What Are The Similarities Between The Gilded Age And The Philippines

It is often said that history repeats itself. Whether this is true or not is a subject for a doctoral dissertation, but it can be shown that there are many similarities between the original Gilded Age and the recent past. The Gilded Age, which was the time from the end of the Civil War to the end of the 19th century, was a remarkable time of unprecedented economic growth and industrialization, coupled with numerous social problems. The façade of economic prosperity covering the corrupt, unequal society underneath led to that period being termed the “Gilded Age”, referring to a thin layer of gold gilt covering a cheaper material. This pattern of economic upheaval coupled with social ills and new political debates is also present in recent history,

starting from the 1980s and lasting through the present day.
One of the most important conflicts of the Gilded Age was the Philippine-American War. After ostensibly being “liberated” from Spanish rule by American forces, the Filipinos sought complete independence. However, this conflicted with an American desire for empire that sought to exert control over the Philippines in order to “civilize” it. In brutal fighting, Filipino rebels fought against numerically and technologically superior American forces. In America, the war was cast as a struggle to bring democracy and “Anglo-Saxon liberty” to the islands. In truth, the American military was suppressing a movement for freedom and independence. The convictions for freedom on both sides sparked a bitter, racist, and barbaric conflict that included horrific torture that shocked the American public. Letters from American soldiers sent to fight in the Philippines reveal a pattern of confusion as to their motivations for fighting and the reasoning behind the war. The soldiers express feelings that they are violating their own principles and morals, and do not understand what they are supposed to be accomplishing. As Sgt. Arthur H. Vickers of the 1st Nebraska Regiment wrote, “I would like some one to tell me what we are fighting for.” Other letters describe the merciless slaughter of innocents, including women and children, and looting at the hands of the American soldiers. The Philippine-American War was an asymmetric conflict, with overwhelming American power on one side, and comparatively impotent Filipino troops on the other. It would presage future American conflicts.
After the September 11th terrorist attacks, the US invaded Afghanistan, ostensibly to eliminate the Al-Qaeda presence in the country and to dismantle the Taliban government that supported them. Shortly afterwards, the US also invaded Iraq. The invasions were clearly cast as an operation to bring freedom to the peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq, and to eliminate terrorists in those countries. However, the actual motivations behind the war were not so clear-cut. As chronicled in the documentary Why We Fight, there were actually imperialistic motivations to invade Iraq in particular dating back to the early 1990s. This was broadly similar to the imperialistic ambitions that led to US involvement in the Philippines.
There are many parallels that can be drawn between the War on Terror and the Philippine-American War.

As in the Philippines, insurgents who perceived the invasion as threatening their own independence and freedom began to fight back against American forces. At the same time, American unfamiliarity with the countries and their people, as in the Philippines over a century before, led to racism, torture, and the death of innocent civilians. As shown in Why We Fight, two of the airmen sent to bomb Iraq in the opening stages of the US invasion expressed not knowing or understanding why they were attacking Iraq. This account mirrors the same ethical dilemmas that plagued soldiers sent to fight in the Philippines. As with the Philippine-American War, the War on Terror (in particular the fighting against insurgents) was an example of asymmetric conflict, where numerically and technologically superior American forces fought back against insurgents who had home field advantage. Both conflicts became wars of attrition, where both sides attempted to wear the other side down by reducing their numbers and material support. In any case, both the Philippine-American War and the War on Terror were brutal conflicts borne out of imperialistic ambition, and which bred resentment of America amongst the peoples the Americans were supposedly

liberating.
The parallels between the Gilded Age and the current period of history do not merely extend to military affairs, however. Domestic affairs are also strikingly similar. In the Gilded Age, rapid economic growth caused by industrialization gave way to economic crises that shook the country. A similar economic predicament has occurred in the present time. The technology revolution has caused massive economic growth as computerization has taken over many industries. This revolution brought economic prosperity in the late 1980s through the early 2000s. However, this time of prosperity ended abruptly with the Great Recession, which reversed economic growth and has caused millions of household to tighten their belts.
Labor issues, present during the Gilded Age, are also beginning to resurface in current affairs. The 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist Fire killed 143 garment workers because company policies that sought to prevent theft dictated locking the factory doors, which trapped the garment workers. This and other harsh working conditions sparked a movement for labor reform. Unionization took off during this period. Compare that to today, where unionization and working conditions are once again in the news. The deindustrialization of the US economy has led to the rise of the service economy, and has caused the unionization of many service professions, such as janitors and retail workers.
Political issues were perhaps the hallmark of the Gilded Age. Disillusionment with governmental corruption and new, unresolved problems created by industrialization spurred new political movements that aimed to reform and reshape American society. The most noteworthy of these was the Progressive movement, and its representative Progressive Party. The movement and party was populist in nature, pulling from broadly popular issues to produce a political platform in 1912. The platform, called A Contract With the People, which called for comprehensive “industrial justice” legislation, including prohibition of child labor, strong safety requirements, the enforcement of eight-hour workdays, and encouraging the creation of unions. It also called for political reform, including limitations to political campaign contributions and otherwise cleaning up, as it were, perceived corruption in the government.
Almost a century later, in 1994, the American public also found itself exasperated with the government and the economy.

Republicans, recalling the Progressive Party, issued their own Contract with America, which, in a similarly populist manner to the Progressive Party’s Contract, promised to resolve many popular political sticking points of the time. These included increasing the majority required to increase tax rates, auditing Congress for “waste, fraud or abuse”, and to generally rebuild trust in the government. The political debates during the time of both the Progressive Party in 1912 and in 1994 with the Republican Party were quite contentious and vitriolic, as the new realities of life after the economic revolutions of both times caused strong opinions on what to do

next.
Economic inequality was also a major issue in the Gilded Age, as it is today. During the Gilded Age, wealth was perceived to be concentrating to the top, enhancing the so-called “robber barons” who led large, monopolistic corporations and trusts.