REVIEW OF BENEDICT ANDERSON’S “UNDER THREE FLAGS”

2010

Introduction

Benedict Anderson’s “Under Three Flags” provides an extensive historical research on world politics in the aspects of anti-colonialism and international anarchism. Although there is a flag of Philippines’ on the cover page of the book and the content of it can be thought as it is about anti-colonialism in Philippines mainly, in my opinion it is clear that the writer’s intention is to show the links between several anti-colonist and patriotic leaders or thinkers from all around the world. Anderson’s choice of showing links between these people actually creates a complex perspective which sometimes makes reader impatient about the main theme for anarchism and anti-colonial arguments. But in my opinion, his main argument is not to give a lecture about the independence history of the Philippines but to show the complicated intercontinental networks that identify the age of early globalization (Anderson 2005, p. 233).

Throughout this paper, you will first find a brief summary of the mentioned book as it is predictably significant to understand the main points of the writer’s arguments after being aware of what is going on between the lines. After the summary I will set a critical discussion about the related intercontinental links between several important political thinkers from all around the globe and their simultaneous actions for revolution. “Under Three Flags” tells the story of complex intellectual interactions of young Filipinos with the European experimentalists of Paris, militant anarchists of Spain, France, Italy and the Americas, armed protestants of Cuba and anti-imperialist volunteers of China and Japan. Anderson presents a book to be carefully read as it gives reader a much broader and complex written history of the 19th century Philippines than a conventional historical knowledge of ours.

Summary of the Book and the Related Period

The visible theme of the “Under Three Flags” is the study of Filipino national hero Jose Rizal in the sense of his popular novel named “El Filibusterismo” and his international connections. More than that, there is a surrounding theme of linkages between Filipino, Cuban and European anarchists and anti-colonialists and the remarkable intertwining of art, literature and politics which I will be exploring in the upcoming paragraphs. But before that, it would be better to mention about the main Filipino characters in the book that are Jose Rizal, Isabelo de los Reyes and Mariano Ponce. Following, there will be a brief summary of Rizal’s life and his influence on the anti-colonial atmosphere of Philippines. Lastly in this section you can find a summary of the ongoing events through the chapters of the book.

Isabelo de los Reyes, lived between 1864 and 1938, a polemical journalist and pioneering folklorist of Filipino identity, shows a different character compared to Rizal with 27 children whereas Rizal had none. Of course the number of children one has does not show anything scientific, but the way he looks at life reflects his energetic and anarchist-inflected character where he shows a greater desire for action than Jose Rizal who displays a comparatively modest nature. Before going to Europe in 1897 and experiencing the chains and tortures in Montjuich prison in Barcelona due to his involvement in anti-colonial action against Spain, Reyes was an active journalist in his mainland and he was receiving letters, magazines and texts from European academics and folklorists where he was developing his nationalistic perception (Anderson 2005, p. 27). Another substantial points in his life are his foundation of “El Ilocano” in 1889, the first vernacular newspaper in Philippines and his broad researches on Philippines history and culture.

Mariano Ponce, lived between 1863 and 1918, is a coordinating organizer of the anti-colonial movement in Philippines. He was among the founders and contributors of La Solidaridad, an organization to advocate the Filipino cause in the Spain and a newspaper to influence the Filipinos at the same time. He was one of the prominent emissaries during and after the Philippines revolution (Anderson 2005, p. 207) as he was appointed as a diplomatic representative of the revolutionary government to Japan to earn their support. Ponce had a great calmness and modesty which are significant abilities to stand for his nation against other countries.

Jose Rizal, lived between 1861 and 1896, is one of the greatest novelists of the Philippines literature and also a central figure for the Filipino revolution of his country against the colonial power of Spain. In my opinion, his perception on the politics cannot be described fairly without giving credit to his two popular books, “Noli me Tangere” and “El Filibusterismo”. Still, before discussing his books, it is worth having a look at his life, particularly the time he lived in Europe.

