: [“The Battle Hymn of the Republic” (1917 recording)] Mine eyes hath seen the glory of the coming of the Lord; He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored; He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword; His truth is marching on. Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! His truth is marching on. AM: What strikes me is the moral imperativism here. And when you realize that it is a song written by one abolitionist to the tune of a song that had become, in truth, an ode to another abolitionist...well, it fits. This song would be minorly altered over time too. The alteration that sticks out the most to me is the changing the line, “As he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.” Now, we sing, “let us live to make men free.” SO: And this wouldn’t be the last version of this song to be written during wartime. Mark Twain, who, as we’ve said, was a member of the Anti-Imperialist League, wrote a quote-unquote “updated” version of the hymn, which ends with the following verse: DP: In a sordid slime harmonious Greed was born in yonder ditch, With a longing in his bosom—and for others' goods an itch. As Christ died to make men holy, let men die to make us rich— Our god is marching on. Woe and death can turn a profit. Warfare needs a wealthy prophet! Woe and death through war, don't stop it! It's war that makes men rich! AM: The Anti-Imperialist League itself drew a clear line from the Civil War to the Spanish- and Philippine-American wars. Take these excerpts from their platform: “[I]n the Philippines, greatly as we regret that the blood of the Filipinos is on American hands, we more deeply resent the betrayal of American institutions at home. The real firing line is not in the suburbs of Manila. The foe is of our own household. The attempt of 1861 was to divide the country. That of 1899 is to destroy its fundamental principles and noblest ideals.” [music transition: “Battle Hymn of the Republic” instrumental section] SO: Speaking of the anti-imperialist movement -- and of so-called “little brown brothers” -- can we please talk about a few literal and figurative sisters too? AM: Yes! What kind of show are we if we don’t pass the Bechdel Test? SO: Good point! It’s important to keep in mind that people of different genders, races, and nationalities participated in the national imperialism debate. All genders were involved with the Anti-Imperialist League… though not equally represented. Women did not yet have suffrage. And there were very real and often violent barriers to voting for men of color. At the league’s Chicago Liberty Meeting in 1899, Jane Addams was the only female plenary speaker of eight when she said this: “To ‘protect the weak’ has always been the excuse of the ruler and tax-gatherer, the chief, the king, the baron; and now, at last, of ‘the white man’”. AM: White women weren’t the only under-remembered population to make significant arguments in the debate of imperialism. Among the Black public figures who spoke out against imperialism was Ida B. Wells, an early leader of the civil rights movement, who said that Black Americans should oppose expansion until the government was able to protect Black people at home. And the racist implications were not lost on Filipinas either. SO: In 1901, 26-year-old Clemencia Lopez, member of an elite Filipino family, traveled to the United States to petition the release of her brothers, who had been imprisoned for their revolutionary activities. That mission was unsuccessful, but it didn’t stop her fighting for her people’s freedom. AM: As a guest of the Anti-Imperialist League, Clemencia stayed in the country for over a year, speaking out for Philippine independence. As she did so, she herself served as living proof that Filipinos were not uneducated, uncivilized, and incapable of self-rule. Her first and most famous speaking engagement was with the New England Woman’s Suffrage Association. At Boston’s integral Park Street Church, to an audience of 400, she stated common cause with the women who were fighting for independence through the individual right to vote. SO: Delivering her speech in Spanish, Clemencia Lopez said: I believe that we are both striving for much the same object — you for the right to take part in national life; we for the right to have a national life to take part in. . . . In the name of the Philippine women, I pray [you] do what [you] can to remedy all this misery and misfortune in my unhappy country. You can do much to bring about the cessation of these horrors and cruelties which are today taking place in the Philippines, and to insist upon a more human course. . . you ought to understand that we are only contending for the liberty of our country, just as you once fought for the same liberty for yours. AM: Interestingly, it was the fact