The Moro Observer

Media Bias against Ron Paul

2012-01-20T04:41:00.000-08:00

Watched the SC GOP debate. John King was quite subtle in not giving Ron Paul equal time. When he does not ask Paul first (so he won't be able to rebut the others), he leaves him for last. But, instead of letting him answer the same question, he asks him a new question to begin another round of debate. But the audience apparently caught on. On the question of Right to Life, where King instead of asking Paul, was about to start another topic, the audience shouted Paul! Paul! Shame on King! Shame on CNN!

Two weeks ago, when covering Ron Paul's campaign after the New Hampshire primary, Dana Bash said to husband and CNN colleague John King. “I’m sure you talk to Republicans who are worried as well, just like I am, that Ron Paul will continue on long into the spring and summer."

In a statement, CNN said: “The notion that Dana is anything but objective is preposterous. Dana’s report should be fully reviewed in the context in which she meant it—to reference John’s sources and her sources, not her own opinion. “

Obviously, CNN does not know what OBJECTIVE means. It was very clear to all and sundry that Bash said, “as I am”. She told the world that she was worried that “Ron Paul will continue on long into the spring and summer." Where is the objectivity in that? And it was very much her own opinion.

Really, I have never seen such Media Bias against any candidate! Too bad I'm not teaching Journalism or Media Studies anymore. The GOP campaign is a great eye-opener for students.

It’s a pity that Filipino professors could not care less about the US elections. So Journalism or Media Studies students are missing the historic opportunity to observe in “real-time” Media Bias in action and thus confirm Media Studies theories.

CONSTRUCTING A NEW NARRATIVE FOR A VIABLE NATIONS-STATE

2011-10-03T21:20:00.000-07:00

CONSTRUCTING A NEW NARRATIVE

FOR A VIABLE NATIONS-STATE

Datu Jamal Ashley Abbas

The Mindanao problem is ultimately a POWER problem – the power of one group over another. It is a problem of colonization. The fact that there was a law called the Legislative Act 4197 or Quirino-Recto Colonization of Mindanao Act, which was enacted on 12 February 1935 is very telling. The Commonwealth considered the Act as a lasting solution to Mindanao colony. The law enabled a massive exodus of settlers from Luzon and Visayas to Mindanao, with complete government support.

Partly in response to the Act, on 18 March 1935, 120 Maranao datus signed a manifesto, known as the Dansalan Declaration, and submitted it to the US President. The datus opposed the annexation of Mindanao to Luzon and Visayas.

A year and a half later, Commonwealth President Quezon signed into law Commonwealth Act 141 which classified all Moro lands as PUBLIC LANDS, thus making all the Moros squatters in their own homeland.

Today, the social reality constructed by the Filipino leaders since the Commonwealth, supported by the vast resources of the government, has now been fairly entrenched such that the word Colonization or Occupation of Mindanao seems out of place.

The Philippine narrative that is the bedrock of the imagined Philippine nation goes something like this:

The Philippines is one country and until recently, the only Christian nation in Asia. It has minorities, who are also citizens of this nation-state. The citizens are called Filipinos. They belong to one race, one culture, one psychology, one destiny, one history. Those who do not think they should be a part of this nation-state have no choice because there is only one country, the Philippines. The fundamental law of the land is its Constitution.

The media constantly reinforces this narrative. In “Under the Crescent Moon: Rebellion in Mindanao"(Q.C.:2000), top journalists Vitug and Gloria says: “Mindanao was part of the Philippines ever since the Spanish colonizers came and created boundaries in what were formerly trading networks”

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

History is “the act of selecting, analyzing and writing about the past. It is something that is done, that is constructed.” (Davidson and Lytle 1982)

The grand historical narrative is this:

The Archipelago is nothing but a bunch of barangays ruled by datus. “Mother Spain” came to the Philippines and gave the natives Christianity and civilization – education, language, the arts, architecture and even cuisine.
For 350 years, the Spanish nurtured the people and protected them from the murderous raids of the Moros – the pirates

THE TERM FILIPINO

Throughout the Spanish rule in the Philippines, the term Filipino was reserved for pureblood Spaniards, differentiated only as peninsulares (those born in the Spanish Peninsula) and insulares (those born in the Islands). The Christianized natives were never called Filipinos. They were referred to as indios or naturales. Even the mestizos (half-breeds) were not called Filipinos.

In the latter part of the 19^th century, Governor-General Clavecilla ordered all indios (except Manila’s local nobility, i.e., descendants of Rajah Suleiman and Lakandula) to adopt Spanish names in pain of punishment if they refused to do so. Thus, present-day Filipinos bear Spanish names. Having a Spanish name does not make one a Spaniard.

When the Aguinaldo government appropriated the term Filipino for the indios, the identification with the Spanish masters became complete. In one semantic stroke, the history of the Philippines became the history of the indios (the present-day Christian Filipinos) and not of the Spaniards (the original Filipinos).

This is a grave malady. By appropriating the name Filipino, the present-day Filipinos think that the Filipinos referred to in history indicate them and not the Spaniards. This makes them identify with the Spanish, forgetting that under Spain, their forefathers were virtual slaves – mandated to do forced labor and were considered eternal minors.

Leon Ma. Guerrero, one of the elites who constructed the “imaginary nation” called Filipino nation, had a hard time translating Rizal’s novel, Noli Me Tangere. In the novel, Rizal used the word Filipino to mean Spaniards in the Philippines which was incomprehensible to most readers in the 1950s who were brought up to believe that the term Filipino meant them, i.e. Christianized natives. Benedict Anderson (1994) wrote :

“…young Filipinos would at once see, in any straight translation from the Spanish, that they do not exist within the novel’s pages. Filipinas, of course appear, but they are exactly what today’s Filipinas are not: ‘pure-blood’ Spanish Creoles.”

Guerrero, in his attempt to fit the Noli into the elites’ “nation-state project”, effectively revised history. The Filipinos in Guerrero’s translation considered both Spain and Philippines as homes, worshiped European-looking deities, spoke foreign languages, alluded to Greco-Roman classical mythology and fell in love with Caucasian ladies. References to colonial abuse were rendered bland and ineffective. And since the modern-day Filipinos believe that they (or their forefathers) were the ones referred to in the book, it is but natural for them to imbibe the thoughts and beliefs of the Noli’s characters. In effect, Guerrero re-wrote the Noli. Jose Rizal must have turned in his grave when the translation was published and made required reading for Filipino students.

And so the confusion of the modern-day Filipinos’ identity continues. The historical narrative continues as such:

In 1896, Bonifacio and the Katipunan revolted against the Spanish. In 1898, with the assistance of Commodore Dewey, Aguinaldo defeated the Spaniards and proclaimed Independence. Soon after, the Philippine-American War erupted and by 1902, it was officially over. Philippines became an American territory.

New Filipino leaders – Quezon, Osmena, Roxas, etc. – emerged. America bestowed democracy to the Philippines. America pacified Mindanao. Quezon et al worked for Independence. America declared a Commonwealth and gave Filipinos self-government. World War II came and Filipinos fought side by side with Americans against Japanese. After WWII, America granted Philippine Independence. And the Philippines is now a democratic republican nation with a homogeneous people and culture, thanks to Mother America

In short, the Moros and Christian Filipinos were colonized by the Spaniards and Americans and they share the same colonial history. The only difference is that the Moros were mostly bandits and so had to be punished (Spanish “punitive expeditions”) every so often, as the grand narrative goes.

And since Philippine history books recounting events from 1521- 1886 were about the Spaniards in the Philippines including Philippine literature like Noli Me Tangere, the Filipinos identify with the Spaniards.

The Christianized Filipinos' (or Indios') historical experience with the Moros was fret with horrors. Caught between the Moros and the Spaniards, the Indios suffered terribly from both parties. Forced to side with the Spaniards, they bore the brunt of Moro retaliatory raids in their communities. And to ensure their cooperation against the Moros, the Spaniards demonized the Moros in their literature, church sermons and stage plays like the moro-moro where the Muslim is always the villain.

When America gave Moroland to the Filipinos in 1946, the Indios (now called Filipinos) found themselves, at least theoretically, masters of the Islands. The Colonization of Mindanao was pursued vigorously with slogans like "Mindanao, Land of Promise" to entice the Indios to settle in Mindanao. Finally, the Indios became colonizers.

Filipino leaders promoted the slogan, "Go South, Young Man!" imitating the slogan "Go West, Young Man" which the Americans used to promote the colonization of the Western United States which belonged to the American Indians. And to make the analogy even stonger, the Indios referred to the Moros as Tribes just like the Navajo or the Iroquois.

In constructing the “Filipino nation”, the Grand Narrative of the Christian Filipinos and the government is embodied in the “One-Nation Theory.”

One-Nation One-History Syndrome

The Sultanates of Sulu and Maguindanao were established ca. 1400’s. According to “official” Philippine history, the Philippines (Luzon, Visayas, Palawan and Mindanao) was discovered by Fernando Magallanes in 1521. However, historical accounts say that Mindanao and Palawan were already known to the rest of the world way before that time.

If one were to visit the Malacañang Museum, a guide would point out a 16th century map that he/she would describe as the oldest map that shows the Philippines. A closer look at it would reveal that the map indicates only Mindanao and Palawan. Luzon and Visayas were not yet “discovered”.

The official historical view claims that 350 years of Spanish rule in the Philippines included Moroland. Spanish attacks against the Moros were called “punitive expeditions against rebellions.” Moro victories over the Spanish were denied or ignored. Moro raids on the Christian natives were called pirate attacks.

This is what can be called “the one-nation one-history syndrome”. This syndrome propagates the myth that the present-day Philippines has always been one nation sharing one history. It is alleged that the only difference between the Moros and the Christianized natives (indios) was that the Moros continually resisted while the indios resisted only intermittently (Dagohoy Rebellion, Diego Silang rebellion, etc.)

There is a preponderance of evidence against this myth. While the Indios were under Spanish colonial rule, the Moro sultanates thrived. The Moros were considered sovereigns by European powers, including Spain, as proven by treaties between them. Even the US signed the Bates Treaty with Sulu thus proving that the Treaty of Paris was not sufficient or even valid in the case of Sulu. Primary sources abound in the archives not only in Manila but also in Madrid, London, and Amsterdam.

BANGSA MORO (Moro Nation)

In the late 1960s, the Moro Young Turks led by Abbas, Jr., Misuari et al, supported by their elders proposed another narrative: the Bangsa Moro nation as distinct from the Filipino nation.

This Bangsa Moro nation concept is steeped in history, with the Moros unconquered by colonizers and as great defenders of Islam.

Graeme Turner (1993) says that “implicit in every culture is a ‘theory of reality’ which motivates its ordering of that reality into good and bad, right and wrong, them and us, and so on.”(p.133) The belief system produced by this ‘theory of reality’ is called ideology.

Ideology and history are both social constructs. Turner says, “Ideology works to obscure the process of history so that it appears natural, a process we cannot control and which it seems churlish to question.” (Turner, Graeme (1993) Film as Social Practice London: Routledge)

A nation’s collective memory is complex and in continuous flux. “It is basically made up of stories: the myriad stories which people tell each other; and, more significantly, the mass mediated narratives of a nation's 'official' history, told in books and other cultural artifacts like television and feature films.” (Ituralde 1995)

TWO SOCIAL CONSTRUCTS / NARRATIVES

In the Mindanao Conflict – two constructs are fighting – the “Filipino nation” construct as created by successive Philippine governments and the Bangsa Moro construct exemplified by the MNLF and MILF.

On the one hand, there is the “one-nation narrative” that asserts the indivisibility of the “Filipino nation”, proud of its Christian religion and Western heritage and identifies with the Spaniards of historical texts. This group believes in “democracy” defined as rule of the majority.

On the other hand is the Bangsa Moro narrative that gives prime importance to the Islamic religion and Moros’ historical fight against Westerners. Believers in this narrative hope to get back their former territory and freedom.

With two diverging social constructs, it would be very difficult to find a middle ground. A million dialogues will not accomplish anything if the premises of both groups are clearly divergent.

With number and over-all resources on its side, the Christian Filipino would not easily give in to any demands of the other party. The logical thing to do would be to convince the other party of the soundness of the “one-nation” principle and debunk the Bangsa Moro or Moro nation theory by emphasizing on the divisions of the Moro nation.

Appdurai (1996) says: “Through ‘print capitalism’ (Benedict Anderson 1991) and ‘electronic capitalism’ such as films and TV (Warner 1992, Lee 1993), citizens imagine themselves to belong to a national society. The modern nation-state in this view grows less out of natural facts – such as language, blood, soil and race – and more out of a quintessential cultural product, a product of the collective imagination.” With all resources at its command, the government can simply reinvigorate its construction of the reality of “One Filipino nation”.

The dominant group will insure that the received reality prevents an examination of the non-viability of present situation (one-nation principle).

The Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) between the Government of the Philippines (GPH) and the MILF was junked and the latest MILF-GPH talks were stalled because the dominant group refuses to consider that the status quo is not viable. In the Filipino grand narrative, there is only One Constitution for ALL citizens just as there is one “national language, one national anthem, one national dress, etc.” There is only one government, one security force, etc.

While the “Filipino nation” has been continually constructed since the Commonwealth, the “Moro Nation” concept came up only in the late 1960s. And because of lack of mass media and other resources, such concept has not yet taken root as much as the Filipino nation.

Also, for centuries, the Moro groups have been keenly aware of their own history individually – Sultanates of Sulu, Maguindanao and Buayan and the Pat a Pangampong ko Ranao. These were virtual nation-states and acted independently of fellow Moro states.Thus, many Moros are still not comfortable with the notion of one Moro nation.

REMEDY:

Both sides must examine their theories, assumptions, axioms, etc

History is a construct. History is used as the “memory” of another socially and culturally constructed concept, the nation. But what is constructed can be re-constructed. For the Filipino nation to find its Identity and be at peace with the Moros, it is high time that it’s “memory” be re-investigated. Philippine history does not need re-construction. It merely needs re-discovery.

Using new approaches like microhistory, forgetting the grand narratives and keeping an open mind, Moros and Indios might find that they have many commonalities and that in many ways, they do have a shared history and be better off with a shared future, where power is equitably distributed and shared.

We don’t have to belong to One Nation. But we can belong to One State. There can be MANY NATIONS in ONE STATE. There can be many nations in a Bangsa Moro (Moro Nation) and many more in the Filipino nation just as there are many nations in a British or German nation and much more in a European Nation.

The dissolution of the USSR, Yugoslavia and other nation-states born after WWII as well as the many problems experienced by many other nation-states like Thailand, Myanmar, Iraq, Philippines, the Middle Eastern countries, etc. means that the “nation-state” project of the Western world has failed. A new system may be the way of the future: nations-state like the European Union - many nations in one state.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE YOUNG MOROS / INDIOS:

- Study history – Moro, Filipino, Islamic, World history

- Practice critical thinking – do not believe books or teachers unless their arguments are backed by proofs – documents and logic.

- Look for points of convergence, commonalities

- Disseminate what you have learned or concluded through whatever media – the internet (blogs, websites, social media network), printed materials like magazines, papers, journals, TV, radio, speaking engagements, etc.

- Look for alternatives to the grand narratives and help create a new one that would embrace all.

The Bangsa Moro Problem through Krippendorf’s emancipatory theory

2011-08-30T22:54:00.000-07:00

March 2002

by ©Datu Jamal Ashley Yahya Abbas

In 1989, Klaus Krippendorf wrote his The Power Of Communication And The Communication Of Power: Toward An Ethical Theory Of Communication. In this theory, he proposes, “to examine a pathology of communication of which the social use of the notion of power is an illustrative example. He discusses ethical issues of communication practices which would lead to an outline of the elements of an emancipatory communication theory.

Krippendorf defines Ethics as any system of thought and action that a] prevents social pathologies from arising, b] helps to overcome social pathologies that may have arisen elsewhere and c] does not constitute a pathology by itself.

Note that the definition is a] negative and not normative and self-referenced; i.e., an ethic be ethical by its own criteria.

Krippendorf defines PATHOLOGY as a deviation from something collectively desirable. Pathology becomes social when others are seen as co-determinants of the entrapment. A social pathology becomes one of communication when it is constituted in language, in the interactive use of discourse.

Is the Moro Problem a communication pathology? Let us analyze it through Krippendorf’s conditions for a TRAP:

1.CLOSED SYSTEM of reality constructions…

The prevailing ideas in the Philippines, as perpetuated by Mass Media and all State apparatuses, are:

The Philippines is one country, the only Christian nation in Asia. It has minorities, who are also citizens of this nation-state. The citizens are called Filipinos. They belong to one race, one culture, one psychology, one destiny one history. Those who do not think they should be a part of this nation-state have no choice because there is only one country, the Philippines.

The Moros are impoverished because they are mostly illiterate, uneducated, “uncivilized”. They are mostly terrorists and bandits. Their leaders enriched themselves at the expense of the ordinary Moros.

Mindanao, the “Land of Promise”, needs Christian Filipino industriousness and general know-how to bring out its full potential.

2. The closed system is, or at least some of its constituents are demonstrably non-viable, incorrect, invalid, untenable, the source of stress and pain, etc.

Without doubt, the Bangsa Moro people are marginalized, impoverished. Their provinces are the least developed and the poorest in terms of revenues, per capita income, literacy rate, etc. In the early 1970’s, they waged a war that resulted in at least 50,000 deaths, millions of casualties, 500,000 refugees in Sabah, and at its height, cost the Marcos government 1 million dollars a day.

While the Tripoli Agreement in 1976 reduced the fighting, the state of rebellion continued to exist. Today, the Philippine government even called on the American Armed Forces to help defeat some of these Moros. Premise No. 2 is therefore demonstrably valid.

3. Certain of its constituents prevent examination of the system’s non-viability.

The Philippine government, while supporting the independence of East Timor, a nation that cannot even show an independent history as the Bangsa Moro, declares that the sovereignty of the Philippine nation-state and its Constitution, which has been changed several times, remains supreme. The Filipino majority would not allow the “desecration” of the “Filipino nation”.

According to Krippendorf, political alienation, racial prejudice, powerlessness and all kinds of addictions are social pathologies according to the three requirements.

Let us examine the Problem through Krippendorf’s other criteria:

POSITION

INSIDER POSITION:

“Mindanao was part of the Philippines ever since the Spanish colonizers came and created boundaries in what were formerly trading networks”

--Vitug and Gloria “Under the Crescent Moon: Rebellion in Mindanao" (Q.C.:2000, 327 pp.)

The above statement correctly summarizes the official position of the government and practically all Christian Filipinos.

OUTSIDER OPINION: (cultural and historical “outsiders”)

“If (territorial) claims were based on raiding villages, then the Maguindanaons (the Sultanate of Maguindanao) had much more territory to claim than the Spaniards. The Muslims have the Spanish settlements burning and blazing every year and take some 500 captives per raid, while the Spaniards got only one Maguindanao(n) last year."

--Simon Cos, Dutch Governor of Moluccas May 16, 1658

"Her Majesty's government has never regarded the Sultan of Sulu as a pirate; they never admitted the claim of Spain to sovereignty over the archipelago; and in the interests of British trade, they never have been disposed to regard with favor any extension of Spanish authority or influence in the Sulu waters..."

-- the British Earl of Denby's instruction to Consul Palgrave on Aug. 25, 1877

"From this time...these Moros have not ceased to infest our colonies. Innumerable are the Indios they have captured, the ranches they have destroyed and the vessels they have taken. It seems as if God has preserved them for vengeance on the Spanish that they have not been able to subject them in 200 years in spite of the expeditions sent against them, the armaments spent every year to pursue them. In a very little while, we conquered the islands of the Philippines, but the little islands of Sulu, parts of Mindanao and other islands nearby, we have not been able to subjugate to this very day."

– Spanish Captain-General Marquma to the King of Spain in the late 18th century

“The close of the unsuccessful Spanish conquest of Moroland marked the beginning of the end of one of the most remarkable resistance in the annals of military history. The Moslems has staged a bitter and uninterrupted warfare against the might of Spain for a period of 377 years. It is doubtful if this record has been equaled in the whole bloody history of military aggression. The Dons, accustomed to the easy conquests of Peru and Mexico, met their match and more in the jungles of Mindanao.”

– Vic Hurley, “Swish of the Kris: The Story of the Moros”

Muslims are geographically concentrated in the south of the country, and are distinguished from Christian Filipinos not only by their profession of Islam but also by their evasion of 300 years of Spanish colonial domination.”

-- THOMAS M. MCKENNA Associate Professor of Anthropology, Department of

Anthropology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, USA. March 17, 1999

And of course, the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) recognizes the Bangsa Moro Cause and has given the MNLF observer status.

Clearly, there is quite a divergence of opinion from the outside (non-Filipinos throughout history) and inside (present-day Filipino dominant opinion.)

OPPRESSION

Oppression is usually an explanation of someone’s disablement or burden in terms of political rule (traditionally), of social class (since Marx) and recently, of ethnicity, gender and age.

Oppressed people acknowledge their pain and misery but they deny themselves the ability to change. They blame others, technology, political structures or unethical values. In other words, scapegoating.

Many Moros believe the propaganda that they are themselves to blame, esp. their leaders.

THE COMMUNICATION AND METAPHOR OF POWER

Krippendorf is one of the theorists who believe that the ordinary use of language can entrap people or even societies. He cites Stoltzenberg, who says:

Entrapment…consists, first, in being taken in a] by certain uses of language that have the appearance, but only that, of being meaningful; and] by certain modes of reasoning that have the appearance, but only that, of being self-evidently correct;….

Last week, when I questioned the validity of a “Filipino” psychology, the response of the Communication 240 class of the UP CMC Graduate School was almost unanimous. They all affirmed: “We are all Filipinos.” “We are in the same geographical area” “We have one psychology.” “Until the Moros become independent, we are all Filipinos”!

Even some Moros believe that they are Filipinos, sharing the same culture, psychology and even history as the Christian majority.

Yet when did the word “Filipino” belonged to the present-day Filipino? Before 1898, the term Filipino is reserved for the Spaniards in the Philippines, both peninsulares and insulares. The grandfathers and great-grandfathers of present-day Christian Filipinos were called Indios or Naturales.That was why Leon Ma. Guerrero, one of the elites who constructed the “imaginary nation” called Filipinos, had a hard time translating Rizal’s novel, Noli Me Tangere.

In the novel, the word Filipino as understood in the 1950s was not used. Benedict Anderson wrote:

“…young Filipinos would at once see, in any straight translation from the Spanish, that they do not exist within the novel’s pages. Filipinas, of course appear, but they are exactly what today’s Filipinas are not: ‘pure-blood’ Spanish Creoles.” (Pertierra and Ugarte 1994 p. 108)

- Two different histories. The Moro and Indio peoples have two very different histories.

-The Lease of Sabah to British East India Co. in 1878 is one proof that the Sultan of Sulu was not part of the Philippines under the Spanish.

-The Filipino Revolution of Bonifacio and Aguinaldo did NOT include the Moros. Aguinaldo sent letters urging the Moros to fight the Spanish. The Moro datus answered that they had been doing that all the time and now it was the time for the Indios to do the same.

-Bates Treaty proved that America did not consider Treaty of Paris sufficient to claim Mindanao and Sulu

-During the American Period, the word Filipino referred to Christian Filipinos.

-The Moro Province and later Department of non-Christian tribes were administered by the Americans separately.

-The Quezon-Osmena political fight for Philippine independence were opposed by the Moros

-1922 Wood-Forbes Commission concluded that the Moros, including “pagans and non-Christians” in Mindanao, did not want to be with the rest of the Philippines in case of independence from the US

- The Bacon Bill of 1926 (US Congress) demanded the separation of Mindanao and Sulu from the Philippines

- US Sec. of War Patrick Hurley’s visit to the Philippines in 1931 resulted in “a great quantity of petitions from Moros asking for American sovereignty in one form or another”

- Pres. Hoover vetoed the Philippine Independence Act of 1933 in response to Moro protests.

And now, Pres. GMA declared that “if you are not in favor of the presence of American forces to fight the ABU SAYYAF, THEN YOU ARE NOT A FILIPINO.” She added, “If you are not a Filipino, then who are you? A protector of TERRORISTS, a cohort of murderers, an Abu Sayyaf lover.”

In a non-Moro Filipino mind, what usually accompanies the word "terrorists"? Moros or Muslims. Abu Sayyaf is a Moro group. Semiotically, psychoanalytically, GMA was saying “If you are not a Filipino, then you are a Moro/Muslim lover.”

Metaphor, according to Krippendorf, is “a pattern, an explanatory structure, tied to a word or expression that is successful in a familiar domain of experiences and carried from there into another familiar domain whose experiences and actions it thereby organizes and coordinates in its own way.” Ex.:Pilipinas, ang Inang Bayan.

POWER OF COMMUNICATION AND LANGUAGE

Kurt Black (1989) states that language has two functions: transmission and influence. Hence, effective communication becomes the powerful communication of power.

After WWII, the leaders of the new nation-states like Egypt, India, Indonesia and the Philippines spent most of their rhetorical energies convincing their fellow citizens to give up their primordial loyalties – family, caste, religion, ethnic group, nation, history, etc. – in the interest of a new abstraction called the “nation-state”.