European way of life and European novelists, thinkers and activists play a huge role in Rizal’s perspective. He left his country for Europe in 1882 and stayed in Spain, France, Germany, England and Belgium for nearly ten years. He made European friends among political thinkers and journalists and thus witnessed the emerging new ideas of the continent which led him to write his controversial novels to become a famous Filipino (Anderson 2005, p. 28). In his stay in Europe, there were three angles to influence his way of thinking which were firstly the political system of Europe dominated by German Chancellor Bismarck, secondly the ongoing assassinations and anarchism in the continent and thirdly the colonial power of the time, Spain. What is important here is the change of Rizal into a patriot, a “filibustero”, after reading Antonio de Morga and his historical research on Spain and its colonial past. Rizal’s second book, El filibusterismo, clearly shows the rise in his determination to help his country earn his independence (Anderson 2005, p. 96).

To start with, it should be remembered that Rizal’s two novels are both serious critiques of colonialism although there is a more than tiny difference between the two. While almost all events in “Noli me Tangere” occur within Philippines, “El filibusterismo” takes place in many countries like Cuba, Germany, Egypt, Russia, France, China and Japan. As Anderson describes the latter one as “probably the first incendiary anti-colonial novel written by a colonial subject outside Europe” (Anderson 2005, p. 6), he also adds that “if Noli me Tangere was targeted at multiple audiences in Europe and the Philippines, El filibusterismo was meant only for the latter” (Anderson 2005, p. 103). This coincides with the condition that Rizal was feeling more patriotic for Philippines while writing El filibusterismo due to his accumulated knowledge about anti-colonialism and nationalism in his long stay in Europe. Though, his grievance was not only for the colonist Spain but also for the corrupted clergy in his homeland.

Along with Reyes, Ponce and Rizal; Anderson touches many thinkers, activists, journalists in “Under Three Flags” and shows a good example of the early globalization effect of this particular time in the anti-colonization and anarchism aspects. After a brief prologue, the second chapter is mainly about a contrast of Isabelo Reyes to Jose Rizal and Rizal’s library which is to be traced for El filibusterismo. In the third chapter Anderson puts a framework of the spaces Rizal had been in Europe like the powerful Germany, the atmosphere of anarchism and the colonial Spain. He again shows evidences of influence like his collaboration with journalist Marcelo de Pilar and “La Solidaridad” that is highly effective in Rizal’s writings.

In the fourth chapter, Anderson takes readers to the last four years of Rizal in his homeland and his execution, which is basically after the publication of El filibusterismo in 1891. His transitions from Hong Kong to Borneo, from Manila to Dapitan, from Manila again to Barcelona and lastly to Manila where he is imprisoned and executed by the colonial Spanish officers which actually, as a whole, displays a depiction of struggle for the purpose of Filipino independence. One way or another Rizal served his country even after his death when his execution made a national martyr in Philippines which made it convenient for revolutionary movement to be broader and more effective (Anderson 2005, p. 164).

In the last chapter, main discussion is about several events sometime after Rizal’s death, such as the radicalization of Europe, assassination of Spanish Prime Minister Canovas and the end of colonial power of Spain, anti-colonial efforts in Philippines and rise of revolutionary ideas in Japan and China. Other than those, Anderson highlights particularly three people in this part which are firstly Mariano Ponce as he is the leading actor of revolutionary Filipinos in creating a network of public opinion internationally. Second one is Isabelo del Reyes whose prison experience and return back to Spain as a politician takes some part in the last chapter. The last one is Rizal's Japanese friend Suehiro Tettyo, who has a novel about Rizal's experiences.

Critical Discussion

The main argument of Benedict Anderson, in my opinion, is to show readers that ideas and events happening around the same time can have an impact on other people and countries due to the international travel and communication opportunities. Anderson himself accepts his work as a political astronomy where he describes it as “an attempt to map the gravitational force of anarchism between militant nationalisms on opposite sides of the planet.” (Anderson 2005, p. 2) While he is studying the second novel of Rizal, “El filibusterismo”, he expects the patience of the readers as understanding the infrastructure of the novel brings a complicated interconnection between Spain, France, Italy, Russia, the Caribbean, the United States and the Philippines (Anderson 2005, p. 56).

