 I'm going to talk today about the creation of Igorot identity by Episcopalian missionaries. Of course, I don't mean the creation of an identity that Igorots necessarily embrace themselves, but how they were represented by missionaries to an American, mostly American, but also a European audience, especially here in the UK, as far as the European audience went. While 90% of the inhabitants of the Philippines converted to Catholicism during the nearly 400 years of Spanish rule, the geographically secluded Igorots of the Cordillera continued to practice an animistic form of indigenous religion. Today, some Igorots still adhere to these religious traditions. Many others are members of the Episcopal Church in the Philippines. The conversion of Igorots to Episcopalianism can be traced to the period of American imperialism in the Philippines. Some of the first people of European descent to interact with the Igorots were missionaries from the Episcopal Church. Bishop Charles Brent, seen here, as the first Episcopal bishop to the Philippine Islands, quickly became a prominent figure throughout Europe and in the United States. Through their many books, speeches, and especially through the spirit of missions, the official periodical of the missions of the Episcopal Church, Brent and those missionaries under his direction used texts, images, and illusions to introduce the previously isolated Igorots to the West. This paper discusses these efforts at representing the Igorots. In order to gain support for proselytization, the Episcopalian missionaries crafted an image of the Igorots as morally pure, but also ignorant and without a strong work ethic, like Adam and Eve before the fall. It is argued herein that Brent and his missionaries constructed this Igorot identity and sold it to potential benefactors. This paper will explore this constructed identity, it will also be argued herein that Brent effectively wielded this representation, befriending and seeking funding from many prominent Americans. I don't have that in my paper, but also not just prominent Americans, but also prominent Englishmen. He was very good friends with the Archbishop of Canterbury, whom he sought funding from as well, as well as his congregation here in the U.K. When the U.S., or as far as Americans, JP Morgan, William Howard Taft, several prominent Americans were people he looked to for funding as well. When the U.S. arrived in the Philippines, the new colony's population included about 6 million Roman Catholics, as well as about 300,000 Muslims and 200,000 animists. So about 91% were Roman Catholics, something like that. American missionaries desired to justify an American and a missionary presence in the Philippines, but how could missionaries rationalized an imperialist viewpoint in the Philippines if it was already filled with Christians? In other words, how could they justify proselytization if most of the country was already Christian? Most missionaries acknowledged the presence of Roman Catholics, but used anti-Catholic and racial arguments to justify the necessity of converting them to Protestantism. While recognizing the existence of a non-Christian minority, most missionaries dismissed them as unworthy of attention, probably not only because of a sense of racial superiority, but also because they focused on this minority would not have adequately supported their reason for being in the islands. Most Protestant missionaries worked solely among Roman Catholics. They studied groups like the Igrots, but they concluded that it was not worth their time to do much work among them. Brent and his Episcopalians were, for the most part, the exception to this rule. Brent chose not to preach to any Roman Catholics and instead to focus his work on the Igrots. Upon being called to the Philippines in late 1901, Brent immediately began a fundraising campaign. He started with Episcopalian or Episcopal bishops, hoping they would contribute and also get word out to their congregation. In Brent's estimation, the funding he was getting from the church would not nearly cover the cost of the ambitious project he had in mind. The fundraising did not end with the bishops. By the time of his consecration to the Bishopric of the Philippines on December 19, 1901, Brent had organized, quote, a group of men of national repute to create a leaflet and to start a fundraising effort for the mission. Included among these men were such notable as financiers JP Morgan, William H. Crocker, as well as US Senator Marcus A. Hannah, and a number of well-known industrialists and philanthropists. Then attempted also to recruit William Howard Taft, with whom he became good friends, and Senator Henry Cabot Lodge. The leaflet asked for all those who were interested in, quote, the spiritual development of the inhabitants of the islands, for whose welfare we are responsible to contribute such a sum as will establish a church worthy of American Christianity. Brent continued to fundraise, traveling the country until he left for the Philippines with the Taft Party on May 17, 1902, spending time in Washington, among other places, and