US Forestry in the Philippines
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
U.S. Forestry in the Philippines: Environment, Nationhood, and Empire, 1900-1937 Nathan E Roberts A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Washington 2014 Reading Committee: Linda Nash, Chair Vicente Rafael Alexandra Harmon Program authorized to Offer Degree: History ©Copyright 2014 Nathan E. Roberts Abstract U.S. Forestry in the Philippines: Environment, Nationhood, and Empire, 1900-1937 Nathan E Roberts Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Professor Linda Nash Department of History During the early twentieth century, U.S. forestry officials and Filipino/a allies established new foundations for forest management and resource use in the Philippines. American forestry advocates deployed colonial forest management to both legitimate U.S. imperialism and strengthen claims for state power at home. In both the colony and the metropole, Progressives argued that scientific forestry provided for stable economies, efficient resource use, and the defense of the collective good. An essential part of U.S. colonial forestry was the expansion of capitalist development and the collection of environmental knowledge of the tropics. But, as U.S. forestry officials sought to commodify and manage Philippine forests, they were forced to contend with unknown and challenging environmental conditions that shaped how forest use unfolded. By examining the advent of U.S.-led state forestry, the development of forestry practices, and the social relations between the Americans and Filipino/as who worked in the forests, this dissertation offers a look at how environmental management emerged as a key element in state-, nation-, and empire-building regimes during the twentieth century. Furthermore, as part of the U.S. civilizing mission in the Philippines, forestry officials brought with them perceptions about Filipino/as and Philippine society that permeated every aspect of forest management. U.S. forestry contained specific notions of race, gender, and class status that appealed to some Filipinos who saw themselves as caretakers of a new nation. However, some in the Philippines, such as shifting agriculturalists, became outsiders in the new forestry regime. This work examines how Americans and Filipino/as structured the new social world of forest management in the Philippines. i Table of Contents Page Introduction: The American Colonial Imagination…………………………………1 A Nexus of Capital and Collectivity 5 Forestry and American Empire in History 13 Approaches: Environments and Scales of Space 19 Sources 29 Chapter Outline 30 Chapter One: Forestry, Capitalism, and the American Civilizing Mission…………37 Forestry and Traditional American Land Use 43 Forestry as a Mission to Western Lands 62 Conclusion – “The finest piece of work” 91 Chapter Two: Modernizing the Timber and Lumber Industries: Labor, Transportation, and Machines…….……….………………………………………………….95 Wage Work by Any Other Name 101 Methods and Machines 125 Conclusion 154 Chapter Three: U.S. Forestry and the Dipterocarp Revelation in the Philippines…..159 The Promise of Biodiversity: Tropical Abundance 165 The Problem of Biodiversity: Over-Abundance 173 “The Original Mother Type” 196 Conclusion 216 Chapter Four: “The Land Question”: State-Capital Cooperation and Uncooperative Environments and Peoples…………………………………………………..220 Drawing Lines: Licenses and the Bona Fide Forest User 225 Separate Public Spheres 248 Kaingins and a Nationalist Narrative of Threat 255 Ipil-Ipil: Finding Hope in a Good Colonizer 278 Conclusion 289 Chapter Five: The Spirit of Service: Education, Optimism, and Esprit de Corps in the Philippine Bureau of Forestry……………………………………………….294 “Specialized Technique” and “the Yale Spirit” 300 The Right Stuff 312 Making Men in the School of Forestry 330 Conclusion 349 Conclusion: Measures of Prosperity………………………………………….…….352 Bibliography………………………………………………………………….…….364 ii Acknowledgments “It is difficult to begin without borrowing,” wrote the American philosopher, Henry Thoreau. Indeed, I have borrowed much to complete this work. I was fortunate to study among a community of talented and generous scholars at the University of Washington. Linda Nash served as my primary adviser reading drafts, offering insightful critiques, and providing careful guidance. Many of my central interests and questions have been honed through conversations with her and she undoubtedly will find a number of her own ideas reflected in this work. Alexandra Harmon has been an adviser and mentor since before graduate school. Beginning with my first undergraduate course with her, Sasha shaped a raw and clumsy student into a more thoughtful inquirer. She has performed a heroic effort editing my work and teaching me to be a