Response to “Born in the Shadow of Bases.” Global Borderlands: Fantasy, Violence, and Empire in Subic Bay, Philippines. (Reyes, 2019).

In Victoria Reyes’ “Born in the Shadow of Bases,” she tackles the complexities of the plight of Filipino Amerasians across the intersections of familial relations, morality, race, nationality and citizenship. She ties these topics into post-colonial legacies of U.S. imperialism, the role of place, and imaginaries of  belonging (or a lack thereof) by Amerasian children. She argues that in this global borderland of Subic Bay, in the “shadow of bases,” citizenship, rights, and responsibilities are not as simple as blood relations, familial ties, nor contracts, they are highly contingent which give rise to questions of who is responsible to provide adequate support to Amerasians in the Philippines (123). She approaches these topics with narratives of Filipino Amerasian children with various family structures and situations, varied experiences of Black and white Amerasians and the intersectionality of Amerasian girls and young women. Black Amerasians faced racism, anti-Blackness, and colorism in their communities leading children to feelings of worthlessness, loneliness, and that they are bad people due to their heritage, which was expressed from a Black Amerasian child, Bill (108). She also addresses the sexualization of Amerasian women which ties into the stigma and perceptions that the mother of Amerasian children were sex workers. Thus, Amerasian children are seen as illegitimate and cannot receive U.S. citizenship along with benefits even if the American servicemen claimed children to be his own due to the United States choosing to exclude Filipino Amerasians from receiving support from the United States. This claim is also contingent upon showing physical proof (ie a signed birth certificate) that the father has claimed the child. Philippine courts also made it difficult for Amerasian children to be provided support from their fathers and the fathers to be held accountable with paternal responsibility.

While Reyes makes a compelling argument across a breadth of issues, I think providing some history of the stigmatization of Amerasian mothers would have been critical to include for more contextualization. This would address another legacy of military history, a dark and horrifying one, but one that must be addressed of Filipino comfort women during World War II in conjunction with the sexualization and fetishization of Asian women. I think this would provide more context in terms of gendered dynamics between the relations of Filipino women and military servicemen.

Overall, Reyes makes a comprehensive argument in this piece as she navigated her way through the stories of the plight of Amerasian children and their families, criticizing the ways the U.S. government refuse to take responsibility and care for them while also showing the complexities of the Amerasian identity and murky laws, policies, and judicial rulings that complicate any claim to citizenship, rights, and benefits and thus belonging of Filipino Amerasians.

Quotes:

• “What these stories show is how familial intimacy is ruled through multiple and competing laws and understandings around morality and imagnaries of belonging that regulate the relationships that are created in and move beyond Subic Bay as a global borderland.” (108)

• “The U.S. recognizes only the rights of children who were born in the direct, not indirect, countries that saw the horrors of war firsthand.” (112)

• “Yet this mythic American dream and image of the United States as the land of milk and honey and a meritocracy, where one only has to work hard to succeed, does not reflect reality.” (120)

• “But citizenship is not only a legal status. It is accompanied by imaginaries of who belongs where and why.” (225)

Questions:

• On page 112, Reyes states, “The U.S. recognizes only the rights of children who were born in the direct, not indirect, countries that saw the horrors of war firsthand,” referring to the exclusion of Amerasian children in the Philippines, Japan, and Taiwan from receiving any aid from the U.S. government. Are there underlying reasons that the U.S. government felt they could specifically exclude Amerasians from these countries and not take responsibility? 

• How does intersectionality play a role in the shaping of the experiences of Amerasians and their imaginaries of belonging?