rubbing shoulders with senators, Supreme Court justices, and even President and Mrs. Theodore Roosevelt, who invited him to the White House, all the while asking all of these people for support for his mission, of course. This effort to involve not only his whole church, but the entire country and his work was something that Brent continued throughout his time in the Philippines. He became a master philanthropist. He decided that being a good Christian American involved fulfilling both a Christian and an American responsibility to the Filipinos. Brent took his message to a variety of affluent Americans, both individual and philanthropic groups. His greatest tool in this endeavor was his representation of the Igrot. If he sold the correct image of the Igrots to Americans, particularly to Episcopalians and Anglicans in the US and the UK, he had great opportunities for funding, especially since the Episcopal Church was generally the chosen denomination of the wealthy in the United States at the time. In his many published works, copies of which he always made sure were sent to important and wealthy sort of affluent individuals, presidents, high clergy, that sort of thing. In letters, in speeches, and most notably in the periodical of the Episcopal Church, the spirit of missions, Brent introduced the Igrot to a large Western and Christian audience. The Igrots of Bentok, Sagada, and Baguio all included in the historical mountain province, which I think I have here. Sorry about this map, it's you know, whatever, but most of the purple there you see is the historic mountain province much bigger than the mountain province of today. This is where Brent was operating, but especially in Bentok, Sagada, Baguio, those areas, those were the first Filipinos to receive the administrations of Brent and his missionaries. And also that was where the high steward of conversion was accomplished, especially in Sagada, which eventually saw several substations in surrounding villages. To understand Brent's creation of an Igrot identity is important to briefly discuss the way in which the Igrots were described by the rest of the missionary groups in the Philippines. Protestant missionaries commonly compared the non-Christian Filipinos to Native Americans. Missionaries often included such contrast in missionary tracks aimed at Americans, and this was how they described Filipinos to their audiences back home, people who knew of Native Americans but had never seen a Filipino up to this point. So before Brent arrived in the Philippines and crafted his own interpretation of the Igrots, other Christian missionaries, including Methodists, Baptists, Seventh-day Adventists, among others, introduced Americans to Igrots. The opinions of Methodist missionaries, oh, yes it is. This is, oh, you're good. Thank you. Excuse me, the opinion of Methodist missionaries can be taken as representative. Methodist Bishop Frank W. Warren compared the Igrots to, quote, quadrupeds, while another Methodist who served in the Philippines, Homer C. Stuntz, described Igrots as, quote, stolid, filthy, industrious savages. The Igrots guarded compliments only in reference to their physique and their industriousness. While missionaries considered them a bev de negrito, they were considered inferior to just about every other ethnic group in the islands. This mimicked the opinion of the American people at large and that of the US government as evidenced by the 1903 census, where Christian Filipinos were described as, quote, civilized tribes, while the non-Christians, such as the Igrots, were described as, quote, wild tribes. And you can see that here's a page from the actual census that illustrates that comparison. While other missionaries in the Philippines had little to say about the Igrots and mostly dismissed them as low and being unworthy of missionary attention, Bishop Brent saw them a chance to fund his mission and to convert actual non-Christians. It's important that he was an ecumenist, so he didn't want to convert any Christians to another form of Christianity. He wanted to convert non-Christians to Christianity. He crafted an identity for Igrots that made them a prime opportunity for Christian responsibility and charity. In an argument unique to Brent, and this is sort of his main argument and the main way in which he framed what an Igrot was to his audience, Brent suggested that American civilization brought with it certain vices and introduced them into the Philippines. While Catholic Filipinos had Christianity to guard against these vices, such as gambling, visiting prostitutes, drinking, idleness, non-Christians had no protection from these things. In making this argument, Brent demonstrated his own utility and that of his benefactors or potential benefactors. They could help protect non-Christians from the vices being introduced to their society by American imperialism. This was a very attractive argument as the turn of the century saw increasing urbanization and industrialization in the United States and led many Christian Americans to rail against these forces as dangerous to Piedi. To answer these