Suddenly, there is this abstraction called “India” (Nehru’s India was not like the “British” India or the Mughal India), Indonesia (Sukarno’s Indonesia vs. the Dutch East Indies), the Philippines (the Roxas’s Republic of the Philippines vs. the Philippine Commonwealth or the Spanish Filipinas or Aguinaldo’s Republica or the Katipunan’s Katagalugan)

It was only at this time that the Moros participated fully in the construction of a “Filipino nation.” – A new batch of leaders – educated by Americans and graduates of Manila universities – were part of the elites who constructed the notion that the Moros were Filipinos. Amilbangsa, Abbas, Sr., Domocao Alonto, Pendatun, and the Sinsuat brothers cemented the triumph of the Moro "Filipinistas" over the Moro "Americanistas”. In fact, Sen. Alonto filed a bill that prohibited the use of the word Moros and called for the use of term Muslim Filipinos instead. Sen. Pendatun was one of the primary sponsors of the creation of PMA (Phil. Military Academy). Abbas penned the judicial ruling that a Muslim Filipino who got married in civil rites lost his right to divorce and other marital practices under Moro customary law (most of them based on the Shar’iah).

In the early 60s, the Moros realized that they got a very small slice of the national pie. There were no Moros in the Cabinet except for Datu Duma Sinsuat, a classmate of Macapagal. There were no generals except for Pendatun who was a Reservist. There were no judges in the CFI and higher except for Abbas, who got his post as the quid pro quo for his campaign efforts for Magsaysay in the presidential elections.

By the late 60s/early 70s, the Moros realized that the Moro experiment with Filipino nationhood was a failure. Moro ‘Young Turks’ – Abbas, Jr., Misuari, Salamat, etc. – led the movement for “Moro nationalism” which produced the MNLF, MILF, BMLO, etc. and called themselves Moros. It must be noted though that their elders, who had also realized that the “Philippine nation-state” project was a failure, supported these young Turks.

Thus, it was only from 1946-1969 (the formation of MNLF and MIM), a period of 23 years did the Moros agree to be called “Filipinos”

Wilson and Dissanayake (p.3) says: “The nation-state, in effect, have been shaped into an ‘imagined community’ of coherent modern identity through warfare, religion, blood, patriotic symbology and language…”

“Modern nationalism involve communities of citizens in the territorially-defined nation-state, who share the collective experience, not of face –to – face contact or common subordination to a royal person, but of reading books, pamphlets, newspapers, maps and other modern texts together (Habermas 1989, Calhoun 1992). (Appadurai, p.159)

Philippine history books portray the Philippines as one nation, one people since the coming of Magellan.

Philippine history books glorify the event of Cebu’s Rajah Humabon’s and his wife’s conversion to Christianity. But they conveniently leave out what happened next. After Magellan’s death, Humabon invited the Spaniards to a feast and massacred all of them except one who was permitted to go back to his shipmates to ask for ransom.

Philippine history books chronicle only the activities of Spaniards up to ca.1896. It should be properly called not Filipino history but Spanish history in Las Filipinas (Philippine Islands) and the Spanish response to the various sporadic indio revolts as well as the Spanish-Moro wars. These same texts see Moro history as similar to indio revolts, albeit sustained and long-term.

The fact is that Moros and Indios never had any contact (except during wars where the Indios fought for the Filipinos (Spanish) during the Spanish era. The Moros and the Indios came together officially only during the Commonwealth era.

Appadurai (1996) goes on to say: “Through ‘print capitalism’ (Benedict Anderson 1991) and ‘electronic capitalism’ such as films and TV (Warner 1992, Lee 1993), citizens imagine themselves to belong to a national society. The modern nation-state in this view grows less out of natural facts – such as language, blood, soil and race – and more out of a quintessential cultural product, a product of the collective imagination.”

ENTRAPMENT OF POWER

According to this theory, indications for entrapment of power are:

1.Obviously true from within. Nearly every change can be explained as a consequence of where the power to cause it resides.

CHRISTIANS HAVE FULL CONTROL OF THE GOVERNMENT. MOROS ARE NOT PROPORTIONALLY REPRESENTED IN ALL ASPECTS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY –EXECUTIVE, JUDICIARY, LEGISLATIVE, PRIVATE SECTOR, BUSINESS, PRESS, ETC.

2.While convincing, it is also painful, debilitating and depressing to those who do not see themselves as having the power to control their lives.

THE MOROS ARE THE MOST IMPOVERISHED PEOPLE IN THE COUNTRY ACCDG TO OFFICIAL STATISTICS

To remedy the pathology requires one:

1. To create alternative constructions that are both incompatible with the dominant power notions and potentially viable.

IN THE CASE OF THE BANGSA MORO, IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRIPOLI AGREEMENT, A REAL AUTONOMOUS OR FEDERAL STATE OR EVEN INDEPENDENCE. ALLOW THE BANGSA MORO THEIR INHERENT RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION

2. To show that the received reality prevents an examination of its non-viability;

The Government, Media and the Christian majority refuse to recognize the Bangsa Moro’s right to self-determination while insisting on the sanctity of the Philippine constitution which insists on referenda, i.e., on the say-so of the Christian majority.

3. To show how language is implicated in this entrapment.

Example: The sacredness of the Philippine Constitution. The indivisibility of the Philippine Republic. The shared historical heritage of the Moros and Filipinos. “All are Filipinos.” One nation, One culture, One psychology

Power resides in social relationships. In society, it is not the power of the powerful that forces the powerless into compliance, but it is compliance that invites power to emerge. (The imbecility of men -- such as the corruption of Moro politicians-- invites the impudence of power.)

In 1946, because of WWII, the Moros were overtaken by events and woke up one day to find themselves “Filipinos”. Moro leaders underestimated the Filipinos. They thought that there would be equality in the new Republic. Some leaders also found it more convenient to ally themselves with the Indios.

Krippendorf reiterates that “Power does not reside in objective conditions outside social relationships but in the reality constructions invented, talked about, held on to and complied with those involved.”

Ultimately, the Moros hold the power to choose their destiny.

Reasons for Inability to recognize entrapments:

1. Belief in reality consisting of tangible objects that can be characterized as possessing or acquiring certain properties with time. Ex. Green parrots, red apples, powerful people, the powerless “masa”, the dominant elite, Muslim terrorists, Moro bandits.

2. Reliance on linear causal constructions of reality. This comes from the S-V-O sentence construction. A causes B but who caused B?

MOROS WERE PART OF THE PHILIPPINE REPUBLIC IN 1946 SO THEY STAY THAT WAY. Moros are uneducated and poor and cannot govern themselves. Moro provinces are poor because Moro leaders are corrupt. And so on and so forth.

3. Embedded in the causal construction are the abstract nature of power and the systematic confusion of explanatory constructs with experiences. Power turns out to be such a “powerful” notion because its abstract nature defies disconfirmation by observation. It is presupposed in the way experience is framed and accepted as such in discourse.

THE PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT IS POWERFUL BECAUSE IT IS BACKED BY THE US of A.

4. Concept of language as a system of representations or symbols according to which talk is always ABOUT something, about a world outside the speaker, as if language is not part of the world it describes.

WE ARE ALL FILIPINOS. MOROS ARE FILIPINOS. MUSLIM AND CHRISTIAN FILIPINOS HAVE BEEN TOGETHER SINCE MAGELLAN.(GOOD)

MOROS ARE VIOLENT. MOROS ARE ‘UNCIVILIZED’.

MOROS ARE UNEDUCATED, DUMB, TEMPERAMENTAL, TERRORISTS, BANDITS, AND HAVE MANY WIVES

In this theory, language is constitutive of reality. Words are deeds (Wittgenstein 1953). John Austin’s (1962) performatives are cases in point. Ex.: Priest says: “I pronounce thee Husband and Wife.” Therapeutic interventions, political agenda-setting, self-fulfilling prophesies, blaming someone a criminal before trial are examples of how assertion of something can make it real for those who use that language.

For a linguistic assertion to do something, someone must let it participate meaningfully within his or her reality construction wherein it preserves its coherence while intervening in or working itself through it.

In the Maranao language, the word Filipino DENOTES non-Muslim or Christian Filipinos. It has several negative CONNOTATIONS. A Maranao might describe himself as “Filipino” when speaking English or Tagalog to non-Moros, but he will NEVER use the word “Filipino” to describe himself when conversing in Maranao with fellow Maranaos.

This proves the importance of Krippendorf’s assertion that we must study LANGUAGING, the very process language is used by the speakers themselves. It is incongruous for a Maranao to talk of a “Filipino” psychology if he will not use the very word “Filipino” to describe himself in the vernacular to his fellow Maranaos.

Objective descriptions of social relationships in terms of power, from Marx to Foucault, only breeds power, empowers the powerful (by reifying the power they already possess) and continue to disable the powerless whoever they may be.

Krippendorf argues that “scholars of human communication have an ethical responsibility to develop reality constructions and support the emancipation from pathological reality constructions wherever they arise and whenever they can be recognized as such.”

According to Krippendorf, there are elements of an ethical theory of communication. Ethical theory must be general, but cannot be predictive for this would precipitate the very class distinction that denies its generality. Hence, an ethical theory must be applicable in principle, suggestive perhaps but demonstrably viable in discourse practice. It should evidence the human concern it espouses in its very proposition.

Seeing others in more or less painful pathological conditions, without apparent hope to escape from them, entails an ethical responsibility for communication.

Also, ethical discourse is emancipatory at its core. The film “Bagong Buwan”, for example, portrayed some of the woes of the Moros. But there is also the other side of the coin, the death and suffering of Christian Filipinos.

CONCLUSION

Krippendorf’s theory is not just hermeneutic or critical it is also ethical. He maintains that it is incumbent upon everyone to acknowledge a pathology and seek its cure. The Bangsa Moro situation in the country is a pathology and is in need of a cure. The cost in terms of dollars and lives it has already exacted is already considerable. The health of the country as a whole will never achieve its full potential if this pathology continues. The presence of the Abu Sayyaf Group and the US Armed Forces in Mindanao is symptomatic of the gravity of this pathology.

The country can pretend through languaging that the situation is “isolated” and easily solved. Marcos waged an all-out war against the Moros. Erap waged an all-out war against MILF. Erap proclaimed that the Abu Sayyaf had been wiped out. Now GMA called on the US military machine to “wipe out terrorism” in the Philippines.

The way of the gun has been tried many times over. Perhaps it is better to try an honest-to-goodness dialogue, with thorough analysis of the socio-cultural and historical situation and be prepared to accept the truth -- see the disease as it actually is, and implement the necessary cure, however painful.

Using Hermeneutic Principles to help solve the Bangsa Moro Problem - Part 2

2010-12-06T22:46:00.000-08:00

CONT...

Survey(s)

The Historical Conservation Society is an elite group of Filipinos and foreigners interested in Philippine history. They come from the same social stratum and generally have the same biases and prejudices. They form a close-knit interpretive community. Mr. Felix had absolutely no qualms about sharing his true feelings about the Moros and Islam.

But in the society at large, most people do not want to show their biases, not in this politically correct world. However, a survey asking innocuous questions might draw some inferences on the ignorance or non-awareness of people about something. And ignorance is usually the cause of prejudices.

A questionnaire was given to some 17 young students of the University of the Philippines (16 – 21 years old). 11 of them come from the Tagalog tribe, 2 are Visayans and the rest come from non-Tagalog areas of Luzon. The aim of the questionnaire was to gauge their awareness/non-awareness of things Moro/Muslim.

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

The Questionnaire was a multiple choice type so it would be easier to spot the more politically correct answer. Only 4 out of 17 answered that a Moro is a Muslim because the other choice – a Moro is a Muslim indigenous to Mindanao – looks and sounds the better answer. If no answers were provided, most would probably say that a Moro is a Muslim. Nevertheless, in spite of the presence of the correct answer, 23% still chose the Moro is a Muslim answer. Like Mr. Felix, they believe that Moros and Muslims are actually synonymous and interchangeable.

(There is confusion among the general Philippine populace on the difference between a Muslim and a Moro. A Muslim is a follower of the Islamic religion while a Moro is indigenous to Mindanao. The Moro definition is not historically correct. The Spaniards used to call all Muslims Moros, from the Spanish Moors to the Muslim Malays and Indonesians.)

Yet even those who answered ‘the Moro is a Muslim indigenous to Mindanao’ thought that Yakans and Samals are Lumads. Actually, most of them have no idea what or who the Yakans and Samals are. Some Yakans and most Badjaos are non-Muslims but all are Moros.

A majority (59%) believes that the Moros do not like to be called Moros. It does not seem apparent to them that the M in MNLF and MILF stand for Moro and not Muslim.

Practically every schoolchild is taught that Rajah Soliman was the last King of Manila. Why then do many Filipinos think that Soliman was either Christian or pagan? His very name is Islamic – Suleiman not Solomon -- and the reason he fought the Spanish was for Freedom and Islam. In this survey, 40% think that Soliman was non-Muslim. Does this mean that teachers and/or textbooks do not say that Soliman or Lakan-Dula were Muslims?

Around 65% think that the Abu Sayyaf Group is not just a kidnap-for ransom gang or a bunch of criminals but is a {'legitimate") separatist Moro rebel group.

