Oxymoron

When I hear the ideas of benevolent assimilation, amigo warfare, or compadre colonialism I never understand how the combined definitions of those words are able to be used in a positive manor. As I read through Zinn and Ileto these notions puzzled me, not from misunderstanding of what they were, but why they were. Through the use of these terms I felt that it was an attempt for the United States to try and cover their actions in the past or justify them. Just as we discussed the different reasons why the government would attempt to alter the past, I maintain my view that the government alters the past and carefully selects the words used. By doing so, they are not only attempting to justify their means, but to keep the public on their side also. 

When statements such as “they were unfit for self-government” and “we have to civilize and Christianize the Filipinos” (Zinn, p. 55) are made, it is a total attempt at keeping the public opinion toward the government high and positive. The way I view the issue of altering the past or using certain words to improve one’s image is that if one is able to keep their image high and maintain a level of respect then they have free reign to do just about anything they want. By using words such as “we need to” or “we must” when speaking about actions that are either being or about to be carried out, justification is given and the public is quick to support whether they know the entirety of the situation or not. But if there was no sugarcoating of the true intentions, then I don’t believe the government would be able to carry out anything without there being a possibility of civil unrest.

Focusing on the ideas of amigo warfare, and compadre colonialism, each of the three ideas stand out as a con to get what they want with minimal effort possible. With amigo warfare and compadre colonialism in mind, I see both as a form of luring a group with the enticement of defeating a mutual enemy with no strings attached, but as soon as the enemy is defeated the group lured into the deal is then crossed and realize that they helped their new enemy gain traction on their soil. Knowing that the words “amigo” and “compadre” translate into “friend” and “brother” I only see these tactics as being oxymorons, if two people were truly friends or brothers would one stab the other in the back? The ideas of amigo warfare, compadre colonialism, and benevolent assimilation are all just sugarcoated forms of the actual actions used to put the minds of the public at ease.
As I further attempted to understand the logic behind the usage of terms like benevolent assimilation, I was intrigued more with who was the person responsible for that word being used. From Ileto, Twain, and Zinn I took that it was always a figure in power who was attempting to assure that all actions were done with the best intentions. In all three of the readings listed, the figure in power was a white male, this did not surprise me too much as white men are often in roles of power such as commanders or leaders. Although this was not my first time reading McIntosh’s White Privilege and Male Privilege, this was the first time that I looked at male and white privilege though the lens of colonialism and war. 

With white privilege in mind, I see the ways that statements such as amigo warfare, benevolent assimilation, and compadre colonialism are exercises of white privilege as I think how the United States would react if a non-white nation used a term such as that when entering another nation. I envision the reaction to be of disgust and they would wonder how they could use terms like that with the intentions to colonize land and kill so many. I only see white nations such as the United States, England, or Spain using terms such as those and getting away without a critical reception of the true nature of their intent. When I think of the relationship between white privilege and war, I only think of the justifications that have been placed on the white nations as they attack the non-white nations and how the public view toward the same action would be if roles were reversed.

Works Cited
Text

Ileto, R.C. (1998). The Philippine-American War, Friendship and Forgetting. In Shaw, A.V. &  Francia, L.H. Vestiges of war. (pp. 3-21). New York: New York Press.

McIntosh, P. (1988). White privilege and male privilege: A personal account of coming to see correspondences through work in women’s studies. In K. Tupper, Introduction to women’s studies: Women 200 (2nd ed.) (pp. 62-71). New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Twain, M. (2002). To the person sitting in darkness. In Shaw, A.V. & Francia, L.H. Vestiges of war. (pp. 57-68). New York: New York Press.

Zinn, H. (2008). Invasion of the Philippines. In A people’s history of American empire. (pp.53-72) NY: Metropolitan Books.

Image

https://bigmart73.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/knapsack.jpg