forces was, excuse me, the answer to these forces was strict adherence to the commandments and the avoidance of evil. As it was the United States, according to Brent's argument, bringing this evil to the Igrots in the form of civilization, they had a responsibility to also bring the antidote. Brent essentially ascribed to his own notion of the white man's burden to borrow Kipling's infamous phrase. Arguing that now the United States had taken the Philippines, Americans had a responsibility to the Filipinos. Brent's interpretation might be called the Christian man's burden. The most unique aspects of Brent's message, which he and missionaries under him put into print numerous times in the 16 plus years he spent in the Philippines between 1901 and 1918, he cogently and succinctly described in an address to the 28th annual Lake Mohawk conference in 1910. This was a yearly gathering of a group of wealthy philanthropists who called themselves the friends of the Indian and other dependent peoples, and who looked for opportunities to help Native Americans and, in this case, Filipinos. In a speech in front of them entitled, Progress and Problems in the Philippines, Brent crafted an image of the Igrot and disseminated it to those who had power, influence, and means to aid him. He said, quote, he, the Igrot, or non-Christian Filipino, is not endowed with great powers of resistance, either physically or morally. The result is that the bad concomitance of Western civilization are a constant menace to him. If we, with our higher degree of vitality and the vigorous moral training of centuries, stand so badly the pressure of that refined materialism, which is the bane of modern civilization, we must not be surprised if the Filipinos are injured by it. Brent construed himself, his mission, and those who might contribute to it with time or means as saviors from the evils of civilization. Among American Christians who saw moral failings in their culture and in their time, this argument had great potential. Brent could exploit American worries over the increasing immorality and materiality of American culture, as well as feelings of Christian responsibility and Anglo-American racism. Brent further suggested in his speech that Christianity was, quote, the one means by which the oriental can be made strong enough to meet the menace of civilization, even in a third-rate way. This unique argument implied that it was the advent of American civilization that caused the Igrot to need Christianity. Brent stated this outright, saying, quote, heathen cults may be good enough for him, the Filipino, as long as he lives in isolation. But the moment the floodgates of civilization are opened and he is caught in a swirl, the one conserving force of civilization, Christianity, must be given him, or he will perish and involve others in his ruin. In this way, Brent introduced the Igrot to the United States and Europe. He crafted an image of an uncivilized individual who had sufficient religion for his needs until he was struck by the vice's concomitant to civilization, at which point only one religion could save him, Christianity. And I want to highlight how important that is if you really, this is a, none of them remember the clergy, this is a bishop, the bishop over the entire Philippine Islands, a very prestigious position, a very high-up position in his own church, and he's saying, generally speaking, were it not for the Americans coming to the Philippines, these people would not need Christianity. So it's a pretty remarkable thing, especially in his time to be saying. But it also crafts an image of himself as sort of white savior and being able to come there and help, if that makes sense. Brent's interactions with Igrots, he often published his adventure stories, a popular format at the time. His creation of an Igrot identity began with the description of the country and a bird of the Igrot and the adventure it was arriving at his dwelling. Brent described his journey from Manila to the mountain province, taking a train, riding over 100 miles on horseback, and then walking the rest of the way through dense mountainous forests. In a 1903 edition of the Spirit Admissions, after his first interactions with Igrots, Brent described them to his readers as being, quote, naked, tattooed, long-haired barbarians, and described their religion thusly, quote, it partakes perhaps of ancestor worship, but they have a definite belief in a supreme being whom they worship in their own way. Barbarians are not, Brent assured his audience that the Igrots were, quote, a fine, good-natured people. In fact, Brent was so impressed with the Igrots, seeing them as the epitome of the noble savage, that he often compared them favorably with the Christian Filipinos of the lowlands. In his first annual report, Brent implied that the Igrots were the equal or superior of their Christian neighbors, saying, quote, the tribes of the Highlands are numerous, domestic, industrious, and naturally religious. They're primitive people of considerable promise, the superiors of their lowland neighbors in physique and energy, and