First, I would like to warmly applaud Mr. Hamilton-Patterson for his fine research. I read the book and have several points to hightlight. The evolution of U.S. and the Philippines was the end result of our neocolonial and geopolitical interests in the Philippines, mainly severing our own interests; Ferdinand Marcos, for a long time until his death, made others, including himself, believe he was this "hero," when in fact "fabricated his war hero-story"; the tremendous influences we have carved into the Filipinos raising questions of what is Filipino Filipino and what is a Filipino with a desire to be more American than Filipino. Is this a rejection of self for the other?

I have visited the Philippines at least six times in my life. I have seen, witnessed, and can testify to the unequal society which is very poor, very impoverish, very disillusional. Marcos did not only control and exploit the Philippines but he did so with the Filipinos approval, consciously or subconsciously. Mr. Patterson discusses at lenghth Marcos and does discuss the Philippines, especially for someone with at least twenty years of experience with the Filipino culture.
It is virtually hard, if not outright impossible to not think in terms of Marcos and expoitation, Marcos and martial law, Marcos and his fabricated war hero lie, Marcos and all the money. Yes, I firmly believe he did a lot of injustice to the Philippines. But the Filipinos did not opppose, protest, or attempt to stop Marcos until the twenty one year hour. Therefore, a pressing question is why did Filipinos wait, wait, and wait so patiently? Because they believed in him just as many still believe in him posthumously

.
I agree with Mr. Patterson ending piece. Marcos did not do this alone. Yes, his wife was involved; yes, his crony circle of elite friends were involved; yes, our tax dollars were involved in this; and yes, the people remained sedated with television hoopla, the electronic drug, and all the show biz illusions of what is reality or what they socially constructed to be their reality.
Yes, I have compassion for the Philippines. For the people who want to raise their human dignity. And there are many, I am sure, who believe in self respect and honor. But there is a growing "Americanistas," who refuse to revist history, politics, colonialism theory, and how much this has impacted and perhaps hindered their own personal and country's development.
The Philippines is a country were the rate of poverty is rampant. It is also the place that people are still dreaming "America," instead of the Philippines. How can they develop their own ideas and their country? This is a puzzling question.

Most of all, the people have had to succumb to not only Marcoses, Aquinos, and others, like Joseph Estrada who continue to ride the backs of the poor. When will enough be enough?
For any country to develop it must grow in ideas. In the Philippines many ideas are borrowed from America. America no longer has a major interest in the Philippines, at least not for now. What will keep the ship afloat?

Wonderful authorship, I suppose thats because he's British and therefore a reliable third party with unbiased insight. It never occured to me that my father was born on the right side of the Agno. I always wondered how he got a sinecure in the armed forces, which he was very well found on. Some of the Hamilton-Paterson's conclusions are quite emasculating to many Filipinos especialy to elites, which is nonetheless true as I can tell and am Filipino living in the West. He is very astute in coining crony monopolism instead of crony capitalism. The part about economics are the parts that draw me to the book as it is my avocation. Just by reading that chapter just smacks you of market failure. And this book is recomended also to people who has some erudition in economics and want to learn some developmental economics pertaining to the Philippines.

I was born in the Philippines one year after Marcos took office and lived under his Presidency through my teenage years. As a student of history, I've gone through several of the books which have been published on Marcos and this book is by far the best of the lot. Mr. Hamilton-Paterson clearly shows an understanding of the Filipino psyche in a way that could only have been gained from years of living with the people.

Okay, since the end of the Cold War nobody's terribly interesting in reading accounts of America cozing up to reprehensible slimeball dictators like Ferdinand Marcos anymore, right? Too bad, since Raymond Bonner's account of American involvement in the Phillippines is one of the best examples of the genre. Bonner follows Uncle Sam's footprints on the archipelago from the granting of independence after World War II until the inglorious fall of Ferdinand and his revolting wife Imelda. Bonner raises the legitimate question as to if such support was necessary for American security. Such questions may be moot now, but they still make for fascinating reading.

This volume is thorough, starting with Ferdinand Marcos's"history"--one of dubious quality to say the least. Inshort, while his father and probably he were collaborators with theJapanese during WWII, Marcos bought some medals and manufactured hisstatus as a war hero who helped save the Philippines from the ruthlessJapanese. Oh, and then there's the murder of one of his father'sopponents, of which Marcos was convicted and later talked himselfout. It was an apt introduction to one of the most consummate liars inhuman history.

Then there's Imelda, worth a volume or twoherself. (More later.)