that Clemencia was a woman that enabled her to speak so openly. Perceived as “delicate”, she could, as the scholar Laura Prieto said, talk about “the ‘delicate subject’ of autonomy for the Philippines in ways that Filipino men could not.” SO: Personally, I am just impressed that at this time when she would have been seen as this little brown sister, appealing to a room probably full of, well, big white sisters, she seems to have just stood there at the podium and spoke to these women -- and men -- as equals. Nothing more. Nothing less. AM: Personally, I am impressed that she seemed to understand that, well, the fight for freedom is the fight for freedom is the fight for freedom. Before she returned to the Philippines, she gave a final speech at a luncheon presided over by Franklin Benjamin Sanborn, a friend of John Brown who assisted his raid on Harper’s Ferry. The guests included other figures in the abolitionist movement. Clemencia remarked, “These names became famous at a time when the victim was the black man. Now it is the brown.” SO: Ultimately, despite any well-meaning intentions behind the phrase "little brown brothers", the sincerest acts of benevolence, a genuine openness to assimilation, and developments that undoubtedly took place during the American period in the Philippines -- that phrase was just always going to be problematic, wasn't it? AM: Historians would later call it an example of “paternalist racism.” But, in fact, from the moment Taft popularized that description, it was already met with skepticism from both Americans and Filipinos because of the bloodshed of the war. And soldiers on the ground made up a telling song. Here it is, as performed for the PBS documentary “Crucible of Empire.” [Music begins] I am only a common soldier in the blasted Philippines They say I've got brown brothers here but I dunno what it means I like the word 'fraternity' but still I draw the line Oh, he may be a brother of Big Bill Taft But he ain't no brother of mine [Music ends] SO: The complex and contradictory nature of the “little brown brother” concept would follow Filipinos as they began coming to the mainland United States. One manifestation was their immigration status -- they weren’t even considered immigrants or aliens. They were “U.S. nationals.” But they weren’t “citizens.” AM: The first wave came as students through the Pensionado Act of 1903, which established a scholarship program for Filipinos wishing to attend school in the United States. This program lasted 40 years, ending in 1943. As part of the program, the students agreed to serve 18 months in the government of the Philippines after graduating. SO: The students accepted under the Pensionado Act were incredibly bright people. You could think of it as the Fulbright scholarship for its time. [AM: Hmm] Some criticize pensionados as “good colonials”, and some say they used the American educational system for nationalist ends. Regardless, they went on to have major impacts on healthcare, government, education, and the arts in both the United States and the Philippines. AM: It’s funny you mention the Fulbright, because the Pensionado program was the largest US scholarship program until the Fulbright scholarship began in 1948. SO: Really? I didn’t know that! [AM: Mhm!] But in addition to students, Filipinos who served in the U.S. military also arrived in the United States. Laborers also began coming over to Hawaii, recruited to the sugar plantations. According to the U.S. Census, nearly 113,000 Filipinos arrived in Hawaii between 1909 and 1931. More than 18,000 of them would migrate to the mainland U.S. where they primarily found work in the agriculture and fishing industries. AM: The numbers increased steadily through the 1920s, as the Dollar Steamship Company began offering affordable third-class tickets from Manila to San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Seattle. Over 31,000 Filipinos arrived at California ports in that decade. Given their status as U.S. nationals, they did not face the same hardships and barriers that other Asian immigrant populations faced… at least, not initially. For example, they did not have to go through the inspections and interrogations at Angel Island Immigration Station that Chinese arrivals did. “I just got off the boat,” the migrant Eliseo Felipe said, “It was like getting off the bus.” SO: And then -- as now -- many found it relatively easier to adapt to life in the U.S. Their generation was familiar with American ideals, culture, and values. A significant number went to American-style schools and spoke English. Many had been raised to pledge allegiance to the U.S. flag and fully considered themselves Americans. One Filipino immigrant interviewed in 1924 said, “We have heard much of America as a land of the brave and the free, land of