seemingly their peers in intelligence. Describing the scene in the village to his American audience, Brent observed that there were naked children everywhere, and that most of the adults, quote, carry their spears and axes, and have tattoo marks on their faces, arms, and breasts. An odd little cap is perched on the back of their heads. This is used as a receptacle for tobacco, as when, excuse me, when their long hair is not gathered up into it. Brent accompanied such depictions, and I think I have, so this is a page from the spirit of missions, close to where he made a similar sort of description, and then he has a picture of a bontok igorot. And usually pictures such as this, which sort of aided him in the character that he wanted to present, he accompanied such depictions with a quest for aid, usually one that included a sense of urgency, which added to this overall argument. As an example of one, we have plans for educational and medical work, as well as for bringing them to a knowledge of our savior and theirs, which I trust the generosity of the church at home will enable us to carry out successfully. If we can get well established at an early date, we shall be able to guard their interests, and notice that guard their interests, and protect them from injustice when the evil concomitants of civilization assail them, as is bound to be the case upon the opening up of their beautiful mountain country. So not only are our vices of civilization coming, but they're coming quick. We need the money now, sort of thing. What made the bishop decide that he could, with quote, the generosity of the church at home, save the, or excuse me, what made the bishop decide that he could save the Igrots from vice? What made them different from other Filipinos? In his estimation, it was their isolation. Brent crafted an idinic vision of Adam and Eve like Igrots, untouched by the evils of modernity and living in the innocence of nature. Riding to another bishop, a friend, Brent argued that quote, there is a rich harvest for Christ to be reaped here, no modern influences have touched these people. I saw more virtue in them than I did vice. The bishop suggested that the virtuous nature of the Igrots was connected with their lack of modern influences, which seemed to be the root of vice in the corrupt of civilization as far as he was concerned. Brent often wrote in this manner to friends with deep pockets and even to those without much money, as long as they were consistently contributing something to his cause. There was an urgency to his pleas that quote, now is our opportunity. The vices of civilization have not yet come here and we have practically 200,000 people to minister to. In the spirit of missions, Brent noted that the interior of Northern Luzon had barely been touched by Roman Catholicism. And he argued that quote, if we were striving for prominence as a church or some political foothold, we would turn our eyes toward the coast. But I believe that the function of our church in these islands is to search out and find God's most needy children. Adding to this image of the Igrots as needy children, Brent often shared stories of poor medical care in the region, including an anecdote, and this was one of his favorites that he shared many times. When Igrot with a broken leg was consigned to death, I guess he came upon Igrot with a broken leg and supposedly according to his recollection, the Igrots friends and family and everyone else because he was bleeding and he had the broken leg, assumed that there was no hope. This image was also furthered by tales of supposed Igrot laziness. Since Igrots could not often be convinced to work for any more compensation than they needed to provide for themselves the necessities of life. So this is Brent seeing sort of cultural difference and interpreting it as laziness. Brent used such depictions to argue for funding for medical, educational and industrial support. In this way, Brent painted an image of the Igrot as noble, innocent and in need of the gospel and Christian charity to save him from temporal and spiritual destruction. In this representation, the good Christian American had the opportunity to play the role of white savior. He could take up his cross as Christ had by helping an innocent in need. Adding to this image was the popular perception at the time that it was the responsibility of white men to help raise up other races. This could easily be correlated with the message of religious responsibility that Brent was pushing. Brent left his mission in 1918, dedicated to this same depiction of the Igrots, one that continued to be highlighted as a result of his laity. In an article published again in The Spirit of Missions in 1918, Brent painted the picture of the Igrots he had in so many other places stating, quote, it might be, I think it probably so, that pagan superstitions are measurably adequate for the religious needs of tribes who are wholly excluded for outside contacts. It is due to God's ordering and not man's that such peoples are in the main of what they are and where they are. Their twilight beliefs are God's witness