Most of the respondents have no Moro friends while some had Moro friends before. From their comments and answers, one can conclude that they really do not know much about the Moros, which is really the crux of the problem.

The collective memory against the Moros (whether ‘foreign Moros’ or local Moros) as immortalized in zarzuelas and moro-moro; the depiction of Moros as uncivilized in history books by Spanish, American and Filipino writers; the constant wars against the Moros waged by various Philippine administrations – all these create huge amounts of biases and prejudices.

And this can only be remedied if there is an awareness of the Moro culture and history in the Philippine experience. To paraphrase Ben Jonson, “Peace hath an enemy, its name is Ignorance.”

Surveys, Part II

Sultan Qudarat’s speech

In order to further test hermeneutic principles, we asked a sample of students to read the speech delivered by the Maguindanaon Sultan Qudarat to the M’ranaos in 1639. In contrast to the Spanish texts, this speech is very positive for the Moros. It shows that the Sultan is quite clear on the issues at hand; i.e., liberty or subjugation by the Castillans.

If it is true that the text itself has a life of its own, and directly communicates with the reader, as alleged by hermeneutics, then this speech will have positive effects on its readers. The subject readers are all University of the Philippines (UP) students, quite young (18 / 19 years old)

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

The results of this small survey showed that a positive document could have positive effects on the readers. The readers hardly knew Qudarat, but after reading his speech, they seemed to have a more positive view of the Moros (brave warriors, proud heritage, etc.) The speech also clarified to them that the Moros’ enemies were the Spaniards and not the Indios or Tagalogs or Visayans.

Most of the respondents were 18-year olds which mean that they were not yet born during the MNLF wars of the 70s or even the signing of the Tripoli Agreement. They were even too young when Ramos signed the Jakarta Peace Agreement with Nur Misuari. Their concept of the Moro Problem seems to be centered on the Abu Sayyaf Group. Although the “all-out war” policy of the Estrada government was directed more against the MILF, these young students do not seem to know the difference between the Abu Sayyaf and the MILF since the media do not really bother to indicate such difference.

From the results of this survey, one can conclude that the students of today come from a different interpretive community as the generation of Mr. Felix, Jr. The college students of today are ignorant of Moro history and even the existence of a Moro Problem. They were not born yet during the MNLF wars of the 1970s. But this ignorance can be a positive thing. Unlike the generation of Mr. Felix, these young people do not have deep suspicion or even hatred against the Moros.

The Siege of Palumpong

To test the above statements, we asked another group of UP students to read the text of the Siege of Palumpong and answer a questionnaire. The rationale behind this survey is to test whether the old generation of Mr. Felix shares the same sentiments as the young generation of today’s college students.

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

Unlike Mr. Felix, the respondents thought that the text was biased and exaggerated. Almost half thought that it was not even factual. One respondent even gave an additional comment that it was “too miraculous.”
However, even if they felt that the text was biased and exaggerated, it appeared that they were affected by it. In the question on what they think of the Moros, the Sultan Qudarat speech respondents answered positively. This time, the respondents answered negatively. A very small portion (14%) gave positive remarks. Some admitted that the text influenced them.

Majority thought negatively of the authors because they did not believe the truthfulness of the article. They seemed to take it against the authors for writing an obviously exaggerated account (to their minds) that they considered almost like an insult to their intelligence. The respondents were all UP students. Would it have made a difference if the respondents were students of say, Ateneo, which is run by the Jesuits or even Miriam College, a neighboring Catholic school?

All of them answered that the Spanish were the enemies of the Moros in 1754. One respondent reiterated her answer in the Comment section but added that she will have to check it up. It is important that the Filipinos realize that the Moros’ enemies then were the Spaniards and not the Christianized natives, who were themselves subjugated by the Spaniards.

A majority thinks that there is no such thing as a Moro Problem while the others think that the Moro Problem is just the Abu Sayyaf problem. Some believe that the problem lies in some discriminatory practices of the Christians towards the Moros. Again, the ignorance of the students about the Moro Issue is quite surprising. But again, such ignorance can be a positive factor.

Most proposed Peace Talks and Better Understanding in order to solve the problem. Proposals to give the Moros independence would have been significant if the respondents knew what the Problem was all about. However, those who proposed to give the Moros what they want also answered that they didn’t know much about the Moro Issue.

As in the Qudarat speech survey, most respondents did not agree with the all-out war approach. Those who agreed seemed to have the idea that the all-out war was only waged against the Abu Sayyaf.

The Palumpong survey indicated that a) the younger generation do not share the same perception as the generation of Mr. Felix, and b) a 200-plus year old text can still affect readers as indicated by the increased number of negative descriptions of what a Moro is as well as the negative descriptions of the authors, namely, the Jesuits and c) a negative document can still have negative effects (image of the Moros) even if the readers do not fully believe the document’s truthfulness. The Palumpong survey also confirms the Qudarat speech findings that a) the students are hardly aware of the Moro Problem, b) the students equate the Moro Problem with the Abu Sayyaf kidnappings and c) the younger generation prefers Peace Talks to “all-out war.”

CONCLUSION:

Hermeneutics remind us that the prejudices and biases of the perceiver must always be taken into account. From Fisher’s reader-response theory, we see that texts get their meaning from the reader. Mr. Felix’s “interpretation” of the 1755 texts is a case in point. It can be concluded that Mr. Felix and his colleagues at the Historical Conservation Society belong to the same interpretive community. The fact that the members of that Society comprise the elites of the larger Philippine society is ominous for the Moros, who are in the minority and who appear to be the object of hatred of Mr. Felix’s group.

The Christian majority, specially the Christian settlers in Mindanao, decries the fact that the Moros tend to always refer to the historical past. The Christians maintain that any dialogue between the Moros and Indios must necessarily be grounded in present-day realities. But Mr. Felix’s reaction to the 1755 texts clearly shows that Christians, as exemplified by Mr. Felix, are very much affected by the past. As the great American President John Quincy Adams once declared, “Who we are is who we were.”

The two surveys also show that centuries-old texts can and do influence today’s readers. Considering that most history (text)books in the Philippines have very disparaging accounts of the Moro, and present mass media coverage are very biased against the Moros, tearing away prejudices and biases would be an Herculean task.

The surveys of a small sampling of students do not give encouragement either. Most of them admit ignorance of Moros / Muslims and their ways. They get their impressions of Moros mostly from the mass media. But as Littlejohn says “if literary texts always get their meaning from the reader, media depictions must also derive meaning from the interpretive community.”(Littlejohn, p.210)

Since the mass media derive meaning from the interpretive community, then the plight of the Moros would certainly go for the worse. The mass media organizations are owned by non-Moros. Unlike the Chinese and the Iglesia ni Cristo, the Moros do not own any mass media organization. They have absolutely no influence in the mass media as no mass media outfit targets them as the audience.

In hermeneutics, the negatives can be used positively. The ignorance of the younger generation about the Moros can be regarded positively. Since this generation is not full of mental baggage about the Moros, i.e., there is much less prejudice and bias against the Moros, they can be made to have a better understanding of Moro history, culture and traditions so that in the future, when the leaders will come from this generation, they can help promote a lasting peace with the Moros.

The survey respondents (3 samplings) are young university undergraduate students. The fact that they don’t know much about the Moro Problem may indicate that the general population may also not know much about the Moro Problem. If UP students are ignorant of the real causes of the Moro Problem, could we expect the average Filipino to be better informed? Perhaps it is actually ignorance of the real causes of the problem that is the stumbling block to its eventual solution. (It is the habit of the government never to admit publicly its ignorance on any subject.)

Combating ignorance is a long process. It would need an overhaul of educational materials about the Moros as well as better portrayal of Moros in the mass media. And most importantly, there must be a strong resolve by the government to truly help the Moros by empowering them; i.e., appointing qualified and competent Moros (not only those subservient to them) to high government posts, giving educational and economic opportunities to Moros (including those who are not Malacanang lackeys), refraining from interference in local politics (rigging the elections), and giving sufficient budget (actually not technically) to local government units in the Moro region.

In the 1970s, at the height of the fighting, the government spent millions of dollars (one million dollars a day according to some reports) and lost at least 50,000 lives including thousands of young Filipino soldiers. Both sides claim victory in the MNLF war, which ended because of Marcos’s urgent plea to Libya’s Qadaffi to call for a Ceasefire Agreement which eventually led to the Tripoli Agreement.

The MILF fight has been costing the country quite a sum, too, especially Mr. Estrada’s “all-out war” campaign. Mr. Estrada declared a smashing victory over the MILF, which made his popularity rise sky-high. Yet it appears that MILF is still as strong as ever. Mr. Estrada also declared complete victory over the Abu Sayyaf Group. But as everybody knows, it’s still business-as-usual for the Group.

The Abu Sayyaf, which the government equates with the Moro Problem, is creating black propaganda not only for the Moro Cause but also for the Philippine government. Tourism and Business in Mindanao have suffered greatly. The only thriving industry there is the kidnapping industry run by the Abu Sayyaf Group whose members, according to the grapevine, are mere “industrial partners” whose real financiers (non-Moros) are in the higher echelons of government.

From the 15th century, the Moros were masters of their destinies while the Indios were a subjugated people under the Spanish. It was only in the 20th century when the Moros finally accepted foreign (American) domination in exchange for the right to practice their religion and way of life. Later, they agreed to be part of a Republic to be shared with the Indios, now called Filipinos. Some thirty years after their experiment with co-habitation with Filipinos in a republican setting, the Moros rose again, only to be foiled by Marcos’s diplomatic and political genius.

The new century / millennium started with an American War Against Terrorism, which many Muslims the world over see as the War against Islam. (The lapsus lingue of US President Bush when he declared a “Crusade” against his enemies did not escape the Muslims’ attention.) The presence of US Marines in Mindanao purportedly to help the Philippine Army fight “terrorists” makes the prospect of a renewed Moro War quite bright.

Recently, the GRP signed a peace agreement with the MILF in Kuala Lumpur. At the same time, the Philippine government signed another agreement with members of the Malaysian and Indonesian governments labeling the MILF as a “terrorist” organization. No less than the Philippine Vice President and concurrent

Foreign Affairs Secretary, Teofisto Guingona, expressed surprise at such equivocation.
It appears that the present Philippine administration is still deciding whether to pursue peace or wage war against the MILF. There is also equivocation with regards to MNLF chief Nur Miuari. Will he be tried in Philippine courts like a common criminal or be sent to exile?

America has a war economy. Its economy will only expand during wartime, as it did during the two world wars. The Philippines will be devastated if another war in the magnitude of the 1970s MNLF war will erupt.
But there is no need for war. Peace is always the better alternative. Understanding the issues by re-reading and re-interpreting Moro and Filipino history and understanding the protagonists’ culture, traditions, biases and prejudices may be the key to eventual peace in the country.

Filipinos, in whatever capacity, should not leave the solution to the government alone. Everyone should give its contribution to the solution. Spending billions of pesos on the military will simply create more poverty, more gaping mouths with no food to eat, more women and men having to prostitute themselves here and abroad just to earn a living, more workers forced to separate with kith and kin to work abroad and suffer so much indignities.

Peace in Mindanao does not necessarily mean capitulation of one side to the other. Peace in Mindanao means peace for the whole country. It means less military spending, more money for more useful purposes, more foreign and local investments which would mean more jobs and more money to spend.

From these little surveys and Mr. Felix’s interpretation of a text written some 250 years ago, we saw that texts can have positive and negative effects. The surveys also showed the ignorance of the Indios about the Moro Issue. An avenue for Peace that is opened for us is the Information path. Moro history (Majul’s Muslims in the Philippines book can be the start) should be taught in schools and universities with special emphasis on incidents portraying Moro-Indio cooperation such as the time when Moro datus sealed a pact with Bohol Indio leaders against the Spanish conquistadors. Islamic history should also be studied, as part of World History, without its distortions. It must be emphasized too that during the Crusades when Europeans invaded Palestine and the Middle East in the name of Christianity, the Christian Arabs fought side by side with their Muslim brethren against the foreign invaders. In the same vein, Lapu-Lapu (allegedly a pagan), Rajah Humabon (allegedly a Christianized indio) and Rajah Suleiman (a Moro) all fought the Spanish/European invaders.

The government should promote the culture and interests of the Moros through films and TV programs as well as in other media like the periodicals and the Web. Only through a better understanding of the Moros would the Indios be inclined to make real and sincere peace with them.