The reader will recall that Jimmy Carter putthe "human rights" crusade on the map during hisadministration. But when it came to the Philippines, that crusade wastabled. Bonner covers that while Pat Derrian did her best to force theMarcos regime to capitulate, Holbrooke, her superior in the StateDept., would permit no such thing. It seems that Marcos was tooconvenient to the U.S. what with the enormous military bases in thePhilippines, Clark (Air Force) and Subik Bay (Navy). And Bonner goesone step further than many a critic of that era: He challenges theassumption that those bases were necessary, i.e., served any viablemilitary purpose. But they continued, despite all the righteousCarter rhetoric--as did the Marcos regime.

Regan didn't evendecorate himself with things as trite as "human rights"rhetoric. Imelda had flirted with him back in the late 60s while shewas building a cultural center light years beyond the reach of 90percent of Filipinos, so she and Ferdinand were home free. Then therewas Jeane Kirkpatrick and her "Our enemies are totalitariandictators, not [merely] authoritarian dictators like ourfriends." And while the Reaganites whined about the evils ofcommunism, Marcos was busy nationalizing everything in the country,such as Philippine Airlines once they'd submitted a bill for Imelda'sromps all over the globe.

And that lead to the witty portions ofthe book that kept one smiling despite the seriousness of the subjectmatter. The jester was, of course, Imelda. A couple of examples thatcome to mind are a one-day shopping spree in New York in which humbleImelda spent $2,181,000 on jewelry and furniture, and the Marcos 25thwedding anniversary in which Imelda stood humbly at the altar wearinga meek veil and carrying a rosary all the beads of which werediamonds. This while three out of five Filipino children werestarving.

And Reagan stuck with Marcos until after the Marinehelicopter carried him from his palace.

Bonner concludes that ourforeign policy toward Marcos was myopic. When Marcos declared martiallaw in '72, the communist party and the New People Army (NPA)in thePhilippines were small time, about as proportionally significant asthey are in most countries. But the repression, the elections thatwere transparent jokes, the murdered opposition leaders--especiallyNinoy Aquino whose widow eventually succeeded Marcos--the conspicuousconsumption, the "crony capitalism" from which Marcos'sbuddies made billions, much of it off the U.S. taxpayer, and theU.S. failure to even confront let alone condemn it, fueled thoseorganizations until they became a potential threat that they'd neverbeen had there been even a semblance of reform taking place.

I planto encourage the publisher to reprint this volume. It's a fineguidebook for where U.S. policy goes compared to where the rhetoricleads us; and it's a guide to the depth, or lack thereof, of ourdedication to "human rights." All present and futurediplomats need to read this.

Only when we abide by history coveredin this book can we transcent the hypocrisy for which the U.S. hasbecome infamous in the Philippines and elsewhere.

I almost would say that this book is as much about the Philippines as it is about the fun loving dictators the Marcos's. The book covers about 50 years and covers more then just the rise to power of these two, but also detail in what was happening in the country as a whole. I came away thinking the book could have been called the Marcos Crime Family, I guess if you are in power for so long it is easy to keep slipping more and more down that path. I was also interested in how much the USA was involved in keeping them in power, sure it probably seemed like the best thing to do, but the country suffered under his uninspired rule for so long how many years will it take for them to get up to the level of many of the other countries in Asia?

You can tell that the author is an investigative journalist because of the straightforward, detailed account he gives. This book comes at you almost like the author had an ax to grind. I would have liked a bit more on the end - what happened after they left? Overall the book was enjoyable and worth the effort.

This book manages to shed a light on the Marcos Dynasty & what they have done to the Phillippines. Whilst some incidents seemed to be far-fetched, for those who have lived in Asia for a long time, the incidents seem to make sense afterall. Connections & corruptions come hand-in-hand. The book also dented the shiny armour of USA of their involvement in local politics. The book is incomplete on its own. Rather, if we read all the book offerings by Sterling Seagrave such as the Yamato Dynasty, Soong Dynasty, & Marcos Dynasty, we would get a better picture. I suppose the author is running short of space. otherwise, I wouldn't mind knowing the aftermath of the Marcos Dynasty after they have shifted to the States & also the former wife that Ferdinand has left behind. Otherwise, this book is a very good effort, indeed.

Excellent! This is a must read for Filipinos! I know it because I am a Filipino!

Despite the hateful reputation the Marcoses received from some vindictive people and the successful campaign thrown against them, Beth Day Romulo wrote a very objective stand about the Marcoses. Because of Day's professional background as a journalist, her diary of the Philippine palace and the family who occupied it provided a small opening of truth to the readers of her book and the Marcoses themselves. At least, there is a semblance of sanity and truth for the Ferdinand and Imelda. Some authorities in the Philippines may have revised the history book to fit their own agendas, but "Inside the Palace" will provide you with the most accurate and objective details regarding the Marcoses.