to himself and by their loyalty to the knowledge they possess, they must be judged. The moment a secluded people are introduced to the big world of men, it becomes the responsibility of the Christian church to furnish them with the best it has in its gift. The American nation was responsible for dragging the Igrot into the marketplace of the world. The American church, I argued, ipso facto, became responsible for giving them the equipment of manhood and womanhood. To me, the existence of such a people in my jurisdiction was a call to their evangelization. While Brent was definitely creating a character of the Igrot that would resonate with his audience and which successfully gained him funding, he did truly believe in the value of his mission. As an ecumenist, he believed he could aid the Catholic church by converting those they had not reached. He even wrote to Episcopal leadership in 1914 to say that, because he always assumed that he would die in the course of his mission because he was a little bit older when he left and he was not used to the conditions in the Philippines, especially where Igrots were at in sort of rougher terrain. And so he assumed he would be there till his death, though he wasn't. And so he would always write into church leadership and say, upon my death, if you're not going to continue to only preach to non-Christians, I think the mission should be shut down. I don't wanna spread our work to Catholics because the Catholic church can handle the Catholics. Not only that, but it was quite defensive of Igrot practices at times. He encouraged the creation of a native church. He was defensive of Igrot marriage practices, even when they didn't sort of went in harmony with marriage practices that he was used to. He pushed efforts in translation. He trained native clergy. He openly, excuse me, he openly accepted and welcomed a level of religious syncretism and a malleable Christianity that he assumed would be the result of the Igrot's transition from animism to Episcopalianism. This reminds me from the talk we heard the other day, there was the mention that some of these practices are still practiced today. And a lot of that I think is the legacy of Brent and the Igrots that he interacted with at the time, sort of this negotiation where he defended some of their native practices to the church back home and said, you know, there are only certain things, certain ways in which they need to conform to the version of Christianity that we have to give them and other things, other practices, rituals that they have, as long as they're not violating the sacraments, the most important things, then it's okay for them to keep those. So that's that. Interesting talk, thank you. I of course know the Episcopal Church to the Sagata Lens, which is Father Stanton and Dr. William Henry Stanton. Yes. And after that, I think that I understand as an anthropologist how you begin to take on the worldview of the people you research. But the Igrots, of course, were never isolated. If you read William Henry Stanton, the quintessential like, but you started off your talk saying these people were, they're very virtue of isolation. You really need to make reference to the extent to which it was actually resistance and that Igrots interacted with the Spanish through the whole period. Oh, of course. And stuff like that. The other one is that again, well, maybe it's just the way you've, I heard you frame the paper with. So, you know, this isn't, is that of course the Catholic Church was already there and in Bontock and up into Kalinga. And so to say that Catholicism was only in the South, there were in fact major Catholic missions. Dr. Jules Durrat, the anthropologist, comes from one of those that CC, I'm not good with CCM. Yes, yes. And I'm presenting Brent's sort of, this is how he saw things. Yes. And though the Catholic Church was there, the extent to which they'd been there was different. As you say, there was resistance to them and because of that, they weren't there to the extent they'd been other places. Yeah, but Sister Basel, for example, was there right from, she died in her late 80s and she was collecting artifacts and the museum in Bontock is based on her artifacts and she was there 10 years before the Episcopal Church showed up. So it was a well-established mission and throughout the whole area. But I take your point, I think especially the Catholic Churches thrive because of its syncretism. But I have discovered in living with the girls is that they tend to convert you rather than you tend to convert them. You know, I'm a favorite dog eating, pig butchering. And I'm an eye city girl. So the first time I went to a sacrifice I was definitely traumatized. Right, no. So I was just saying, I think that it's an excellent talk but I might, when you frame it, from my perspective, it would be better if you set up saying this is, this is what was the reality and this is how it was. Oh yes, no. And I take your point, I think in varying places, that's true in varying places, it's more true that what he thought was isolation really was isolation. So that varies