The surveys have proved that texts do have an impact on its readers. If the government and the mass media will continue producing texts of all kinds that depict the Moros in a bad light, then no peace can come to Mindanao. (end)

PART 1
===================
References

Andrew , Dudley (1984) Concepts in Film Theory, Oxford University Press: London
Carr, Edward Hallett (1961) What is History? Vintage Books: New York
Dery, Luis Camara (1997), The Kris in Philippine History: A Study of the Impact of Moro
Anti-Colonial Resistance, 1571-1896
Jubair, Salah, (1997) A Nation Under Endless Tyranny, 2nd ed., Lahore
Krippendorf, Klaus (1995) Undoing Power, Critical Studies in Mass Communication June 1995
_______________(1989) The Power Of Communication And The Communication Of
Power: Toward An Ethical Theory Of Communication The Annenberg School of Communication University of Pennsylvania
Littlejohn, Stephen (1979) Theories of Human Communication Wadsworth Publishing: Belmont CA
Majul, C. Adib (1973), Muslims in the Philippines, UP Press: Quezon City
Ricoeur, Paul, Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences: Essays on Language, Action and Interpretation, trans. and ed. J. B. Thomson, Cambridge Univ. Press : 1981, pp. 64-80

Using Hermeneutic Principles to help solve the Bangsa Moro Problem - Part 1

2010-12-06T22:34:00.000-08:00

(2001) Datu Jamal Ashley Yahya Abbas

In the Philippine context, studying the Muslim-Christian (or Moro-Indio) communication relationship within the framework of hermeneutic phenomenology may give significant clues to the solution of the so-called Moro Problem.

HISTORICAL INTEPRETATION

For example, one of the most glaring differences between the Moros and the Filipino majority (Indios) is their view of history. For the Filipino majority, Philippine history began in 1521 with the “discovery of the Philippines” by Ferdinand Magellan and the start of Christianity in the country with the conversion of Rajah Humabon and his family. The Filipinos of today believe that history books recount Filipino history from that time on.

In the book "Under the Crescent Moon: Rebellion in Mindanao" (Q.C.:2000, 327 pp.), two journalists who some now consider as “experts” in the Moro issue by virtue of this book, pronounced that “Mindanao was part of the Philippines ever since the Spanish colonizers came and created boundaries in what were formerly trading networks." Many Filipinos of today even believe that the nation-state called Philippines actually existed from that time (1521) onwards. The myth of an enduring nation-state called the Philippines with Christian, Muslim and pagan inhabitants ruled by Spain for 350 years and America for 50 years is being constantly rekindled by all forms of media.

It would indeed be a shock for many Filipinos to learn that for 350 years, the word Filipino actually was reserved for Spaniards in the Philippines. And that their grandparents and great-grandparents were not Filipinos but “naturales”, “indios” or “mestizos”. A close reading of so-called Philippine history would reveal that it is a chronology of events affecting primarily Spaniards in the Philippines (i.e., Filipinos). The present-day Filipinos were mentioned, if ever, only tangentially. The Moros actually occupy more space, as they were the feared and hated enemies of the Spaniards in the Philippines (i.e., Filipinos).

On the other hand, a look at Moro history through various historical documents would reveal that the Moros were sovereign nations and they only interacted with European powers and other neighboring Muslim states. The Moros never considered the Indios (the present-day Filipinos) as sovereign people. The Moros never interacted with them officially and diplomatically. The Moros considered the Indios as natives who have accepted Christianity and became practically slaves of the Spanish. They were therefore considered fair game for the slave trade. In fact up to this day, among some Moros, the word Filipino is synonymous to Christian or slave.

As if in revenge, the Philippine post-colonial government had constructed a mythical history. Philippine history books made “historically important” the various isolated even personal Indio “uprising’s” against the Spanish. According to this version of history, the Moros were the unruly Muslim inhabitants in Mindanao who were dealt with “punitive expeditions” from Manila every now and then. And the Philippines is glorified as the “only Christian nation in Asia.”

Philippine history books do not mention, for example, what happened to the companions of Magellan after he was killed by Lapu-Lapu. Philippine history books do not mention that Rajah Humabon, whom the present-day Filipinos celebrate as the first “Filipino” Christian king, invited the Spanish/European survivors of Magellan’s forces and massacred all but one of them. Humabon was a Christian for only a day or two.

Strictly speaking, Philippine history started in earnest only in 1896 with the Katipunan Revolt or at the earliest, in the martyrdom of the three Spanish priests, Fathers Gomez, Burgos and Zamora, who fought for the rights of Filipino clerics. Before this, Philippine history is really history of Spaniards in the Philippines* except for the sporadic and isolated “revolts” of the Indios all throughout the Colonial Period.

On the other hand, Moro history is partially or completely ignored by Philippine historians. Even in schools and universities, Moro history is not studied nor given any importance. But the Moros have a long memory. History is embedded in their culture. Royal families take great care in documenting their “salsilah” or family genealogies, which are by themselves, historical documents.

The Christian settlers in Mindanao criticize the Moros for their constant harping on the historical past. These settlers are proud that they do not care about the past but instead look to the future. (Jubair: 1997)
But according to philosophical hermeneutics, “history is not separated from the present. We are always simultaneously part of the past, in the present, and anticipating the future. In other words, the past operates on us now in the present, and affects our conception of what is yet to come. At the same time, our present notions of reality affect how we view the past.”(Littlejohn, p.204)

Moro leaders and intellectuals maintain that if the Philippine government truly wants to solve the so-called Moro Problem, it must exert an honest-to-goodness effort to understand the feelings, sentiments, biases, ideals, prejudices, customs, traditions and historical experience of the Bangsa Moro as enunciated or articulated by the Moros themselves.

Muslim Filipino historian Cesar Adib Majul, former dean of the UP College of Arts and Sciences, lamented that “History books in the Philippines tend to lay emphasis on events in other islands and glorify national heroes from such places, as if the history of the Philippines is only that of people who had been conquered while the history of the unconquered ones do not merit a share in the history of the Philippines.” (Majul: 1973)
It is indeed unfortunate that there are no Moro historians although some Moros are now starting to research and write about Moro history. Dean Majul is a Muslim of Arab and (Christian) Filipino parentage. Although he is a Muslim Filipino, he is not a Moro. He later migrated to the US.

Historians know that there is a “need of imaginative understanding for the minds of the people with whom he (the historian) is dealing, for the thought behind their acts.” (Carr:1961, p.26) This principle is important to remember because as the historian is faced with a sea full of “facts”, “by and large, the historian will get the kind of facts he wants.” (Carr, p.26) Moro history as written by the Moros’ traditional enemies – the Spanish, the Americans and the Indios-Filipinos – cannot possibly have even the “most elementary measure of imaginative understanding.” In his Cambridge lectures, Edward Hallett Carr concluded that “History cannot be written unless the historian can achieve some kind of contact with the mind of those about whom he is writing.” (Carr, p.27)

The long history of the Moro-Spanish wars had lasting effects on the collective memory of the Indios. For almost 350 years, the Indios were helpless natives "caught between the Spaniards, who were the masters of the land and the Moros, who were the masters of the seas. " (Dery 1997) When the Americans came, the idea that “a good Moro is a dead Moro” was given renewed currency. The Moros were usually referred to as “uncivilized”, “savages” or “barbarians” by the Americans.

To pretend that the modern-day Filipinos (now supposedly composed of Indios, Moros and pagans) is a homogeneous nation with one history and one destiny and that the present conflict in the South is simply due to some disgruntled Moro bandits will not solve the problem and may even exacerbate it.

Communication Theoretical Apprcahes

As Gadamer pointed out, the prejudices of each party must be acknowledged and transformed into a positive force. Both parties to the conflict must acknowledge the fact that they do not like each other and that such dislike had already cost both sides tens of thousands of lives and millions of dollars since the 1970’s.
Hermeneutics must necessarily come into play if one were serious in solving the “communication gap” between the Muslim and Christian Filipino communities. There must be a real effort in cultural interpretation.
The Moro problem is even exacerbated by the textual interpretation of both groups to important documents like the Philippine Constitution and the Tripoli Agreement.

Many people in the government and the academe try to view the Moro Problem within the framework of social constructionist communication theories. The government constructs an image of a homogenized “Filipino” culture or nation through its schools, government agencies and the mass media. This “Filipino” nation has a “national hero”, a national flower”, a “national fruit”, etc. of which every Filipino citizen is supposed to be proud of. (Interestingly, all these “national” things seem to come from the Tagalog region.)

Some academics use Marxist critical theories in analyzing the Moro Issue. The Moro issue is argued as one of the results of Spanish colonialism and American imperialism. But some Moro intellectuals believe that Marxist postcolonial discourses can be misleading because the Moros are still under colonial rule; i.e., Filipino (Indio) colonial rule. It is absolutely useless to blame the Americans or multinationals or globalization for the plight of the Moros, as what the leftists are wont to do. If there’s anyone to blame, it is the current colonial power, i.e., the Filipino government. The MNLF, MILF, BMLO and other Moro groups have petitioned the United Nations and the OIC to resolve that the Bangsa Moro nation be de-colonized.

Today’s Filipino historians, writers, or intellectuals do not mention the fact that the great Filipino nationalist himself, Claro M. Recto, authored the bill called “Colonization of Mindanao Act.”

Critical studies tend to exacerbate social conditions. And since critical studies are focused on power, violence usually results in societies they (the theorists and their studies) are observing (Krippendorf 1989).
Hermeneutic phenomenology or philosophical hermeneutics could be the framework needed to help solve this socio-political problem. Using critical theories, which focus on ideology and power, might simply aggravate the problem. As Paul Ricoeur (1981) noted:

“what is at stake can be expressed in terms of an alternative: either a hermeneutical or a critical consciousness…In contrast with the positive assessment of hermeneutics, the theory of ideology adopts a suspicious approach, seeing tradition as merely the systematically distorted expression of communication under unacknowledged conditions of violence.”

Text Interpretation

Hermeneutics say that “an explication of a text occurs only after a prior understanding of it, yet that prior understanding is justified by the careful explication it allows. In other words, before we can go about discussing and analyzing a text, we must have a global conception of its meaning.” (Dudley: 1984, p.97)

The problem lies in the interpreter’s prior conceptions. A reader necessarily has his biases and prejudices about the subject he reads. His perception of the text will have to coincide with his previously held beliefs.
As Andrew pointed out, “new hermeneutics…rest on a modernist concern about the relativity of judgment that affects all disciplines…. There is no longer a single notion of seeing, rather there are modes of seeing…” (Dudley, p.173)

The Muslim-Christian or more precisely, the Moro-Indio conflict is never ending because the biases and prejudices of both sides are not clearly expressed in a “no holds barred” dialogue. The dialogues between the Philippine government (called GRP for Government of the Republic of the Philippines) and the Moro armed groups (either the MNLF or MILF) are characterized by diplomacy, tact, duplicity, and deviousness.
Ambassador Pacifico Castro, member of the Philippine Panel in the Tripoli talks in 1976, declared that because of his expertise in the French language, he was able to make the official French version of the Tripoli Agreement very advantageous to the GRP.

In the example below, two articles written in 1755 had a tremendous impact on a particular reader 236 years later. The English translations of the two texts are titled “The Siege of Palumpong” and “The Battle of Iligan.” The Society of Jesus printed the original Spanish texts in 1755 in Manila. The English translation by Alfonso Felix, Jr. was printed in Quezon City in 1991.

As its subtitle indicates, the Palumpong article was a “report of the valiant defense put up by the Visayan natives of the town of Palumpong in the Island of Leyte of the Province of Catbalogan in the Philippines against the Muslim attack carried by the Ilanons (sic) and the Maranaos in the month of June 1754.” On the other hand, the Iligan article was a “summary of the victories that to the great glory of God and to the Luster and Honor of the Royal Catholic Arms of His Majesty in defense of the Christian communities and Islands of the Visayas were achieved against the Muslim enemies by the armada detached to the fortress of Iligan which is on the shores of the Island of Mindanao in the year 1754.”

It must be noted that the priests, in this case, the Jesuits, printed the texts. During the Moro-Spanish wars, the priests led the fight against the Moros. The priest was responsible for building the town’s fort, providing ammunition and cannons and commanding the “army”. He appointed all officers and men of the militia, guards and sentinels. Consequently, the friars were the Moros’ prime targets. They were decapitated, captured and generally ill-treated. The friar’s ransom went no less than 1,000 pesos and even went as high as 10,000 pesos (Dery, 1997, p.64). It can then be safely assumed that the texts were not objectively written. On the contrary, the texts most probably were propaganda materials used by the friars to lift the morale of the Christian natives, whom they called “naturales”.

Perception of a turn-of-the 20th century gentleman on a 230-year old text.

In 1991, Mr. Alfonso Felix, Jr. was the President of the Historical Conservation Society. The members of the Society at that time included Alejandro Melchor, Jesus Lazatin, Antonio Araneta, Jr., Enrique Syquia, Ernesto Aboitiz, Feliciano Belmonte, Jr., Antonio Concepcion, Francisco Elizalde, O.D. Corpuz, etc. – a veritable Who’s Who among the Filipino elites. Mr. Felix obtained copies of the documents from the Biblioteca Nacional de Madrid and proudly reported it to the Society.