opportunity, and we pictured her as a land of ‘Paradise’.” AM: However, white citizens of the United States were largely unwilling to accept these nationals with so many shared experiences as their brothers or sisters. Pretty soon, people immigrating to the United States from the Philippines were characterized as yet another, quote-unquote, “Asiatic invasion”. California labor officials argued that, quote, “Filipinos, like other Asians, took away jobs from a broad swath of white American workers,” end-quote. Signs began appearing which declared “Positively No Filipinos Allowed” and “No Filipinos or Dogs Allowed”. The Filipino American icon Carlos Bulosan -- we’ll be talking about him more in the next episode -- said, “I know deep down in my heart that I am an exile in America. I feel like a criminal running away from a crime I didn't commit. And this crime is that I am a Filipino in America.” SO: All this led to -- as we’ve heard happen with Chinese immigrants -- Filipinos forming communities for themselves. Here in San Francisco, a Manilatown emerged on Kearney Street, right next to Chinatown. This, too, was a bachelor society -- especially as, in 1933, California extended its anti-miscegenation laws to forbid marriage between Filipinos and whites. AM: And, ultimately, they would also be excluded from coming to the United States by law. As Erika Lee and Judy Yung summarized in their book, Angel Island: Immigrant Gateway to America : “Lawmakers began to recognize that Filipino exclusion could only be achieved through Philippine independence. California State Attorney General Ulysses S. Webb made the connection between the two explicit in congressional hearings in 1931. “We want exclusion of the Filipinos and independence would exclude them,” he explained. “If independence were granted, that would make them automatically subject to the act of 1924 [which stipulated that no ‘alien ineligible to citizenship’ would be admitted]... For their part, Philippine nationalists, who struggled to free their country from the United States, were willing to trade independence for Filipino exclusion, and their support allowed for new legislation to be drafted and passed.” SO: In 1934, the Tydings-McDuffie Bill would strip Filipinos living in the U.S. of their status as nationals as a part of a stepped program to Philippine independence. Like so many other Asian immigrants, Filipinos became “aliens.” They were also subjected to an annual immigration quota of 50 people. AM: The Tydings-McDuffie Act did grant the Philippines commonwealth status immediately and a promise of full independence after 10 years. On July 4, 1946 -- after Filipinos and Americans indeed lived and died side by side as brothers and sisters through World War II – the Stars and Stripes came down in the islands, and the Philippine flag, with its sun and stars, flew at last on its own. [“Lupang Hinirang” plays] SO: We’ve just heard the first part of the Philippine national anthem, Lupang Hinirang, which was first written as an instrumental march in 1898 and later set to Spanish lyrics. It is now in Filipino, but when its official English version was still sung, those verses read, “Land dear and holy / cradle of noble heroes / never shall invaders / trample thy sacred shores.” AM: I guess I wasn’t kidding when I said our totally real itinerary looked like a history textbook. We’ve sure traveled across time and space! SO: I guess all the caffeine was worth it? [ AM : always.] [laughs] But, like that itinerary says, there’s one last stop to make. AM: And this can’t be anything else but our very own Hyde Street Pier. Honestly, it’s amazing we did so much traveling. If we wanted a lens specifically into the times we’ve been talking about, we could have also started right here, at our park, with one of our ships. SO: The last port of one voyage is always the first port of the next one... Um, yes. I just made up a proverb. AM: Haha, the tea is still working, I see! But, see, our square-rigger, Balclutha, was right at the edges of all the histories we’ve been talking about. For starters, she was part of trade with Asia. In the 1890s, when she sailed to and from San Francisco as a British ship, her ports of call included Myanmar and India. SO: And, after Balclutha changed from British to Hawaiian ownership, she soon became the last vessel to fly the flag of the Hawaiian kingdom. That’s because -- around the time the U.S. acquired the Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico -- the U.S. also annexed Hawaii and organized it into a territory. AM: Of course, in 1901, it was Balclutha ’s turn to officially become a U.S. citizen--and that’s when the ship stopped hovering around the edges of the histories we’ve covered in this podcast, and became a more crucial piece to understanding them. [instrumental music begins]