The complicated interconnection of different thinkers, journalists and activists from different nationalities around the world already makes a dazzling story. This brings us to accumulation and transition of anarchist and nationalistic approach between different colonized and oppressed countries which is the main subject for the book. But also there is a thing that I doubt about as if it is a coincidence of the universe or a result of the interconnections in the long period: “El filibusterismo was printed in 1891 in Ghent, only forty miles from Ostend where, in 1888, James Ensor had finished his anarchist-revolutionary painting ‘Christ’s Entry into Brussels’.” (Anderson 2005, p. 45) In a time when anarchism was getting popular newly, it may be both a nice coincidence and a solid proof for the transition of knowledge among people.

One way or another, new technologies such as the invention of the telegram, developing postal systems and railway networks made this “early globalization” possible. The simultaneous revolutionary actions in Philippines and Cuba proves this as Cuba, the last nationalist movement in the New World, and the Philippines, the first in Asia, had connections in individual level and to some extent had coordinated interactions and so they experienced the taste of independence in a very similar time (Anderson 2005, p. 2). They, the Filipinos, also found allies in European countries to exchange the ideas and gain public support. This, in some way, was a way to learn how to revolt and stand against colonial powers. What is not surprising is Rizal’s or Reyes’ choice of using a foreign language in their books or journals other than their native one to create a public opinion and recognition outside their country.

In “Under Three Flags”, it is not discussed in details very much but Anderson makes a comparison between Philippines’ national hero Jose Rizal and Cuba’s national hero Jose Marti. He states the comparison as “illuminating” (Anderson 2005, p. 131) and sets their similarities and differences in a couple of paragraphs. What is most visible is the common language they use, Spanish. Perhaps it is a success for Rizal to write in Spanish, not in his native language as he thus had the chance to create a common sphere for both countries that were colonized by Spain.

Actually, the final chapter of the book can be the most extensive among others in the aspect of showing intercontinental links before and after the uprisings. Anderson touches a lot of thinker, journalist or politician to emphasize the role of connections among individuals and its consequences. Fernando Tarrida, Georges Clemenceau, Louise Michel, Ramon Betances, Emile Zola, Michelle Angiolillo and Suehiro Tettyo are some of the names that are mentioned while highlighting presence of knowledge transition globally.

Conclusion

“Under Three Flags” can be seen as a research book about the independence history of 19th century Philippines or as a book of anarchism and its brief history in the aspect of Filipinos. These are not wrong assumptions but they are lacking in depth. Anderson gives readers a more than just the history of Philippines and their national heroes. Reading about the the national Filipino hero, Jose Rizal, is very exciting but it is not exciting because of the number of days he stayed in prison or his escape from one city to another. It is exciting because the writer shows the readers that Jose Rizal would not be “Jose Rizal” unless he lived in the challenging atmosphere of Europe in the right time and unless he met with right persons that made him think and write about the anti-colonial, anti-imperialist and nationalistic thoughts.

It is the power of intercontinental links between individuals of journalists, activists, thinkers, leaders etc. With the help of developing technologies of transportation and communication, many thinkers of that time experienced the early globalization of the world with the purpose of independence and anti-colonialism. In my opinion, the mentioned world of multiple and overlapping events and transitions creates a complex philosophy that makes it difficult for the reader to categorize the figures as a nationalist or a anarchist or a anti-colonist. What is important in this book is the impressing linkages and coincidences between thinkers from different parts of the world that help revolutionary movements come to life.

Bibliography

Anderson, Benedict. Under Three Flags: Anarchism and the Anti-Colonial Imagination. 2005. Pasig City: Anvil, 2006.

HAND-MADE SUPERIORITY

2010

“Bismillahirrahmanirrahim (Beginning with the name of God)”. That, starting the essay with calling the name of God, may sound a bit unusual for those who expect a more or less academic paper. But in my humble opinion, it will most probably attract attention while criticizing New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman and his essay named “One Country, Two Worlds”. Friedman, as a very good writer in the meaning of drawing readers’ attention with a smooth and remarkable bunch of words, is likely to be mistaken to state his arguments on globalization by using a politically incorrect and practically unacceptable language and perspective in the mentioned article. In this paper, I will discuss how he is incorrect in his perceptions that he oversimplified and generalized Egyptian people and their traditions while making a comparison of them with Western traditions and as a result forming an imaginary Western superiority.

