Episode Recording -- "The Philippine American War and the Myth of Democracy"

ustifying the Empire

Beau explores the ideological framework behind U.S. imperialism, focusing on Rudyard

Kipling’s White Man’s Burden, Roosevelt’s Monroe Doctrine Corollary, and Turner’s frontier

thesis. A clip from Kipling’s poem (via LibriV ox) is included to highlight how racism and

paternalism shaped imperial logic.

The Reality of Colonial Violence

The episode details violent practices used by American troops during the Philippine-American

War, including the “water cure” and indiscriminate civilian killings. This section draws on

soldier reports and features a mention of Mark Twain’s The War Prayer as a satirical response to

wartime hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy and Denial of Sovereignty

Beau connects the U.S. refusal to recognize Filipino independence to similar patterns in its

treatment of Native Americans, referencing Chief Joseph’s speeches. He argues that the U.S.

betrayed its stated ideals of self-determination.

Opening 0:00–0:36

Hey there, and welcome to Students Podcasting History, the show where we unpack the past to

better understand the present. I’m your host, Beau Burnette, and today, we’re diving into one of

the most controversial moments in American history: the Philippine-American War. Stick with

me, because this story challenges everything we thought we knew about freedom, democracy,

and what it means to be an empire.

---

Intro – 0:37–1:13So here’s the big question: If the U.S. was all about spreading freedom, why did it fight a brutal

war to keep the Philippines under control? We’ve all heard the story of America the liberator. But

what if that story is only half true?

Here’s our starting point: While the U.S. claimed it was bringing democracy and civilization to

the Philippines, the war itself reveals something much darker, a campaign rooted in racism,

hypocrisy, and a flat-out refusal to let Filipinos govern themselves.

---

Justifying Empire – 1:14 –1:47 Let’s start with how Americans at the time justified taking over

the Philippines. Some saw it not just as a grab for power, but as a kind of mission. In 1899,

British writer Rudyard Kipling wrote *The White Man’s Burden*

, a poem he sent directly to

President Theodore Roosevelt. Kipling’s words called on the U.S. to take up the supposed

“duty” of empire and govern colonized people.

The poem reflects a belief common in Western imperialism at the time: that white nations had a

responsibility to “civilize” others. Let’s listen to a short clip:

1:48-3:10 Rudyard Kipling’s The White Man’s Burden audio clip

3:12- 4:07 Kipling describes colonized people as “half-devil and half-child”

, a dehumanizing

image that paints domination as noble. It's a sobering reminder of how racism was woven into

the very language of empire.

Then there was President Theodore Roosevelt, who pushed the idea that the U.S. should act

like a kind of world police. In his *Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine*

, he basically said it was

America’s job to step in and manage other countries when they weren’t doing things the "right"

way.

And finally, historian Frederick Jackson Turner argued that America needed new frontiers to

keep its spirit alive, and since the Wild West was done, the Philippines became the new space

to prove American greatness.

---

What Really Happened 4:10-5:07

So what did this so-called moral mission actually look like on the ground? Not good. U.S.

soldiers used racist slurs to describe Filipinos and saw them as less than human. This made it

easier to justify the violence.There were torture methods like the “water cure,

” where soldiers forced water down people’s

throats until they talked, or didn’t. Villages were burned, civilians were killed, and soldiers often

didn’t even bother telling fighters and noncombatants apart.

Mark Twain, of all people, called the whole thing out. In his piece *The War Prayer*

, he mocked

the way Americans blessed their weapons while ignoring the suffering they caused. It was a

reality check a lot of folks needed, but too few listened.

---

Freedom? For Who? – 5:10–6:06

Here’s where the hypocrisy hits hard. Emilio Aguinaldo, the leader of the Filipino independence

movement, had already set up a government before the U.S. took control. But the U.S. refused

to recognize it. Instead, they acted like the Philippines was just another prize from the

Spanish-American War.

It wasn’t the first time America had done this. Just listen to Chief Joseph, the Nez Perce leader

who gave heartbreaking speeches in the late 1800s about the U.S. stealing Native lands. The

message was the same: freedom for some, control over others.

The war in the Philippines was wrapped in words like “civilization” and “progress,

” but what it

really showed was how far the U.S. was willing to go to hold on to power.

Conclusion – 6:09–6:49 So, what do we take away from all this? First off, words matter.

"The

white man’s burden" wasn’t just a poem, it was a mindset. And that mindset justified some pretty

awful things.

Second, this wasn’t just a one-time event. The way the U.S. treated the Philippines mirrored

how it treated Native Americans, Black citizens, and other marginalized groups. There’s a

pattern here, and it’s worth thinking about.

Finally, if we’re going to talk about American ideals, we have to hold them up to the light. Are we

really living those ideals, or just using them as a cover?

---

Outro – 6:50-7:15

Thanks for listening to student’s podcasting History. If today’s episode got you thinking, go

ahead and subscribe, share it with a friend, and maybe leave a review. Got questions or topic

ideas? I’d love to hear from you.Until next time, I’m Beau Burnette, and remember: History isn’t just about what happened, it’s

about what we choose to learn from it.