In his Report and Acknowledgement speech of Aug. 28, 1991 in Manila, he minced no words. His prejudices and biases against the Moros and Muslims, in general, knew no bounds.

About Islam, he said: “…there seems to be in Islam something that pushes its adherents to a delight in the pain of others. The names of Genghis Khan and Tamerlaine are too well-known to need further comment.”
His hatred for Muslims is evident. He wrote: “Let us take the case of Salman Rushdie whom the Holy Ayatollah condemned to death and who is now living in hiding. Unfortunately, the British have gone soft. If they had made it clear to the Iranians that the death of Salman Rushdie would result in the destruction of Teheran, the Iranians would think twice before inflicting their religion on civilized countries.”

He called Moros names like “devils in human form” or citizens “of the Republic of Mad Dogs” or “reptiles”. He obviously believed that the Moro Wars are not yet over. And his recommendation: “I do not think Christian Filipinos are afraid of Moros. A modern army equipped with the weapons of today and above all with the will to use them will soon cause the Moros to reconsider. When the Italians used poison gas in Ethiopia in 1935 many Ethiopians were exterminated and the liberals of the world found themselves in tears. I do not find poison gas used against Ethiopians deplorable.”

He even counseled the then President Aquino thus: “I invite our President, Her Excellency Da. Corazon Cojuangco vda. de Aquino to reflect on my words for I feel I am expressing with these words the opinion of the majority of Filipino peasants and Filipino soldiers.”

Felix’s reaction in the context of hermeneutic theories

Paul Ricoeur, like Gadamer, believes that the reader and the text share an intimate relationship. In fact, “the text can speak to and change the interpreter.”(Littlejohn:1979, p.209) Ricoeur calls this process appropriation, i.e., a reader who agrees with the messages of the text, appropriates the ideas of the text as his very own.

From the above example, it is patently clear that the 1755 texts and Mr. Felix had an “intimate interaction.” Although 216 years separate the text and the reader (Mr. Felix), the reader appropriated the meaning of the texts. Mr. Felix was so worked up by the messages of the text such that he ended up delivering a very emotional address to the Historical Conservation Society.

Mr. Felix was obviously a rich and intelligent Filipino. He spoke Spanish fluently and presumably was well-read and well-traveled. Presumably, he was well respected by the society at large. He was after all, the head of the Historical Conservation Society as well as a friend of foreign dignitaries. Yet his speech could rank as one of the most bigoted speeches of the century. Was he not afraid of ridicule from his colleagues in the Historical Society? Apparently, he knew them and he knew that all of them shared the same prejudices. Perhaps the others just did not dare express them publicly.

Stanley Fish, another theorist who uses the hermeneutic circle, maintains, “readers are members of interpretive communities, groups that interact with one another, construct common realities and meanings and employ those in their readings.”(Littlejohn, p.209) The world may be shocked at Mr. Felix’s speech, but Mr. Felix very well knew that he and his audience belonged to the same interpretive community and therefore the meanings he derived from the old Spanish text would be shared by everyone in his Society.

Stanley Fish’s reader-response theory does not ask, “What does a text mean?” but “What does a text do?” In this example, the 1755 Spanish texts prompted the President of an historical society in 1991 to deliver and publish a scathing attack on Islam, the Moros and the Muslims.

Mr. Felix also proved the hermeneutic belief that “history is not separated from the present. We are always simultaneously part of the past, in the present, and anticipating the future…” Although the texts were hundreds of years old and that the present political reality is so very different from the one depicted in the texts, Mr.Felix’s reaction was still as if the Past is the Present. Although the Moro Wars between the Moros and the Spanish were over a long time ago, he called on the Philippine President, addressing her with the Spanish honorific Doña, to wage war against the Moros.

CONT..........

Demonization of Muslims in the Media Leads to Discrimination of Muslim Minorities

2010-12-06T06:04:00.000-08:00

During the Middle Ages, the burghers, many of them Jews, started to gain economic power. Pretty soon, the Jew moneymen began having a monetary network all over the European continent. Kings and dukes owed them huge amounts of money. The biggest of them, like the Rothschilds gained titles to nobility. But the European Christians were not amused.

Western literature is full of anti-Semitic propaganda. Shakespeare’s Shylock is perhaps the most famous Jewish character in Western literature. Throughout the Middle Ages and well into the Industrial Age, anti-Jewish policies were enacted all over Europe.

The result of this anti-Semitic media products resulted into one of history’s biggest massacres – the German extermination of some 6 million Jews during World War II.

In the case of the Muslims, the situation is similar. Since the Middle Ages, the Church fathers had a continuous propaganda against the Muslims – the so-called heathens and infidels. This of course resulted in the Crusades, which united most of the Kingdoms of Europe.

The Christian Crusades were a failure. But the exploits of some Christians like those of Richard the Lionheart became the stuff of Christian legends. Attacks on Islam were a normal feature in Christian literature, both academic and popular.

In the Age of European Colonization, which coincided with the fall of Muslim power, Western literature on Muslims and Islam became condescending and even romanticized as something noble, feminine and eminently conquerable.

After World War II, the world witnessed the creation of several Muslim states. Although still controlled by the Western powers, the Muslim Voice suddenly made its appearance in the world media. Egypt, Indonesia and Pakistan led the articulation of Muslim aspirations.

In the 1970s, the OPEC, especially its Muslim members, flexed its muscles and declared an oil embargo. The Arab countries, as well as the Western oil companies, suddenly found themselves extremely rich – with a lot of economic power.

The Western media promptly blamed the Arabs and Muslims as the culprits in the world oil crisis. The Western-owned oil companies were exonerated. This time, caricatures of Arabs as uncivilized desert nomads (Bedouins) turned to Arabs as uncivilized but very rich oilmen buying everything Western.

With the Cold War going on, the Muslims, who were the natural enemies of Communism, were the dearest friends of the West.

When USSR invaded Afghanistan, America and the CIA funded Muslim fundamentalists from all over the Muslim world to join the Taliban in their fight against USSR. A young Saudi citizen, scion of the rich merchant family, the Bin Ladens, was made the fund-raiser in the Arab world. His name was Osama bin Laden. A Moro named Abdurajak Janjalani was one of those recruited by the CIA to fight in Afghanistan.

But with the fall of USSR and most of the Communist world, the Muslims found themselves in their traditional role – as enemies of the West. Osama Bin Laden became Enemy Number One of the US and her allies. Janjalani became Enemy Number One of the Philippine government. The US and her allies declared war against the Talibans, whom they funded, trained and helped put in power in the first place.

With Bush’s and Blair’s War on Terrorism, the Muslims found themselves having a new Identity. They are no longer heathens or infidels or exotic Orientals. They are simply Terrorists.

Muslim Minorities are Worst Victims

Anti-Muslim propaganda is inimical to all Muslims, but especially to Muslim minorities living in non-Muslim countries. These Muslims are already marginalized and continuing anti-Muslim propaganda simply foster discrimination by the majority.

Philippine case

In the Philippines, anti-Muslim propaganda has been institutionalized by the Spaniards since the 17th century. Spanish literature, documents, Church sermons and official policies are full of anti-Muslim (against all Muslims not just Moros) material. The indios or naturales (non-Muslim natives) were fed not only anti-Muslim sermons but also anti-Muslim entertainment. Zarzuelas or moro-moro were popular musical stage plays whose protagonists were Christians and Muslims (of any country). The Muslims were always the villains in these plays.

When the Americans came, the slogan became: “A good Moro is a dead Moro”.

Even after the independence in 1946, anti-Muslim stories can be found in newspapers, films, comics and even school textbooks.

When I was in Grade VI, I was scanning my younger sister’s Grade III textbook. I was so shocked to read the Moros described as “bandits, pirates and outlaws.” I remember showing the book to my brother who was in college. He simply laughed and said, “So what’s new?”

Through the years, I’ve seen the Moros / Muslims mocked, insulted in films, on TV, in comic books, on radio and in newspaper stories, columns and even editorials.

Through the years, I have been forced to defend the Moros / Muslims in school, office, seminars and various fora.

I have later realized that when a Moro starts defending Moro or Islamic culture and identity, he will find the Christian Filipinos -- be they classmates, officemates, bosses, friends or acquaintances -- regarding him/her with a wary eye. And if that Moro shows his/her superiority in any way (intelligence, skills, etc.), sooner or later, that Moro would be left alone by the Christians because he/she could not be their TOKEN friend, underling or protege.

Today, many Moros have learned that in order to succeed in the Philippines, they will have to play the role of meek, mild-mannered, yes men and women to their Christian fellow citizens. Many Christian Filipino leaders have their Moro sidekicks. Non-government organizations operating in Mindanao are so happy to be surrounded by such Moros. Now, because of the presence of so many Moro a__-lickers, the Media have started to patronize the Moros in general.

If the Philippine media do not demonize the Moros as fanatic killers, they patronize them as poor, uneducated souls oppressed by their own leaders and in terrible need of the helping hand of peace-loving Christian Filipinos.

Once upon a time: Sarangany Island

2010-11-27T01:05:00.000-08:00

Located thirteen kilometers from Tinaka Point, the southernmost tip of mainland Mindanao, is a beautiful island called Sarangany. It is accessible by ferry from Davao City or by banca from my hometown, Malita in Davao del Sur. From the Sarangany town proper, one can take another banca ride to go to Maluku (Moluccas) Beach with its white sand and clear water.

Today, Sarangany Island (I’m keeping the old spelling to distinguish it from the newly created Sarangani province) is one of the poorest and most neglected municipalities in the country. Yet once upon a time, it was the seat of a powerful Principality that held dominion over the east coast of Mindanao (up to Tandag), the Sarangani Bay, the Butuan Gulf (now Davao Gulf) and even in the Sangirese Islands in Northern Moluccas.
The natives of Sarangany and its “twin”, Balut Island, belong to the Sangil or Sangir ethnic groups. According to anthropologists, the Sangils are autochthonous to the Davao area. They speak the Sangil and/or Sangir languages. Sangir is also spoken by some 200,000 Sangirese in Moluccas.

Most Filipinos do not even know that Sarangany Island exists. Yet skimming through the pages of history, one would realize that this obscure island and its people were quite known and respected by other nations, including European powers.

In 1535 the Portuguese Governor of Ternate Tristao d’Atayde sent his trusted lieutenant, Pinto, to explore the Mindanao area. The Datu of Sarangany welcomed him and sealed their alliance with a blood compact. Pinto invited the Saranganies to come to his ship. As soon as they came on deck, the Portuguese crew threw them into the hold to take them as captives and be sold as slaves.

Luckily, one Sarangany warrior escaped. The Datu of Sarangany immediately gathered his men and gave chase to the Portuguese. The Saranganies attacked furiously, and only a heavy storm saved the Portuguese. Pinto barely escaped to Ternate in the Moluccas. The Portuguese were thus warned never to return to Mindanao.

After the debacle in Mactan in 1521, Spain’s Carlos I sent 4 more missions to conquer “Las Islas del Poniente” (i.e., the Philippines). The last mission was led by Ruy Villalobos, who landed in Sarangany island in1543. The Saranganies gave stiff resistance and laid siege to the Spanish. The Spanish were forced “to eat cats, dogs and rats, gray lizards and unknown plants” in order to survive.

Incidentally, on their way home, the Spaniards passed by Samar and Leyte. A member of the crew, Bernardo de la Torre named these two islands Las Filipinas in honor of then Crown Prince Philip.

In 1575, the powerful Sultan Bajang Ullah of Ternate made a mutual defense pact with the Datu of Sarangani / Rajah of Candahar, whose capital was in Balut Island.

With the fall of Ternate to the Dutch, Sarangany’s strategic location made its leaders the natural Moro ambassadors to the Dutch in Ternate. In 1619, the Datu of Sarangany went to Ternate in behalf of the Rajah of Buayan to ask for Dutch aid against Maguindanao. At the same time, Katchil Suleiman, the rajah muda of Maguindanao went to Ternate to ask for Dutch help against Buayan. A couple of years later, the Prime Minister of Sarangany visited Ternate. He was probably the first Ambassador of a “united Moro front”. He brought with him letters from the Rajahs of Sarangany and Buayan as well as from the Sultans of Maguindanao and Sulu. The Moros proposed a joint Moro-Dutch assault on two small Spanish settlements in Mindanao.

In 1628, the Dutch finally sent a mission to Mindanao under Fiscal Daniel Ottens. He met with Sultan Qudarat of Maguindanao, Rajah Amoncaya (Datu Maputi) of Buayan, Datu Mangada of Sarangany and other Moro rulers.

Datu Mangada claimed that he could easily muster a war force of 2000 Saranganies, 2000 alforeses ( now called lumads by some writers), 200 Badjaos plus the help of several negeris (districts/counties) under his dominion; namely, Malita, Bagobo, Canatig, Djabo, Mateau, Sommeleg and Leyne (villages along Mindanao’s southern and eastern coasts). The Sarangani datu also claimed to have a naval force of 10 fully armed caracoas ( a typical Moro war vessel).

In comparison, Sultan Qudarat claimed he could immediately raise an army of 10,000 while the Buayan datus boasted that they could easily gather 100 fully armed caracoas, 60 of them armed and manned by Buayanens and 40 by vassal negeris.

During this time, Ternate was beset by dynastic quarrels. Sultan Mudaffar died and there were three pretenders. Hamza, who had Spanish support, eventually succeeded Mudaffar.

The Datu of Sarangany openly protested Hamza’s coronation. On the other hand, Buayan supported Hamza. To emphasize Buayan’s support of Hamza, the Buayan rajah gave the Ternatan sultan the right to appoint Buayan’s Raja Laut (Lord of the Admiralty). Maguinadanao was presumably against Hamza.

The “Hamza affair” showed quite clearly how the Mindanao and Moluccan politics were intertwined. At that time, Moro and Moluccan natives called Mindanao Maluku Besar (Great Moluccas), perhaps to distinguish it from Maluku (Moluccas proper).

A few months ago, there were reports that Indonesians (Moluccans) were residing illegally in the newly formed Sarangani province. Perhaps these Moluccans did not realize that after World War II, the idea of nation-states is considered sacrosanct and that the boundaries of the new nation-states are inviolable.

In the past, Maguindanao’s, Buayan’s, Sarangany’s, Candahar’s and Sangir’s rulers were practically one family. For example, in the latter half of the 17th century, the children of Datu Buisan of Sarangany a.k.a. the Rajah of Candahar were all over the region. His sons included Kudjamu, the Rajah of Buayan; Samsialam and Makabarat, co-rulers of Buayan who later chose to live in Ternate; and Pandjalang the Prime Minister of Tabukan in North Sangir. His daughters were married to Sultan Barahaman and Katchil Bakaal of Maguindanao, and the Sultan of Tabukan. His favorite daughter Lorolabo, who was married to the Tabukan sultan, had a son, Joannes Calambuta, whom Buisan chose to succeed him as Rajah of Candahar. Rajah Buisan was the son of Datu Buisan of Davao.

If Rajah Buisan of Candahar were alive today, I wonder what passport would he use. The Dutch considered him a Sangirese /Moluccan ruler, yet he was the son of Datu Buisan of Davao and was born and reared in Sarangany Island.

For centuries, Sarangany was an autonomous principality. Historical records show that it took part in numerous Moro expeditions against Spanish settlements in Luzon and Visayas.

The end came in the early 1900’s when Sarangany became part of the Moro Province under the Americans. In 1946, it became part of the Philippine Republic. The once proud datuship of Sarangany was reduced into a mere municipality of Davao del Sur.

Former President Ramos created a new province named Sarangani. This new province is settled and ruled by people who came from afar, even as far as China. They will now carry the name of Sarangani while the real Saranganies will be left further in oblivion.

Their days of glory may be over, but the people of Sarangany Island can take heart from the words of the great American president John Quincy Adams. He said, “Who we are is who we were.” Nobody can take away the Sarangany people’s proud history and heritage.

=========
Published in the Philippine Post on June 3, 2000
=========

Reconstructing MORO HISTORY

2009-05-01T19:58:00.000-07:00

History is “the act of selecting, analyzing and writing about the past. It is something that is done, that is constructed.” (Davidson and Lytle 1982). In an academic essay, I wrote:

Philippine historiography is not exactly in a good state. Skeptics have categorized historians as those who lie, those who are mistaken and those who do not know. (Gilderhus:1996) It is quite unfortunate that much of Philippine history was written by those in the first two categories. With regards to the Moros, Spanish historians (writing about Moro history) belonged to the first category; American historians belonged to the first and second; and Filipino historians belonged to all categories.

But there are exceptions, of course. Below is an article I wrote for The Philippine Post:

====================================

Milestones in Moro Historiography
by Datu Jamal Ashley Abbas

MUSLIMS IN THE PHILIPPINES

“…History books in the Philippines tend to lay emphasis on events in other islands and glorify national heroes from such area, as if the history of the Philippines is only that of people who had been conquered while the history of the unconquered ones do not merit a share in the history of the Philippines. Possibly… a future generation of Filipinos would consider the struggle of the Muslim South as part of the struggle of the entire nation - and the epic exploits of its heroes may well be the nation’s heritage.” Thus wrote the former Dean of the UP College of Arts and Sciences Prof. Cesar Adib Majul in his groundbreaking book Muslims in the Philippines (1973).

Dean Majul’s work was like a reinvigorating rain in the arid desert of Moro historiography. Not since Najeeb Saleeby’s works (1905, 1908) has there been a well-researched tome on Moro history in the Spanish era. The book was a “best-seller” and had two editions in 1973. But suddenly, it had gone out of stock. Last year, some 26 years later, the UP Press printed the third edition.

Sultan Qudarat got his biggest press from Dean Majul’s book. Saleeby praised Qudarat as “probably the strongest and greatest Mindanao sultan that ever lived.” But Majul devoted 47 (out of 392) pages to the exploits of Qudarat. The Maguindanao sultan became an “overnight sensation” — he was proclaimed as one of the country’s national heroes, a province was named after him, commemorative stamps were issued in his honor and a statue, which now stands tall right in the middle of Makati’s commercial district, was sculpted.

Dean Majul offered his work “as a point of departure for the writing of a more comprehensive history of an enlarged Filipino people.” No such comprehensive historical writing has yet surfaced but two books on Moro history have appeared that could help bring about Dean Majul’s dream history book.

TRIUMPH OF MORO DIPLOMACY

Based on her M.A. thesis (from Ateneo de Manila University), Ruurdje Laarhoven has written another milestone in Moro historiography, The Triumph of Moro Diplomacy : The Maguindanao Sultanate in the 17th Century (New Day Publishers : 1989, 267 pp). She has unearthed a great deal of information about Mindanao in the 17th and 18th centuries and has debunked some widely held historical assumptions.

From 1663 to 1718, the Spanish abandoned all its settlements and pretensions in Mindanao, which explains the paucity of Spanish historical data in this period. The Moros, on their part, refrained from attacking Spanish settlements in Luzon and Visayas. Most historians took this as a sign of the decline of the Moro sultanates, especially of the Maguindanao Sultanate, which as Ms. Laarhoven found out, was farthest from the truth.

A native of the Netherlands, Ms. Laarhoven looked into the Dutch historical archives and found a gold mine of historical data about Mindanao. The Dutchmen, who were in the Moluccas, kept a keen eye on Mindanao, in order to protect its spice trade monopoly.

Ms. Laarhoven clearly established a) the post-Qudarat Maguindanao sultanate did not decline; on the contrary, it expanded; and, b) the very close relationships among the various Mindanao and Moluccan principalities.

Unlike Dean Majul, Ms. Laarhoven was not much of a Qudarat fan. She gave equal importance to Qudarat’s grandson and successor, Sultan Barahaman (Abd al-Rahman) who reigned for 28 years. Barahaman consolidated and even expanded Maguindanao’s power and territory.

Personally, my “favorite” Maguindanao ruler (actually most of them were half- or part-Maranao/Iranun) was Datu Buisan, Qudarat’s father. He was not even a sultan. His two elder brothers became rulers while he was “just” a Kapitan Laut (Captain-General of the Navy). He was not even the Rajah Muda (Crown Prince) but because of his mighty exploits, the Spaniards regarded him as the de facto Maguindanao sultan. And thanks to his bravery and political savvy, his son Qudarat became sultan.

Since high school, I have always wondered why Mindanao Island(s) did not have a proper name. Mindanao is just a shorter version of Maguindanao. Only foreigners could have referred to the whole island as Mindanao/Maguindanao. It is like naming Luzon island Katagalugan/Tagalog or Kabikulan/Bicol or Ilocandia . In the late 1960s / early 1970s, Moro intellectuals were tossing the idea of renaming Mindanao. After all, there were no such creatures as Mindanaoans. Some writers, including Christian Filipinos and foreigners used the name Moroland. The term that finally gained acceptance was Bangsa Moro (sometimes written as Bangsamoro), which referred to the people and not to the land or territory. (In the late 1980s, the settlers in Mindanao started calling themselves Mindanaoans.)

Ms. Laarhoven has provided the answer. According to her sources, the people in Mindanao and Moluccas in the 17th century referred to Mindanao Island(s) as Maluku Besar (Great Moluccas). Besar (great or big) could mean physically big or in the sense of Great Britain (Grande Bretagne) vis-a-vis Britanny (Bretagne).

Ms. Laarhoven hoped that her book would provoke “enough interest for kindred scholars to initiate a reinvestigation of its (Mindanao’s) past.”

THE KRIS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

A Christian Filipino has written a well researched and objective book on Moro history during the Spanish era; namely, The Kris in Philippine History: A Study of the Impact of Moro Anti-Colonial Resistance, 1571-1896 (Dery, Luis Camara , self-published? : 1997, 248 pp.) While Ms. Laarhoven’s work was mainly based on “primary materials” from the Dutch archives, Dr. Dery’s book was mostly based on “primary materials” from the Philippine archives.

History books about the so-called Moro Wars clearly portray a contest between the Moros and the Spaniards. Dr. Dery’s book added a new dimension — the indios all over the archipelago who were constantly raided by the Moros. Dr. Dery showed the “physical and psychological impact” on the indios and how the history of the Philippines was reshaped by these wars. The indios, such as the Bicolanos in Kabikulan, were “caught between the Spaniards, who were the masters of the land and the Moros, who were the masters of the seas. ”

The book recounts the efforts of the indios, prodded on by the Spaniards, to build forts, watchtowers and intramuros’es as well as paraos, lanchas, caracoas, and even vintas. In response to Moro attacks, the Spaniards created an all-indio virtual army and navy called armadillas..

A couple of years ago, a 65 year-old office mate told me that when they were kids in Bicol, their parents would scare them off by exclaiming “The Moros will get you!” or “The Moros are coming!” Dr. Dery’s book shows the origins of such fear and even hatred of the Moros.

MAJUL’S DREAM

Dean Majul’s dream of a “more comprehensive history of an enlarged Filipino people” done “with greater tolerance, intensive scholarship on all levels, deeper and wider moral perspectives, and a greater appreciation of the concept of a pluralistic society” might soon come true. Ms. Laarhoven’s and Dr. Dery’s books are in the right direction.

___________________________________
Published in The Philippine Post on April 1, 2000

Sultanates of MOROLAND

2009-04-30T07:20:00.000-07:00

The Sultanate of MAGUINDANAO

The Sultanate of Maguindanao, the lower valley (sa ilud) kingdom, was a harbor sultanate relying heavily on trade and naval power. At the height of its power in the 17th century under Sultan Qudarat and Sultan Barahman, Maguindanao was the acknowledged overlord of all Mindanao, Sulu and even Borneo. The last Maguindanao sultan, Sultan Mangigin, died in 1926 during the American Occupation.

Sultan Qudarat of Maguindanao

The Kingdom of BUAYAN
The Sultanate or Rajaship of Buayan, the upper valley (sa raya) kingdom, relied on its rich agricultural lands and had the support of a great number of non-Muslim Malay tribes. The ruler of Buayan chose to stick to the old title of Rajah (a Hindu word for King) to emphasize the fact that the House of Buayan dates back to the Sri Vijaya and Majapahit empires that encompassed most of Southeast Asia. Buayan’s power was eclipsed by Maguindanao during the time of Datu Buisan, Qudarat’s father.

Around 1875, Datu Utto, son of the late Rajah Marajan ud-Din of Buayan showed great organizational skills by uniting the Buayan principalities. His wife Rajah Putri was the daugther of the 18th Maguindanao Sultan, Qudratullah Untung. His uncle, Datu Bayao, who succeeded his brother Rajah Marajan ud-Din, abdicated the rajahship in Datu Utto's favor.

Datu Utto then proceeded to take control of the Pulangi, including the Maguindanao sultanate (because of him, there was no Maguindanao sultan from 1888 to 1896). Buayan almost regained its old glory when its datus and warriors practically wiped out the remaining Spanish forces in the late 1890s. When the Americans came, Buayan led the fight in Mindanao.

The old rajah, Datu Utto of Buayan

With old age creeping up on him, the old Datu Utto (a.k.a. Rajah/Sultan Anwar ud-Din) turned over the rule of Buayan to his young cousin Datu Ali, the rajah muda of Tinunkup. Unfortunately, Datu Ali, who was about to finally unite Maguindanao and Buayan, was killed by the Americans through treachery of some Moros.

Datu Utto's widow, Rajah Putri, became the wife of Sultan Mangigin, the last Sultan of Maguindanao.

During the American Occupation, the powerful non-royal Moro Chinese datus took over the leadership of the Pulangi and collaborated with the Americans. Thus ended the rule of the royals in Maguindanao and Buayan.