He starts the column with two images that grabbed his attention during his visit in Egypt. One is “the cell-phone symphony” as he calls, which happens in a train riding from Cairo to Alexandria. He underlines his discomfort with ringing phones and people talking with them. For me it is a bit ridiculous as cell-phones may be ringing publicly in every country and Europe as well and additionally people carry cell-phones in order to use them outside of their home. I seriously think that this perception is a way of lowering Egyptian and so-called Eastern portrait. Then he sees some Egyptian villagers from the train using old-style tools to work on their fields and makes a comparison between this and the technological cell-phone symphony. The fact is that it is probably more practical and cheaper to use tools that are not machinery in a small field. But he is most likely in a self-deception that every moment he experiences in this “Eastern” country seems annoying to him and they are like opportunities for him to create an inferior picture while comparing them with globalized and technological Western culture.

Second one is his encountering with the elevator operator, who is also described by him as a peasant earning money in a state building, and his praying before pushing the elevator button. He creates a link between Islamist practices and daily life traditions of one region and as a result he draws a conclusion that it is a dichotomy where technology and inferiority come together to form a “One Country, Two Worlds”. He creates a vision that dichotomy happens only in Eastern countries not in Western ones and only inferior people use a language of religion or God. On the contrary, people say “God bless you” to each other when they sneeze in both Christian and Islamist traditions. Besides it is written “In God we trust” in the American dollar and many state buildings in which there should be no linkage of God as those are irrelevant, the state institutions and the belief systems.

From those examples he comes to the point that globalization is a need for Eastern people but it is a difficult project to make real as, in his perception, Eastern people are communal and on the other hand globalization needs an individualistic sphere. He blames Islamist traditions and Eastern practices while explaining his argument that it is difficult for people who live in “two worlds”. In reality what he is doing is making a picture of inferior East and superior West by using an oversimplifying and generalizing language. In his opinion, although it is not very easy to adopt, he sees Eastern people’s emancipation with implementing globalization and its principles which are concepts of Western traditions. That is clearly a way of creating the thought of “superior West” by using religion, traditions and practices.

In conclusion, what he fundamentally lacks is his objectivity and his emotional arguments while creating a link between globalization, religion and culture and to leave rest of the possible variables aside. What he accomplishes with this essay is not only an inferior portrait of Eastern culture in the eyes of readers, but more than that, a superior Western culture which rhetorically has a ego to be fulfilled repeatedly.

MORE THAN A BORDER

2009

When people discuss the immigration problem, they generally approach the argument in their own aspects and own benefits. I understand that, as a part of human manner, mankind tries to protect his own goods and benefits and unintentionally disregard other features of the issue that are relevant to others. Although this behavior may be accepted in minor issues, when it comes to more serious problems that effect not one individual but many others, there appears a need to think the issue from several aspects and come up with different solutions. In this paper, I will discuss the illegal immigration problem between the U.S. and Mexico while taking into account the relevant parties and recommend possible solutions for the topic with the help of Evren Çelik’s article named “Globalization and Mexico” and the movie named “Fast Food Nation” directed by Richard Linklater.

United States and Mexico are sharing a 2000 miles international border that is very frequently crossed by many Mexicans every year. There are approximately 10 million Mexicans living and working in the United States today (Çelik, p. 218). The question is, why do these people leave their homeland and choose to be illegal immigrants in another country? The money is the first answer here but aren’t there any other causes? To answer these questions, first there should be mentioned about two popular topics, capitalism and globalization, which brought many new production understandings to the world. In a simple manner, capitalism needs cheap labor for mass production and globalization helps it in some way. In brief, globalization facilitates not only integration of cultures and economies but also some kind of integration among people.