village to village as many things do in the Philippines. Well, but the isolation was never real. These people were running tobacco during the Tobacco Mon Monopoly. They were buying gold and taking it down to the coast. They were trading with the Chinese and they spent, they were never isolated. Well, right. And that's what makes a big point of them. The discovery of Negroes. Right. On the Brazilian paper parchment. Yeah, right, I read Scott. Broad generalization. Absolutely. The entire population was not isolated. Oh no. They were extroverted communities. Yeah, and they were trading communities of wealth objects or Chinese trade jars from the 10th century. They were involved with the coast. They were trading in cotton for their weaving. Right, and he generally means isolated in terms of the relationship not with other Filipinos but with the Spanish. Yeah. But fair. Because they were... Negroes are quintessential smugglers, right? When there was gold with some monopoly, they ran gold, when tobacco was a monopoly, they sold tobacco. These days things have changed, but nothing's changed. Okay. I just wanted to respond because I'm not an academic so they all know a lot of stuff. I just did research because I wrote a fiction book. And one of the things that really puzzled me about the whole story, the narrative of the Negroes is how they were managed to resist the Spanish for hundreds of years. And then the Americans come along and within a matter of years, suddenly they were all really great friends. And your talk was really enlightening in that sense because it was that kind of acceptance and what Brent, although there were a lot of racist elements to it. Of course. But the fact that he accepted their practices and allowed them to domesticate the religion that he was importing is very interesting. I think that probably contributes to this whole positive experience of the Negroes vis-a-vis the American. Yes, well, and there's something to that as well because the American imperialism was very much different from Spanish imperialism as well in that the Spanish were much more concerned in a religious sense and much less concerned in a structural sense and in a political and economic sense whereas the Americans were a lot more hands-on. And there was much more of an emphasis on education and on medical work and on those sorts of things. And Brent wanted his missions very much to aid those things because they were happening throughout the rest of the islands under sort of government leadership, under American government leadership. But in the mountain province, I think 21 of the first 66 schools that were there by about 1918 that had been set up, 21 of those were private, so many of those Brents and then a few others from some other denominations. So there was just, there were a lot more hands-on than Spanish in general. That was sort of the policy and that's why. I guess would be, I think it's some of the materiality of behind this because you have this American colonialism setting itself up in roots and roots, you know, social roots and physical roots and Lynn is talking about the road network. Also sites where you can form relationships and negotiate. And I think you've got a Catholic religious hierarchy, but by the time when the Igros come into in-depth contact with it, they can see it's already structured so it's full of Tagalos and then they have an opening where they can get ahead. So when you negotiate with a new one, you're gonna get farther. I think you've also got something where you look at material conditions because the class backgrounds and training that these people had and the time in their life when they have landed in the Philippines has a great deal to do with their actual physical material encounters with the countryside. So, you know, they're being born on a litter and carried around by people. The way the Spanish moved across the landscape was actually quite different from some of the ex-plains working-class American very good colonial officials who came over and they went, ah, 30 miles across country, right, here we go. They were rough in it. Well, they were used to that kind of terrain. And even now, I mean, my experience was, oh yeah, the roads in Sagrada is closed. And there's been some landslides. You can go three days, maybe. And then a year or two later, they're like, ah, the road's out, but you can go today. You'll be going over a slide at KM 63 with the vegetable barriers. There is a certain level. That was Brent's experience too back then, so it's kind of interesting, yeah? Oh, no, it's everybody's experience. But if you can draw out some of that, what they're saying, what his interpretation is, is based on this whole set of social norms around physical capability and class that is locking him in place in a way that it doesn't apply to other people. Because what's far, I mean, you can run from Sagrada to bomb talk in, what, 45 minutes? Yeah. And believe it or not, you can do that as a foot race, still, and there are people who can do it. Thank you, I appreciate it. And as I say, I think that might be it, yeah? Thank you. Thank you.