The Confederation of RANAO sultanates

Near the center of the island is the Lake (Ranao), the highest lake in the Philippines. Around this lake live the M’ranaos. Contrary to what some people believe, the Ranao sultanates were never subservient to the Maguindanao royalty. Datu Dimasangkay, the uncle of Qudarat, married into M’ranao/Iranun royalty. From then on, the M’ranaos/Iranuns became firm and loyal allies of Maguindanao royalty. Perhaps it was because of the M’ranao/Iranun connection that Buayan’s power was eclipsed by Maguindanao in the Pulangi area. It must be noted that when Qudarat was defeated by the Spaniards, he retreated to his relatives among the M’ranaos/Iranuns.

Thus in 1639/40, the Spaniards under Captain Francisco Atienza, in his pursuit of Sultan Qudarat, invaded Ranao. The Spanish colonization attempts ended in failure and they never returned to the land of the M'ranaos until 250 YEARS later.

In 1891, led by no less than the Spanish Governor-General Valeriano Weyler, around 1,250 Spaniards with their indio (Christianized natives) subjects attacked Ranao. They met stiff resistance, especially in Marawi with the strong cotta (fort) of Datu Amai Pakpak. In 1895, the Spaniards tried again, this time with around 3,000 Spanish troops and countless indio subjects. The M'ranao datus fought valiantly but many perished including Datu Amai Pakpak himself. But the M'ranaos laid siege to the Spanish garrison in Marawi.

A year later, the Philippine Revolution in Manila erupted.

Datu Amai Pakpak, hero of the

Battles of Marawi 1891 & 1895

The Sultanate of SULU

The Sultanate of Sulu was founded ca. 1400 by Syed Abu Bakr, an Arab who claimed descent from the Prophet Muhammad, p.b.u.h. Syed Abu Bakr took on the regnal name Sharif Hashem, perhaps to emphasize his claim to the Hashemite bloodline. The Sultan of Sulu held sway over the Sulu Archipelago, Palawan, and later North Borneo (now the Malaysian state of Sabah). The Zamboanga peninsula’s ruler changed depending upon the vicissitudes of fortune. Maguindanao, Sulu and the Spanish took turns in ruling Zamboanga, known locally as Samboangan.

SULU FLAG

Central Star represents Sulu, others represent

Kalimatan, Basilan, Sabah and Palawan

PALAWAN

Palawan Island used to be a territory of the Sultanate of Brunei. In the 1660s, after the successful intervention of the Sulu Sultan in the dynastic quarrel in Brunei, Sultan Muaddin of Brunei gave Sabah and Palawan to the Sultanate of Sulu.

In December 1893, due to old age, Sultan Harun ar-Rashid abdicated in favor of his cousin Jamal ul-Kiram II. He transferred his residence to Palawan and used the title “Sultan Jubilado de Palawan“. The Spanish continued paying him his monthly honorarium as sultan as per their agreement. He died in April 1899. Thus, at the end of the Spanish era and the beginning of the American era, a Sulu Sultan reigned over Palawan.

Sultan Haroun al Rashid

SABAH (North Borneo)

During the dynastic war in Brunei in the 1650’s between Sultan Mu’adin and Sultan Abdul Mubin, the former asked the help of the Sultan of Sulu (Salah ud Din Bakhtiar). The Sulus came to the aid of Mu’adin and defeated Abdul Mubin. In exchange, the victorious Brunei Sultan gave Sabah and Palawan to the Sulu Sultan.
European powers recognized Sulu’s sovereignty over Sabah. Eighteenth and nineteenth-century European maps usually indicated North Borneo as "territories of the Sultan of Sulu."
On Jan. 22, 1878, the Sulu Sultan Jamal ul Azam leased Sabah to Baron Overbeck. The Sulu Sultan also gave Overbeck the title of Datu Bendahara and Rajah of Sandakan, thus making him his subject.

The Sulu royalty has NEVER given up its claim over Sabah or North Borneo. The State of Sabah still pays its annual rent to the Sulu royals.

See Who Owns Sabah?

==================
Previously posted in The Setting Sun on April 16, 2007.
Also previously posted in my past (now defunct) and present websites like the BANGSAMORO website.

MOROLAND -- Land of the Bangsa Moro

2009-04-23T21:01:00.000-07:00

This was posted in The Setting Sun on April 16, 2007. This was posted in my previous (now defunct) and present websites much earlier.
================================================

Mindanao, Sulu and Palawan comprised the Land of the Moros since the 13th century. The lands north of it like the Kingdom of Manila were invaded and colonized by Spain. The Moro sultanates — Sulu, Maguindanao, Buayan and the Maranao confederacy — however fought and maintained their independence until the coming of the Americans in the beginning of the 20th century.

The 16th century European map below proves that Mindanao was already known to the world even before the so-called “discovery” of the Philippines by the Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan.

When Ferdinand Magellan arrived in Cebu in 1521, an island north of Mindanao, he met with the Cebu King, Rajah Humabon. The Spaniard immediately introduced his religion, Roman Catholicism to the natives, and planted a wooden cross to commemorate the arrival of Christianity in Asia. This angered the Muslim religious leader Cali Pulacu (known to the Filipinos as Lapu-Lapu), who protested the presence of the foreigners. Magellan, in typical European arrogance, led his men to the neighboring island, Mactan, where the Cali (meaning judge) lived. Magellan met his death at the hands of the Muslim Cali, thus depriving him the honor of being the first man to circumnavigate the globe. However, his flagship, the Trinidad, was the first ship to circumnavigate the globe (at least according to Western documents).

In 1571, Miguel Lopez de Legaspi arrived in Manila, in Luzon Island, north of Cebu. Manila at the time was ruled by Muslim Malays from Borneo. Rajah Matanda ruled Manila together with his teenage nephew, Rajah Suleiman, the Rajah Muda. Suleiman’s elders, including his other uncle, Lakan-Dula of Tondo welcomed the foreigners. But the young prince realized that Legazpi had devious intentions. He declared war against the Spanish. Without the help of his elders, Rajah Suleiman fell in battle. Rajah Muda literally means Young King but Malay sultanates use this title to denote Crown Prince. But the Filipinos celebrate Rajah Suleiman as the last king of Manila.

The Spanish conquistadors could not believe their eyes. It was not too long ago when they revolted and drove away the Moros (Moors) from Spain. And now, halfway around the globe, they met them again.

The Spanish differentiated the two natives of the archipelago into Moros (Muslim Malays) and Indios (pagan Malays). They then formulated their simple policy regarding the natives — convert the Indios to Christianity and kill the Moros.

And so, for about three hundred and fifty years, the Spaniards tried their best to Christianize the Indios and annihilate the Moros. They succeeded in the former but failed in the latter.

In 1898, the Spanish left and the Americans came. Again the Moros fought. In 1946, the Indios became masters of the Philippine Islands. In 1972, the Moros resumed their fight.

WELCOME BACK!

2009-04-23T20:21:00.000-07:00

Assalammu 'aleikum!

Wow, I never thought I'd find this blog again. As you can see, my previous post is dated January 13, 2005. For some reasons, I completely forgot this blog. I knew I started a blog somewhere but I just couldn't find it. I didn't bookmark it and forgot the url. I only rediscovered it today.

Last January, in my blog The Setting Sun, I was shocked to learn that my posts had to be screened by the bloghost. The note said that there were questions on my content. I could not believe that they were going TO CENSOR my posts! I started that blog in April 2007 and they were going to censor it after almost two years!

The Setting Sun

I wrote the following and sent it to the bloghost for review:

CENSORING BLOG CONTENT

When I logged in to this blog, I was surprised to see the following:

Warning: We have a concern about some of the content on your blog. Please click here to contact us as soon as possible to resolve the issue and re-enable posting.

I wonder what could be objectionable in this blog.

I thought there is freedom of expression in the blogosphere. There are millions of blogs with adult content (meaning, pornography) and so many are full of hate materials, especially anti-Muslim.

This blog has no pornographic content. It also has no hate content although some Ilonggos sent hate comments. So this will not turn into a hate blog, I did not post some of the comments and merely answered them privately through emails but I posted some to show samples of these comments.
I hope the warning message is just a computer error. It is a shame if blog hosts will censor posts of blogowners.

I then got the response that it was all a mistake, a "system error". And so they removed the censor mechanism. But this still made (and makes) me nervous. It just means that bloghosts (or at least that one) has a censor mechanism which would block posts if they don't like the content. I do hope Blogger is not like that.

So far, everything is back-as-usual for that blog. But I decided to make a back-up blog for my more "timeless" posts there. I went to Blogger to create a new blog. To my surprise, the url http://datujamal. blogspot was already taken. I though that somebody got my name, or at least shares my name and beat me to blogspot. When I went to the site, lo and behold: it was my long-lost blog!

Another idiotic idea of the AFP

2005-01-13T07:32:00.000-08:00

To insure dollars flowing to the coffers of Philippine military (including police), they have to show that the Philippines is under terrorist attacks. Their latest scenario was a plot of Muslim converts (so not just Moros anymore! ) to bomb the Black Nazarene procession in Quiapo.

The Black Nazarene procession is very dear to the hearts of Manilenos, especially Quiapo folks. The Moros had created a ghetto at the very heart of Quiapo and they know precisely the emotional attachments of the Nazarene devotees. As a rule, Moros and/or Muslims respect other people's religious feelings. The Moros have stayed in Quiapo since the 1960's and not once did they ever bomb or in any way disrupted the yearly Nazarene procession.

And now the bumbling Manila authorities arrested Muslims allegedly plotting to bomb the affair. If one were to disrupt the processions, there was no need to plot. A strong firecracker like a "Super Lolo" or "baby dynamite" could already create havoc in the very crowded and unruly Nazerene procession.

And they arrested a certain Afgani Alonto, a son of the late Senator Domocao Alonto.
They could not have arrested a more unlikely person. Unlike some members of his clan, this guy is unassuming, low-key and appears to be quite religious. But then, from the perspective of the West and the Philippine administration, anybody who religiously follows Islam is most likely to be a terrorist.

The Moros should better beware. Like the affluent Jews of Europe before, they thought they would not be touched by the Nazis. It was too late before they realized that rich or poor, the Nazis were out to get them. And so the Moro elites should start thinking that while the poor Moros have always been the easy pickings of the Philippine police/military, soon they will go after the rich ones, too. Alonto is just the first.

Nature's Fury and Gunboat Diplomacy

2005-01-03T04:45:00.000-08:00

Five minutes of Nature’s fury resulted in tragedy for millions of people. This should be a sobering thought for people who aim to control other people’s lives – you just can’t. (This reminds me of Mt. Pinatubo whose fury had sent the US troops packing. Nature took a few hours what Filipinos could not do in decades.) Now it’s the Indian Ocean, next time it could be the Atlantic or the Pacific.

Two days after the tsunami disaster, the US was criticized for not helping enough. Then, it pledged $35 million in aid. Several days later, it announced it was increasing its aid ten-fold. But oops, it seems like the aid would come not in cash, but in kind – the military kind. Thousands of US troops were mobilized. Two warships were sent to the region. Not to be outdone, France and England also sent their warships. All these of course are done in the name of humanitarian aid. But it seems too much like the gunboat diplomacy of the 19th century. In fact, a UN official was very thankful that these “major powers” are helping. Well, even the vocabulary used sounds like the gunboat diplomacy of the 19th century.

The Indian navy also sent a warship to help the victims in Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka. And archrival Pakistan sent a warship to Indonesia. How about Russian and Chinese warships? Would they just remain in the sidelines? Have the Communists really given up on the Clash of Ideologies?

Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State and Jeb Bush, the Governor of Florida who happens to be the brother of the US President are now touring the region. Really, do relief operations need such a high-level delegation from another country? Or is there a de facto US Empire and the Emperor-President is simply sending his Minister-General and Viceroy to inspect the far-flung provinces of the empire?

Tamil Nadu, Northern Sri Lanka and Aceh are conflict areas. I hope Bush and company would have the decency not to exploit the situation for their own interests.

One thing I found positive in this tsunami debacle is the active role of the Tamil rebels in the rescue and relief operations in Sri Lanka. The Tamil liberation fighters are listed by the US government as Terrorists. Yet they are now in the forefront of relief operations in their land, with the blessings of the Sri Lankan government. I wonder if the American forces would coordinate relief efforts with the Tamil rebels whom they label as terrorists.

I also admire India for refusing aid from other countries. It announced that it would accept aid only from UN agencies and some international NGO’s. This was probably in reaction to the sarcastic criticism of Western aid donors regarding Indian bureaucracy. Thailand announced that it would prefer that aid would come in the form of expertise and not money. Perhaps there is something here that Philippine authorities could learn from.

Happy New Year

2005-01-01T04:54:00.000-08:00

The year 2004 ended with a catastrophe in the Indian Ocean, expecially in Aceh, Indobesia. May the year 2005 bring in prosperity for the whole world. May humankind learn something from the tsunami disaster.