When we look at our Mexican immigrants’ case, it can be seen that capitalism and globalization didn’t work for the benefit of Mexico very well. The unequal distribution of wealth and lack of education -which are probably the results of the ongoing disorder and trouble in the country as consequences of military ruling and severe controversies between left and right ruling parties until 1990s- made Mexican people consider immigration as a natural process. Education is not the primary objective for many young Mexicans as they mostly see their future in immigrating to the U.S. They will be working in bad conditions in U.S. but how can they be accused since they will be earning much more than they earn in homeland? In “Fast Food Nation” there is this conversation between the character played by Bruce Willis and the fast food company manager: “He gets a job working for U.M.P. making $10 an hour. That's more money in one day than he makes back home in a whole month” he talks about the illegal workers. “Nobody is making these people come up here. Right? Nobody's telling them to come and work for U.M.P.”

On the other hand, American patriots are unhappy with this illegal immigration of foreigners. The cheap labor force of Mexicans and other foreigners made American people unemployed somehow. They see this as a disturbing competition since most of the immigrations are illegal and work for very low wages compared to Americans. But not all Americans are unhappy with this process. In contrast to American nationalists, many American factory owners and employers -particularly in agricultural, construction and meatpacking sectors- are reluctant to dismiss this cheap and mobile source of Mexican labor force (Çelik, p.218). Not only American business owners but also the Mexican state is quite happy with the current process as many Mexican immigrants send their earnings back to their families in homeland and this means the entrance of foreign exchange to Mexico. So the irregularity of immigration is swept under the rug for the benefit of both parties. To sum up, it is a discomfort for Americans as they see immigrants as “the others” and these immigrants work in very bad conditions for low wages and still keep migrating to U.S.

In this section, I will come up with possible short term and long term plans which will ensure a reduction in the number of Mexican immigrants in U.S. First of all, it should be understood that immigration is not a minor problem and cannot be solved in short term. There should be combination of short term plans and long term investments. One of the long term solutions -which can probably be thought of easily- is the potential U.S. investments in Mexico which are administrated by Mexicans but financed by Americans for some time. Those immigrating Mexicans, who are looking for a better future, should be convinced that their home country also have similar opportunities. The thing is there should be established a sense of belonging to their homeland. This can only be possible if there is order and progress in the country. Order is very much linked with the progress vice versa and these two factors can be achieved with strong education system. Many Mexicans see themselves as leaving the country one day and see less reason to invest in education. If they are assured that education is the way for richness and a better life, there would be less immigrant attempts. Who would leave a country that has order and progress and be a foreigner in another country?

In short term thinking, one can ask that how the number of immigrants can be decreased? An international border of 2000 miles cannot be controlled precisely. How about building a long wall in the border line that is preventing people pass the other side? No, that would be repulsive and provocative for both sides. Solutions should be deterrent but not insulting. As mentioned above, many U.S. employers are actors in illegal immigration. First they should be persuaded not to have those illegal workers but also some arrangements should be made that they will not be suffering economically. One possible solution is this: Factory owners, who register their foreign workers in the emigration offices, should be rewarded financially and be honored in public to be examples for other employers. There will be a sudden reduction in number of foreign workers but financially they will be supported and sooner or later they will find new labor either American or foreigner. My second suggestion is assuring immigrant workers to pay migration taxes. As the factory owners will be registering their immigrant workers, every foreign worker will be seen in the records and so avoiding these migration taxes will be tricky. These two possible short term moves may sound like a discrimination to get rid of immigrants but Mexico will be needing its manpower in its country for the progress after above-mentioned long-term investments. Besides registered workers will be having insurances which they did not have before.

In brief, to solve this illegal immigration problem, not only short term adjustments and long term investments but also time and patience are needed. All the relevant parties –illegal immigrants, American business owners, American workers and the two mentioned states- can benefit eventually if they follow and stick to the short and long term plans I have mentioned above. However, there is a big paradox that sounds quite discouraging. It is sure that U.S. needs cheap labor power in order to maintain the strength of its economy. But at the same time there is no room for illegal immigrants since culturally there is a discomfort in the society. So if they invest in Mexico, Mexico will improve economically and stand more on its own legs. Progress in Mexican economy will mean a decrease in U.S. export economy in the long run which also means that there will be no cheap labor from then on. Absence of cheap labor and an economically strong and independent neighbor are the least two things U.S. government will be looking for. To sum up, can we say that U.S. governments and relevant sectors are more likely to deal with people not the system since improving or converting the system is more difficult than aligning people?