more disciplined writer. Vicente Rafael has always been an enthusiastic supporter of my work. He introduced me to concepts and literatures that challenged and engaged me, and in 2008, he graciously took me on a tour of Manila and showed me areas of Binondo and Quiapo that I would not have known otherwise. I have also benefitted from courses and conversations with other members of the UW’s Department of History including Stephanie Camp, Susan Glenn, James Gregory, Moon-Ho Jung, Richard Johnson, and Quintard Taylor. By illuminating connections among fields, methods, and concepts, these scholars enriched my scholarship and established a firm foundation for my intellectual development. I would also like to thank my friends and fellow graduate students for their time and energy. Christopher Herbert, Jon Olivera, Alan Lumba, Sarah Lindsley, Joe Bernardo, and Juned Shaikh all helped me work on concepts and create useful frameworks for chapters. Alex Morrow and Jessica Lee were especially instrumental in the process of writing the dissertation. Meeting in the East Asia Library, we badgered one another into making choices, staying on task, and finishing chapters. There is a real possibility that this work would not have been completed, at least in the time frame that is was, without their help. iii During 2008, I was privileged to receive the Social Science Research Council’s Dissertation Proposal Development Fellowship. The students and faculty I worked with shaped the questions and ideas that placed this project on its way. Thanks are due to all of the participating students of the STS cohort who discussed my project at length and in interested detail. I am particularly appreciative to my faculty advisers, Shiela Jasanoff and Clark Miller, who challenged me to think in new ways about the project. I was aided at a number of archives by resourceful and helpful staff including the Library of Congress, National Archives, National Agricultural Library, Cornell University, and the University of Washington. But nowhere was I more at home and valued as a colleague that at the Forest History Society in Durham, NC. Steve Anderson and the FHS provided needed funds. Staff members Andrea Anderson, Katherine Cox, Eben Lehman, and James Lewis supported me at every turn. In particular, thanks are due to Cheryl Oakes who is one of those rumored archivists who can open up important directions in a project simply through her keen mind and finely-tuned skills. Many friends have shared their strength and spirit with me, performing in key moments the mental and emotional heavy lifting to keep me on track. Ken Shima has been a trusted and true friend who regularly offered confidence and courage when I most needed them. Several colleagues and friends at Wake Forest University contributed moral support and intellectual development. Ben Coates, Sean Dunwoody, Monique O’Connell, Nate Plageman, Emily Wakild, and Heather Welland all offered valuable insight and supportive friendship. Lisa Blee often believed in my ability to complete this work more than I did, and she saw this project and my own development as a scholar through years of obstacles and challenges. She read many portions of this work and commented on my ideas and writing. It was only finished with her help. My own professional successes are due in large part to following her example and accepting her words of encouragement. iv Dedication To Pam, Martha, and Patsy, and to Paul, Dale, Tony, Karen H., Bev G., Karen L., Dagny, and Bev E. for unyielding belief and light shoving. 1 Introduction: The American Colonial Imagination “You can start a prosperous home by destroying the forests, but you cannot keep it prosperous that way.”1 - T. Roosevelt (1903) When President Theodore Roosevelt addressed the Society of American Foresters (SAF) in 1903, he used the metaphor of nation-as-house to link two elements of forestry ideology: on the one hand, forests most important function was as the raw materials for nation-building, and, on the other, forests must be preserved in order to sustain national prosperity.2 Roosevelt could make such a linkage because he and other U.S. politicians at the turn of the twentieth century imagined themselves at the apex of a progressive history of social stages where they served as the architects of human advancement.3 Roosevelt’s words retained a progressive view of U.S. social and economic development set within an abbreviated history of forest use. As others had before, Roosevelt excused Americans’ 1 Theodore Roosevelt, “Forests and Forestry,” From a speech delivered before the Society of American Foresters March 26, 1903 and printed in Proceedings of the Society of American Foresters Vol. 1, No. 1 (May, 1905), 4. 2 This is not meant to engage in the now less than useful debate: